Hacker News Reader

Comment by carlmr | Hacker News Reader

>Then they feed this data into the computer and algorithmically generate "unbiased" results that prove they should be harassing minorities....

Depends on how you use the data. If you learn success rates then it shouldn't depend on the absolute number of people searched. If you just feed raw data into machine learning algorithms, then nobody knows.

E.g. you have 100 stop and frisks, 50 in one and 50 in antother neighborhood. Then you might see that you got 1 criminal in one and 10 in the other neighborhood. Then your algorithm will allocate more forces (shouldn't go below a minimum, otherwise no data) in the 20% criminal neighborhood than in the 2% criminal neighborhood.

Obviously this will still lead to more searches in more criminal neighborhoods. But that's what you want. You want to use the police force as efficiently as possible to fight crime.

View on HN

Unless the police enforce laws differently in different neighbourhoods.

In one place you can get off with a warning for violating some traffic rule and in other places you can get arrested and hanged. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sandra_Bland

>Unless the police enforce laws differently in different neighbourhoods.

On body cameras and separate evaluation (not by the police department, but by a separate agency with a separate budget).

>not by the police department, but by a separate agency with a separate budget

Is that a thing that even happens? Most PDs I'm familiar with have a lot of control over their own cams. Even after getting caught using them to plant evidence, many still have some questionable cam practices.

> E.g. you have 100 stop and frisks, 50 in one and 50 in antother neighborhood.

NB: stop and frisk isn't done in the "good" neighborhoods at all. There's not going to be any data about what happens when e.g. stopping and frisking white men in suits in lower Manhattan because it will never be done. The idea of being able to do controls hinges on something for which there is no political will.

> Obviously this will still lead to more searches in more criminal neighborhoods. But that's what you want.

I would think instead you want more searches in places where there is probable cause, you have gotten warrants, etc. How comfortable are we with the notion that people should be targeted on the basis of the neighborhoods they live in? Is this compatible with our guiding documents?

>NB: stop and frisk isn't done in the "good" neighborhoods at all. There's not going to be any data about what happens when e.g. stopping and frisking white men in suits in lower Manhattan because it will never be done. The idea of being able to do controls hinges on something for which there is no political will.

I already addressed that caveat by forcing the algorithm to stop and frisk a minimum amount in the good neighbourhood. Like a minimum of 10% of frisks taking place in good neighbourhoods.

>How comfortable are we with the notion that people should be targeted on the basis of the neighborhoods they live in?

If I live in such a neighbourhood, I'd want more police presence. They will stop and frisk and do that to me, too. At the same time they will have the chance to stop some criminals that might kill or rob me and my family.

I think a lot of times as engineers we imagine the tech divorced from the reality of the world it exists in. It would likely be politically untenable to start stopping and frisking Wall Street bankers.

And the Wall Street Banker is unlikely to be on his way to a in-person mugging appointment. Rich people usually avoid petty or violent crimes.

It doesn't seem that outlandish, though, that he might be in possession of controlled substances. The point of stop-and-frisk isn't to catch someone "heading to a mugging;" how would you even discern that?

Stop and Frisk is intended for finding illegal knives or handguns.

Sounds like it didn't work as intended then. https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/new-york/...

Pot possession only makes up 16% and I'd consider 84% a success.

In a broader sense, only 11% of stops led to anything.

> I already addressed that caveat by forcing the algorithm to stop and frisk a minimum amount in the good neighbourhood. Like a minimum of 10% of frisks taking place in good neighbourhoods.

That's exactly my point. It's fine to say that, knowing full well that there is absolutely no way this would ever happen. This line of thinking guarantees unequal application of the law based on neighborhood or other signifiers (in the US: ethnicity).

> They will stop and frisk and do that to me, too.

This is not true generally in the US. The way stop and frisk works is the police identify brown men and stop and frisk them. (It's worse if they happen to be in one of the "bad" areas, but in practice the main thing was they are young-looking brown men.) The stop and frisk program would have been stillborn if the NYPD were applying it evenly to people walking around New York City.

Well, people rarely stab or shoot each other in good neighborhoods either, so why would you even bother?

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or asking earnestly, my apologies if you're just trolling...

Some of this has been addressed by other comments. But in short: there are a lot of ways to break the law other than stabbing or shooting.

Just as an example, I would wager that a stop and frisk in the area around Wall Street could yield lots of drug violations. These crimes are pursued vigorously in other parts of New York City. Why is it okay to stop and frisk some people in some neighborhoods, but not other people in other neighborhoods, when looking for the same violations?

I was sort of trolling, but this does sort of get to the heart of the issue.

Stop and frisk is sort of a shitty policy in my opinion because even if it were limited to weapons, some people may be carrying them to defend themselves. Laws against this are really shitty if you were to place yourself in the shoes of someone who is at constant risk of violence and just wants to defend themselves. If someone intends to harm you with a weapon, there’s little chance the police are going to intervene in the situation in time.

But outside of stop and frisk and just looking at policing in general, enforcing laws against nonviolent actions while you’re in areas allegedly because you’re trying to prevent violent crime is a huge driver of the disproportionate convictions of minorities. In my opinion, reducing police presence in violent areas is one of the worst solutions to this problem. That shows disregard for the people living there, regardless of how they may feel about the police. Reforming dumb laws that are getting relatively innocent people prison time would be far better. We need to have laws that allow police to be effective in combating violence without harming the entire area they’re policing with frivolous laws.

>Reforming dumb laws that are getting relatively innocent people prison time would be far better. We need to have laws that allow police to be effective in combating violence without harming the entire area they’re policing with frivolous laws.

Exactly

Reply on news.ycombinator.com