The Next Crusade: Assault on Public Safety Technology Grows

Facial recognition technology is still in the news though there seems to be some growing reasonableness and improvement in facts over “narrative”, of late. Yet, the next Crusade is assembling.  This time, it is about predictive policing. Here are some articles from my news feed:

“Do Algorithms Have a Place in Policing?”

“Predictive policing poses discrimination risk, thinktank warns.”

“Policing & Technology”

“My questionable highly skilled research abilities” led me to these three articles by searching “predictive policing” in an internet search.   These articles were at the top of the list which more or less gives me an indication of trends. This isn’t exactly rocket science is it? 

In one article from CityWatch, here is what was written:

“Just as location-based predictive policing emerges from a historical context of segregation and racialized targeting, it also operates within a current political context. In the 2018 State of the City Address, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti advocated for “predictive crime-fighting strategies” as a tool to protect valued property. The Stop LAPD Spying Coalition analyzed LAPD Central Division’s Predpol mission sheets from June through December 2015 and March through June 2018, and found that the distribution of Predpol hotspots effectively quarantined Skid Row from the rapidly gentrifying downtown area. The Garcetti administration continues to court developers while it criminalizes homelessness through no-sitting ordinances, bans on vehicular dwelling, diminished housing support, and refusing access to toilets and water. Have Garcetti’s predictive policing strategies protected residents, or have they worked to monitor and banish marginalized individuals from land deemed highly valuable for development?” CityWatch September 05, 2019

I’m not disputing the merits of any argument or even suggesting this article or any other is evidence of real journalism but what’s missing, to me, is an industry or even countering response to arguably biased statements. Yet business is pursuing and marketing products to law enforcement agencies. What does not seem to be happening, at least out in the open, is the conversation about what a technology does or does not do. The public is left with myths and theories which become perceived truths.

What Is PredPol?

Not being an engineer or scientist, I know the term and limited basics of what predictive policing is intended to do. I wanted to know more so I visited the National Institute of Justice (Department of Justice) webpage which explains “predpol”. 

Here is one statement which I thought was most helpful for a laymen to comprehend (meaning me):

“Predictive policing leverages computer models — such as those used in the business industry to anticipate how market conditions or industry trends will evolve over time — for law enforcement purposes, namely anticipating likely crime events and informing actions to prevent crime. Predictions can focus on variables such as places, people, groups or incidents. Demographic trends, parolee populations and economic conditions may all affect crime rates in particular areas. Using models supported by prior crime and environmental data to inform different kinds of interventions can help police reduce the number of crime incidents.”

According to a 2017 Washington Post Article, $100B is spent on law enforcement technology. Other public safety and first responder agencies are purchasing technology which is beneficial to their mission performance such as advances in communications systems, drones, cloud and systems infrastructure. Increased scrutiny of how government procures technology through appropriated or grant funds is reasonable and expected. Lacking an independent and fact-based resource, that scrutiny is obscured by agenda-based misinformation advocacy efforts resulting in governments not as able to be balanced, reasoned, thoughtful or objective when determining policy. Without intervention, introducing new technologies is going to become more difficult.

Recent policy positions by local governments to unilaterally ban specific technologies underscores the urgency for an organized, collective, consistent and fact-based messaging and advocacy strategy to counter arguments which would prevent consideration of the lawful and ethical application of technologies public safety agencies can use to better serve the public.

Catalytic events can draw groups, businesses and people together around a common set of values or a cause to execute solutions to solve problems. When a problem is resolved, then what? Technology bans for one specific technology, facial recognition systems, are a harbinger for policy to come. As public safety agencies consider seemingly controversial future technologies, governments and advocates will increase rhetoric similar to that found in debates around facial recognition.

The other side of the coin is facilitating the interaction between the vendor and public safety communities. Bringing together these groups can help vendors design technology which is needs-based and timely. Public safety practitioner work groups can be formed to articulate problems they are or will anticipate experiencing. Through that process, this partnership can create technology concepts. Assembling and creating a repository of this kind of information will ultimately create value for the vendors and end-users.

Most recently, the risk averse and fear based arguments targeting public safety technology seem to be increasing and becoming highly organized. This continues, quite publicly, and perhaps it is my perception but now it seems that law enforcement is working to set the record straight through individual law enforcement leaders, think tanks and public safety associations. The truth shall set you free and I, for one, am glad the truth is finding the spotlight and if this creates the dynamic for a real conversation, it is a positive outcome.

I believe in thoughtful conversations, deliberations and exchanges of ideas.  While associations are at work to help, I’m not convinced there is yet a committed, focused, consistent and deliberative movement to engage and advocate on behalf of industry, first responders, government leaders and advocates to develop technologies which can be employed under the purpose of public safety while being completely respective of civil liberties and rights. This field and industry needs its own champion.

Instead, we’re fighting one more Crusade of myth, misinformation, hyperbole and fear-mongering while disputing research, data, practices and truth.  The solution can be in reached if the movement would begin.

Michael R. Terry is the COO and National Government Relations Director for Government State and Local Partners LLC, an Austin based government affairs and business to government technology ventures firm www.gslptexas.com