I thought this was an excellent treatment of the garbage-in-garbage-out aspect of this debate. Too often it seems people get wrapped up in the "Is it ethical to use a computer to judge someone?" implications, which are non-trivial, but also seem to be borne out of a general ignorance about the many ways we do allow computers (or rather, computation) to make judgements about people.

Also, it's an excellent example of the power of research and tabulation, though it seems the link to the list of departments they researched is broken.

I think the use of crime modeling doesn't have to be controversial, but the first step is demanding transparency. It's scary enough when the police are the primary collectors and judgers of data, but even worse when they leave it to a vendor and assume it's hunky-dory out of the circular reasoning that proprietary algorithms are good because they are proprietary.

> When the Fresno police briefed the city council about the Beware system, the council president asked a simple question about those color-coded threat levels: “How does a person get to red?” The officer didn’t know, because the vendor wasn’t saying. As the officer delivering the briefing explained: “We don’t know what their algorithm is exactly… We don’t have any kind of a list that will tell us, this is their criteria, this is what would make a person red, this is what would make a person yellow. It’s their own system