Statistical Profiling
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2024
- Totally not the plot of Minority Report.
An analysis of how our justice system might change as technology augments our ability to assess human behavioral patterns more accurately. Let me know what you think in the comments below!
Music
Artist: Lewis OfMan
Song: Try
• Video
Thumbnail Credit: www.flickr.com...
It sound a lot like Psycho-Pass
You spelled Minority Report wrong
Black Mirror's Nosedive?
make your thumbnails more personalized so i can recognize your vids in recommended
Jack fidelize your audience
nah i like the simple eyecatching thumbnails instead of the gazillion same ol youtuber making a suprised face ones
@@AtenaHena No need for that, a cookie in the corner or something like that would be just fine
You are an awesome TH-camr. Can't wait to see more of your material.
There's an anime based on this concept, it's called Psycho Pass, cool stuff. By the way, everyone's made it pretty clear but you're going places for sure! Great content, thank you.
I love psychopass.
The problem with this is that it could compound positive feed back loops. If you spend most of your resources and time trying to arrest green haired people then you should also expect green haired people to have a higher criminalization rate.
It would take a completely unbiased and uninfluenced system to pull somthing like this off.
"natural inclination to commit crime" is a web of value judgements placed upon the green haired people. That's not something that's "found out" that's something that someone (usually an unqualified, disreputable "intellectual" like the guy who wrote the bell jar) says about the green haired people and people in the justice/legal institutions of our society use this as intellectual cover to justify their discrimination.
This video is discussing ACTUAL statistical profiling of INDIVIDUALS for risk factors, in which false positives carry actual ethical weight. Not a scenario in which preexisting prejudices allow us to just not care about the false positives because they happen to a group we've decided are "naturally inclined to commit crime".
I do agree with Hakeem Lawus though that it would take an unbiased system to pull off. I think that's impossible and therefore i am opposed to these systems as in our society today they would merely intensify inequities and exacerbate our over-enforcement problems. If statistics can be used to fix the underlying social forces that cause "green haired people" to listen to nickelback (including rethinking of why that's even a crime) they should be used to that end. Pre-emption is not what our society needs more of.
Or just not assume anything.
But if lets say.
A profiled school shooter came to the school with big bags.
(This would imply the cameras have facial recognition and live alert to the police)
It did not assume anything. Its just a checking of bag right?
In a terrorist/assassination case.
If theres a major event (concert or presidential visit)
And a profiled person is seen.
Well
random Checks are normal in that case right?
(Again. It would need facial recognition or a very good spotter)
And also use propaganda for these people.
In the school shooter case. Promote getting help or socialization.
In terrorist case.
Yt/google algorithm when searched isis
Was showing fear monger/attacks.
After a manual change.
It then shows more of isis failing and breaking the facade.
(Which is effective)
The concept of a positive feed back loop is effectively how our online streaming service algorithms function. Essentially what I'm saying is that by showing us more of what we want (particularly when using TH-cam as an example), ideas become more rooted, in theory leading to greater polarization. I could probably talk more... but that's the gist of my thoughts on the subject.
Hakeem Lawus in that case, we ought to find a way to quantify the effect of increased police efforts on green haired people, then adjust the algorithms for that.
@nobody here great idea, but let's just skip the unnecessary prison step and send them straight to concentration camps. All for the common good, right?... There is no such thing as genetically conditioned criminal tendencies dude. Check yourself
you got me thinking: Almost all of the problems that we are going to face soon (not really problems, but moral and ethical issues that we as a society need to decide on) such as gene editing, big data usage, internet freedom, lack of free will in humans, etc etc. There are so many ethical issues but i just don't see our country thinking about these topics seriously. It feels as though we are blindly accelerating our progress in tech, but not fully understanding the potential negative effects of not considering all the ethical implications of it all...
People in tech talk about this kind of thing all the time, it just isn't in the general conversation, I guess.
Just saw your School of Life video. As an undergrad in philosophy, let me say I loved it! And your channel. We need more people publically showing thin philosophy for what it is. Commenting on this video so you'll notice. Also-ever heard of the channel Big Think? I think they push around a lot of psuedo-philosophy, this time under the guise of a Super Scientific point of view which is, just like SOL, very biased and politically charged, not to mention philosophically naïve. Keep up the good work
agreed, good comment.
good luck getting a job.
Owen Waterman nice bro! owned me! really got me!
Does anyone know a TH-cam channel that does not use shallow or psuedo-philosphy?
Philosophical Overdose is fantastic. Also Gregory B Sadler. Two great non-TH-cam resources for philosophical summaries and history are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Why do you only have 8.4k subscribers? This is one of the best channels on yt!
thanks! if you're so inclined, share the channel.
Looks like it's been skyrocketing this past month!
One more month and now he has 47k :) I've been binging on his videos lmao
pecu alex 100k
Now the channel is gone. I like Coffeezilla but wish it was Coffee Break. I can only watch so many scam videos.
I work in field of AI, and I really appreciate this video.
There's a more in depth analysis in the book "Weapons of Math Destruction." (I only read the intro, it's stuck in my backlog).
"it's stuck in my backlog" sounds like a developer alright
I'm trying to break into the field. Any advice?
This sounds like Psycho Pass
You deserve so many more subs. I just binged like all of you videos. They're eye opening. Keep it up!
Holy shit, how do you only have 19K subs? Great content!
I would recommend adding your signature coffee in your thumbnail for the branding
Amazing one!
This was the second video I watched of yours and I couldn't resist subscribing to this channel!
Why would the go to solution be to lock people up if they're profiled to be problematic? We could reach out to them, give them counselling, try to help before anything goes wrong
The simple fact that this has become a debate, means that we already lost
When you bring up a problem that's this philosophical, this important, and that I didn't even know existed, I have to give a sub
I'm a fan of your videos! Very thought provoking. I especially liked this one because it took me back to the ole Tom Cruise; Minority Report & how we should handle (potential) crime. Very interesting :)
I think that seeing this as a 'moral' problem is the first issue. Turning to 'morals' and 'moralism' in situations ultimately guided by systematic, economic and hierarchic power structures is a depoliticisation of the problem. The question is not 'do we have a moral obligation to x?' it is 'how can we restructure our political order so that the potential to abuse x is minimised within our power structure?'
thanks for the video, keep up the good work
understanding the tree informs our analysis of the forest and vice versa.
Sure, but I'm just warning about the fact sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.
Bit late, but this comment makes no sense. Politics is based on ethics or morality, even if you don't think moral norms are objective. Morality is also not something that only applies to an individual. A critique of unfair power structures is by definition a question of morality.
Minimizing the potential for abuse needs to be balanced by other concerns as well, and the decision will require ethical tradeoffs.
Good point
I love and appreciate that you made this. That you didn't let the lack of a definitive conclusion stop you from posting. You COULD have just foisted your opinion on everyone as fact and be done with it; this is your realm and I've seen people swerve into doing things like that before. So I'm doubly impressed. You didn't take the easy ways out of just not posting or acting like you were any more certain than the rest of us. The amount of honesty that decision shows is really heartening and I appreciate it. Kudos. Another great video with a solid topic. And savage burns to Nickelback fans everywhere. 🤣
Wow your channel is criminally underrated
You're making some really good videos that I think more people should see.
Thanks for the vid. Glad to see you working after malcolm in the middle
rofl
@notMalcolmITM
You undermined the video with that Nickelback analogy joke.
Great content; I hope your channel is going to take off.
3:28 this is a noninformation if we don't know how many people are flagged as "known risks" who did nothing.
You are the best TH-camr yet pal. And that's from a David Letterman disciple.
cant wait to see 1 mil subs coffee break. ur content deserves it. i will like an comment on everything u put out. hope it helps
That would mean so much.:) Thank you hamoony999!
I really like your videos and I hope you keep making them 👍🏾
“It's not the final judgement of 'good' and 'evil' that's important. What matters is that you come to that decision yourself. That you agonize over it and eventually accept it.” - Akane Tsunemori
I think the mob shaming has already changed the justice system...Really enjoying youre videos mate.
Great vids! Quick,intelligent and creative!
I just had a 2 hour argument with a friend about all this ! Thing is, you explain the whole thing way better than I did, so I'll just link it to him
There’s a show called Psycho-Pass, it’s about future Japan having this nationwide system, a psychometric scanner, to measure the mental health of a person. Meaning that the traditional justice court is no longer needed and a whole system of a computer does the judging (plus something else).
The scanning begin at birth, which mean that a child can be classified as a threat as young as 5, be monitored 24/7 in a rehab-like facility, and can be barred from any job they want in the future.
There is also Minority Report back in 2002, haven’t seen it but based what I heard it’s similar as well. I would like to see it.
these concepts were identified around 60 years ago in "1984" wow
The problem of where to draw the line on what is/isn't considered "unreasonable doubt" is something that will always be a moral dilemma.
Awesome content, as always! Keep it up
Dominator Portable Psychological Diagnosis and Suppression System has been activated. User authentication: Inspector Tsunemori Akane. Affiliation: Public Safety Bureau, Criminal Investigation Department. Dominator usage approval confirmed. You are a valid user. The current enforcement mode is Non-Lethal Paralyzer. Aim calmly and disable the target.
like
your videos are great, discussing this as my topic of choice for my general papers class, keep up the good work!
Black Picture lol
Do you have any sources when making this video? You inspired me to you my research paper on this!
You're awesome!
I liked for the Minority Report movie reference. One of my fav flix
Flashing back to (Minority Report), I guess we will end up re-defining individual rights as a cost/benefit based merit, such as the rights you give up when being physically searched in order to board a plane.
There is a great book about exactly this topic by the German author Andreas Eschbach called "NSA". It is set in an alternative Germany where the Nazis had modern technology including AI and shows all the dangers that AI and surveillance can really bring without any of us noticing.
My knee-jerk reaction is saying that if we know with 99.9% certainty that something will happen, we just need to be extra alert or proactively send mental health/other professionals (like for the case of a school shooter) to attempt to head it off, but that could easily backfire. Doing nothing, as you mentioned, has its own moral implications. However, if we leave it to a case-by-case basis, that gives leeway for hypocrisy and the influence of biases, so logically there must be some standard of action. Unfortunately, there's no way I know of to effectively test such a standard except through long-term application, so setting up a standard that minimizes harm would take a lot of (likely extremely unpleasant) trial and error.
Ideally: keep a close watch on him until he's just about to commit the crime.
Part of the issue is also that the Justice system is hierarchical; There are people on top and within the system that have more power, knowledge, and influence then us normies. We need to find a way to break the hierarchy, but without snapping the justice system in half.
recently I watched a show called "Psycho Pass" that deals with police profiling in the future (to some degree)
i love that show.
With great responsibility comes great power.
you are the shit. glad i found you
I saw something about this on NPR recently and I found this very interesting. Ultimately I think the best thing people can do in this situation is try and take preventative measures without letting the suspected perpetrator notice. For example, if shooter A has a 99.5 % of Shooting up x nightclub, put extra security on, x nightclub and put surveillance on the suspected shooter. By the time this is fully implemented, we would have to expect privacy to be nearly non-existant anyways, so following a suspected shooter and swooping in before they commit a crime might be a smart move. I think that arresting someone nearly on the chance of committing a crime is something that really shouldn’t be done, nor do I think it’s ethical that justice systems today extend sentences based on the likelihood to commit another crime. This is all pure opinion, since this is a complicated question with no true answer.
I was told something like this. 80% of pregnant ladies have gestational diabetes are overweight. Only 8% - 10% of overweight pregnant women have gestational diabetes.
YO, it's not justice not being blind because you are not just throwing them into jail right away. Profiling, with justification, is just helpful to collect subjects so then they can be judged.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I am nervous about the future where statistical profiling gets more sophisticated to recognize personalities based on their past choices or habits. It would make individual liberty obsolete and bring the argument for determinism back on table.
there's a huge difference between *punishing* a person for a crime they haven't committed verus *interveneing beforehand*
Very important issue, especially around race/nationality and crime in developed countries. I've actually worked in this area developing algorithms to detect financial crime.
I agree that there is no easy answer- You don't want to waste limited resources referring masses people who are perhaps 1% chance of being a good case, whilst many 50%ers are in the system and don't get seen. In my experience the impact of profiling can be extremely large, even with simple models and basic data seeing a massive improvement in effectiveness.
At the same time, the innocent subset of the high risk category get a vastly different level of scrutiny compared to the innocent subset in a low risk category, despite being equally innocent, which cannot be seen as fair.
There exists another error margin in the general ratio regardless of statistical profiling. The margin decreases just as substantially as the chasm you’ve noticed.
My idea is not to criminalize people who are going to do crime. But to mitigate by heavily patrolling that area. And just when the criminal is close by, cops will be walking towards him/her for "random check-ups".
I'm not worried. I'm criminally asymptomatic.
Of course it makes sense to check up on somebody very likey to commit a crime.
The problem is that the same tech can be used to crack down on people you don't like or who might pose a threat to some special interest groups with power but not necessarily the common good in mind.
What are those videos at 3:00 and where can one find more of those? What are they called? Amm... Asking for a friend....
I would say rather than locking someone up based on circumstance at about 50/50 odds that person should be under secret survailence until it is clear that they need to be stopped.
I have the feeling that technology is thought of as something given with independence of those who create it. But, when you take that into account, you can see that even the most perfect and well designed things (even statistical analysis), are in some proportion affected by whom creates them. Everything is a human creation that must be considered within its own society (values, beliefs, etcetera).
I think statistical analysis is one of the most, if not the most, dangerous ways to make decisions. You need to be real careful when basing any decisions on statistics, one wrong decision in the collection or analysis of the data or the way you interpret it can and will lead to terrible things.
Having said that, I do see what you're trying to say and I agree with you. Human error is always a factor, whether it's intentional or not.
One cogent example of the harm done through legislation and the DOJ based on inaccurate statistical profiling is the national Sex Offender Registry. It is based on several erroneous assumptions, including that people with a sex offense are more prone to re-offend. This assumption has been dis-proven (with much smaller recidivist rates in the sex offender population versus, let's say the burglar population), but the laws are still in effect as they pander to "boogie man" type fears. Politicians love fear as it helps them get elected or stay in office. Statistical profiling can be used in a harmful way.
Since this video the Las Vegas Shooting has happened, and the shooter was not on any list. Before Orlando, the deadliest US mass shooting was Virginia Tech. The London and Orlando shooters were profiled based on their background and religion. There is no way of knowing if predictive algorithms will ever get to the point of 90% accuracy. Not only that, as far as I know, most crimes are crimes of passion and the only way to predict that would be 100% surveillance, 24/7 of everyone.
My thinking on this is that if data were to say something like: "this person will kill someone in 3 days" thats not warrant for arrest because thats a assumption but they should be watched or monitored.
This is what scares me most about the future
So are we gonna have the Nickelbackocaust or not?
The 2 shooters were profiled to be potential criminals AND they ended up being one but we don't know (for whatever reason: you didn't tell us, you didn't find out about it, there's no such data, etc) about the other potential criminals that were profiled but didn't (or rather hasn't become) a criminal. so there's a missing data to combat confirmation bias.
The notion that having the capacity to beneficence equates to obligation is terrible. Simply implying it to be true is morally dubious on its own. The topic falls more into the realm of specific social conventions than universal morality.
As a wise man once said “modern problems require modern solutions.” Hope this helped
I wonder why you used the two points, that of recognizing people and Nickelback in your videos, that to me, is a pattern right there.
I think there are only two actions though. If the act upon their data before the culprit even committed the crime, they have nothing to charge them with other than conspiracy. If they don't act, it could lead to a lot death and injures that could have been prevented.
However, one additional way would be to have those particular people monitored better or even followed. It can minimize casualties and injures since it can allow for immediate response.
I know there are glaring holes in this as well. Such as:
1) it would consume even more resources, but this increases immediate response and minimize casualties.
2) it is still statistically, so it can be wrong. However, the video mentioned that if it could get to a point that it was entirely accurate, should it be used?
3)the pubic can be easily swayed against either side of this measure. It will be hated if people are arrested before anything, but also hated if the profiling is not acted upon since sensationalized news would yell, "government knew this could happen, but didn't act upon it. It's their fault"
I would say that forgoing the concept of innocent before proven guilty should only occur in cases that would protect human lives and wellbeing. Terrorism, murder, rape, drug dealing, assault, child abuse, trafficking, corruption, kidnapping, these are the most dangerous crimes in society and law enforcement should be given every opportunity to pursue people that would commit them. To me, it's not worth it to try to track people who use marijuana, prostitute themselves, or commit petty theft. The stakes are too high not to use advancements in technology when human lives are in danger.
But who or what decides when a person is likely to commit _"Terrorism, murder, rape, drug dealing, assault, child abuse, trafficking, corruption, kidnapping"_?
It would be awfully convenient if an AI (I can't see anything else being able to analyze data with high enough efficiency) was configured to make your political opponents look like potential child molesters a few days before election day, which would then lead to the police being ordered to arrest them and charge them with the crime immediately without any evidence... because their guilt is assumed.
If you were to insist that a human would call the shots instead of an AI, that would be even more horrifying.
This reminds me of Minority Report
In my mind, while we should never have someone be guilty before they've committed a crime, when technology becomes so predictive that it can state the precise day and action that an individual is going to take, it should take small preventative or responsive measures. For example, if a computer were able to predict that Jimmy's going to school with an assault rifle on the 24th of march, it should keep an ambulance and police nearby the school, both equipped with the equipment to minimize damage, perhaps also telling teachers to wear bulletproof vests. There will be casualties, but until Jimmy pulls the trigger, there's always a chance that he won't go through with it, and a wrong computer or a small amount of casualties is, in my mind, better than an end to our free will and our innocent until proven guilty justice system.
But then again, I've never lost a kid in a school shooting, or been in one, and any kind of painfully obvious public action (giving all other students and staff the day off) will mean that, whether or not he was going to do anything at the last moment wouldn't matter.
The movie at 3:23 is "Minority Report". I remember it being a good movie.
What exactly will the justice system/society be grappling with? It doesn't matter how likely someone is to commit a crime if there's no crime committed.
Also, we don't weigh someone's right to be innocent until proven guilty against anything
There are a number of principles which should never, under any circumstance, be rendered obsolete.
Freedom of expression. Freedom of religion. Justice's blindness to wealth, stature, and influence. Privacy. Self-defence. Self-determination of mind and of matter. And many more.
There will always be people who wish to remove one or more of these principles in the interest of "the greater good", yet in removing any of these you render a blow to the good of all. Only the self-interested, ignorant, or foolish should seek out attacks on the statutes of freedom, liberty, and equality.
That is not to say there are any places wherein all people are devoid of these qualities or wherein all embrace them. America. Russia. Chile. Myanmar. No place is free of fault. As long as humans are imperfect beings, the reach of these principles will be in flux. And humans can never be anything other than imperfect beings - lest we change what the noun refers to entirely.
Yet we can aim to strive ever-toward the ideal, and in doing so bring a better world.
Brown European bear is so definitely the best type of bear though
"*If you're prone to obsessing over morel dilemmas you might wanna skip this one*" bitch it's half past one in the morning and I'm just getting started
I think profiling is acceptable under dire situations. But its never something that should remain permanent, and always viewed with skepticism. However sometimes it might be the only effective means at dealing with crime or a similar problem. Kinda like the same argument for a vigilante. If I saw a crime happening right in front of me, id probably step in hand help regardless of its legality. But that also has the potential of me helping the "bad guy" who was being stopped by someone trying to do the right thing. Like if someone were robbing a bank, but its not obvious they are robbing a bank run by and organized crime cartel, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS OFTEN!
So its tricky.
If such rules stay permanent or become over reaching, we end up with a slippery slope to the minority report situation. P.S. I totally just got the title of that movie.
This is the best fucking channel
To me, there should be a clear separation between law enforcement and justice, unless in case of an absolute emergency, which is a whole another animal.
So. To me the answer would be "if out of 1000 people like you, 999 would kill a person, the society should track your movements, dispatch detectives to sift through your history trying to find evidence, and establish surveillance to prevent you from carrying out an attack. But, as far as the courtroom is concerned, circumstantial evidence has no power, and guilt still has to be proven blindly."
The London 7/7 bombers were on a watch list, but far enough down they didn't have the resources to actively monitor them, the people further up the list didn't do anything ...
If you are only monitoring 0.01% of the population of the UK ... that's 660,000 people ...
Good Work!
The thing is statistical profiling is likely to be based on scientific reasoning, null hypothesis significance testing and criterion validity. That is to say: ultimately it is us humans that set up the tests that our computers should run. Even deep neural networks have a certain “win state”. If humans did a good job, then statistical profiling should be relied on. Doing a good job though, is very very hard
Just because someone is at high risk of committing crime doesn't mean locking them up is the only option. Therapy or something similar should be offered instead
I currently have green hair, and wholly denounce Nickleback.
I'm a big fan! I love your videos. But please change the typography. the red font makes it shoddy. please.
Hi Simran! Yes, this video is one of my early ones. I quickly learned the red font is horrrrrrible, I've since changed. Thanks for watching and letting me know!
Someone who is 99. 99% profiled to be a risk, be it for murder, rape, mass shooting, should be caught before the crime is committed, though not thrown in prison. You take them to a sort of recovery clinic, you give them a psychological evaluation, you run the data again. You explain if they don't need therapy then they're free to go, and you're sorry for the mistake in the system. You don't put them on some stupid watch list either.
Now if it comes back that they're not all psychologically there, you begin treatment in a secure facility. You release them on a probation period determined by the severity of their psychological ailment, and then eventually if you were able to save them they go free.
The problems I see with this system so far, are corruption. Who determines what's sane, who says you're good to go, what stops the system from being hacked etc.
But thats how I'd run it. I personally think Jails are ran the wrong way. Some say it's inhumane to kill people, making sure they die in hell on earth seems inhumane too.
Jails as a hole should be redisinged to better fit their actual purpose as a service to citizens. Keep the security, but try to save people. Those who can't be saved you kill, and not on some death row waiting list. The instant its decided someone is beyond saving kill them then and there, or else you're just keeping them all stored away waiting on them to die anyway.
I don't think you should lock people away, leave them alone, tell them they did bad, and let them sit in a glorified corner for 20 years. You're not helping anyone that way, you're just creating a lot of more hurt people who will hurt people, and more people who will have to die as a result. "Sit and think about what you did" doesn't work for everyone. Genuinely help them recover, emotionally, psychologically, morally, etc.
A bad man is just a good man's job - Lao Tzu.
And in the unfortuante scenario that they don't want to recover, in the unfortunate scenario that despite all of people's efforts to try and finally give them a place in this modern society they still cannot stand their feet up without breaking the law, you kill them.
I understand a lot of people who are loved would die. But understand when a lot of people die for something stupid people start thinking "Maybe we should change the law, and society."
Death really gets people living instead of lying. I'm not saying allow rape, murder and mass shooting. Nah, if those criminals can't be saved in those circumstances then they should die.
But if you start dropping people like flies over pot, you'll find its either nationally legalised or illegalised in a week or two.
With the school shooting example, while it would be beneficial to station police near/in the school it is not worth it to prematurely arrest the shooter. Just because you will probably do it does not mean you will for certain.
Rather than solving crimes after they happen, the police will likely have to adjust to preventing them from happening in the first place... Or at least be on the scene early to minimise the risk involved if they go through with it.
In other words, rather than punishing crime being their responsibility, they will become responsible for preventing crime instead. Even having policy nearby can be enough to discourage someone from committing a crime.
This dude really hates on Nickleback
Leo Percara people with green hair duh
You should NEVER be charged for what you might do, but resources (ie mental health services) should be targeted at individuals that are at risk. This would save resources and hopefully prevent tragedies.
IMHO referencing the source of the clip used at 2:15 (a Vox video on Snapchat filters) wouldn't go amiss.
I think our society in general is overly obsessed with "security".
Interestingly this "security" only means specific fears that are commonly themed in the media.
As an example think of parents who won't let their kids walk home from school.
How many of them are wearing helmets while cycling?
We humans are terrible at risk assessment.
The most common fears of people nowadays are:
robbery,
terrorists,
rapists,
pedofiles,
and spree killings.
However you have way higher risk of:
Losing your job
desease
car accident
....
People hate health insurance and love Terror prevention.
And the industry loves to exploit this.
For this to work i would need to see how much the data fails
Great example showing how it may look is psycho pass the whole premies is that people are being taken to prisons based on statistical profiling even if they haven't done anything
I think a possible way forward is to do things in a case by case way. Make it so in order to use profiling tools an investigator needs to go to the court and say “this case is so important and this criminal is so dangerous that we need to use this tool” no one should be affected by profiling for any nonviolent crime and in my opinion at least not for almost any violent crime also. There would have to be other rules in place also. This isn’t a minority report thing. There has to have been a crime or evidence that another may take place before the ball even starts rolling. Also permission from a court isn’t an open door to use any tool. The court would give permission for specific tools and any predictive algorithm that isn’t absolutely effective or targets some group with a high margin of error would not be allowed. At the end of the day this is just an idea and would create lots of risks. the system could be ripe for abuse also. It would also be problematic if certain things that we have now still exist later. A no knock warrant on someone picked by an algorithm would be bad(it is always bad in my opinion and should be abandoned)
Say in a case where someone calls in that they think a person will shoot up a school. On its own that is not legally enough to proceed. If this system were in place it would be enough to petition a court. They may allow use of an algorithm to assess risk. If the person is high risk that would give police permission to do some things but not others. They could not detain him but they could investigate and monitor the situation. They may even be allowed to search him or his home but that would be the far end of what is allowed. For this type of crime perhaps the only way to prevent it if they didn’t find anything is to simply alert the school and warn police that a school shooting is possible.
And dont forget the corruption on the top. The CEO of Identification Corp. can just decide that a person is a terrorist JUST because he dislikes this person.
But if this is put to morally good means, this will just mean that there may be a (unmarked) cop car or 2 near the location of the suspected criminal.