If there is bias in policing, it would therefore be amplified.
Ban police from using this technology.
Are you thinking of a specific jurisdiction's specific statistical set here, because that's not true in general.
In the UK I know we have perception surveys of the public that ask 'have you been subject to crime' and those statistics are not measures of policing as many crimes reported in the survey won't have been reported to police.
Example for me: someone scratched my car body work ("keyed" it), I didn't report it as I wasn't going to claim on insurance and knew the car park owners had reported similar occurrences in the recent past (I spoke to them: 'yeah, happens a lot here'). Crime survey would show a crime against my property; police statistics wouldn't.
The crime map for Vancouver is interesting - I'm glad to see that the tool reported in the article is at least exposed to the public.
The solution to end crime, then, is to never send the police anywhere.
A break-and-enter, or a theft from/of a car, or vandalism against property, for example, are going to be recorded regardless of whether there's a police officer within 5 miles of where they occur. (Because people file a police report to get an insurance claim.)
The distribution of public nuisance arrests, or drug-related crimes, or people jumping the turnstiles at the subway, or parking tickets, or speeding tickets, or DUIs, on the other hand, are almost entirely going to be closely correlated with which areas you deploy police to.
Ban x from using this technology. This is hard to do when the technology isn’t bound to its physical matter (software or algorithms). The technology will go everywhere eventually because it’s easier to distribute than ban.
Sounds crazy now but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was normal in the future.
You can’t stop software or encryption.