Disparate Impact in Big Data Policing

Andrew D. Selbst
{"title":"Disparate Impact in Big Data Policing","authors":"Andrew D. Selbst","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2819182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Police departments large and small have begun to use data mining techniques to predict the where, when, and who of crime before it occurs. But data mining systems can have a disproportionately adverse impact on vulnerable communities, and predictive policing is no different. Reviewing the technical process of predictive policing, the Article begins by illustrating how use of predictive policing technology will often result in disparate impact on communities of color. After evaluating the possibilities for Fourth Amendment regulation and finding them wanting, the Article turns toward a new regulatory proposal.The Article proposes the use of a rulemaking procedure centered on “discrimination impact assessments.” Predictive policing, like a great deal of data mining solutions, is sold in part as a “neutral” method to counteract unconscious biases. At the moment, however, police departments adopting the technology are not evaluating its potential for a discriminatory impact, which might reproduce or exacerbate the unconscious biases its proponents claim it will cure. Modeled on the environmental impact statements of the National Environmental Policy Act, discrimination impact assessments would require police departments to evaluate the potential discriminatory effects of competing alternative algorithms and to publicly consider mitigation procedures. This regulation balances the need for police expertise in the adoption of new crime control technologies with transparency and public input regarding the potential for harm. Such a public process will also serve to increase trust between police departments and the communities they serve.","PeriodicalId":81323,"journal":{"name":"Georgia law review (Athens, Ga. : 1966)","volume":"55 1","pages":"3373"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"151","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgia law review (Athens, Ga. : 1966)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2819182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 151

Abstract

Police departments large and small have begun to use data mining techniques to predict the where, when, and who of crime before it occurs. But data mining systems can have a disproportionately adverse impact on vulnerable communities, and predictive policing is no different. Reviewing the technical process of predictive policing, the Article begins by illustrating how use of predictive policing technology will often result in disparate impact on communities of color. After evaluating the possibilities for Fourth Amendment regulation and finding them wanting, the Article turns toward a new regulatory proposal.The Article proposes the use of a rulemaking procedure centered on “discrimination impact assessments.” Predictive policing, like a great deal of data mining solutions, is sold in part as a “neutral” method to counteract unconscious biases. At the moment, however, police departments adopting the technology are not evaluating its potential for a discriminatory impact, which might reproduce or exacerbate the unconscious biases its proponents claim it will cure. Modeled on the environmental impact statements of the National Environmental Policy Act, discrimination impact assessments would require police departments to evaluate the potential discriminatory effects of competing alternative algorithms and to publicly consider mitigation procedures. This regulation balances the need for police expertise in the adoption of new crime control technologies with transparency and public input regarding the potential for harm. Such a public process will also serve to increase trust between police departments and the communities they serve.
大数据警务中的不同影响
大大小小的警察部门已经开始使用数据挖掘技术来预测犯罪发生的地点、时间和对象。但数据挖掘系统可能对弱势群体产生不成比例的不利影响,预测性警务也不例外。回顾预测性警务的技术过程,文章首先说明了预测性警务技术的使用通常会对有色人种社区产生不同的影响。在评估了第四修正案监管的可能性并发现它们存在不足之后,该条款转向新的监管建议。文章建议采用以“歧视影响评估”为中心的规则制定程序。与大量数据挖掘解决方案一样,预测性警务在某种程度上是一种“中立”的方法,可以抵消无意识的偏见。然而,目前,采用这项技术的警察部门并没有评估其潜在的歧视性影响,这可能会重现或加剧其支持者声称可以治愈的无意识偏见。参照《国家环境政策法》的环境影响陈述,歧视影响评估将要求警察部门评估竞争性替代算法的潜在歧视影响,并公开考虑缓解程序。这项规定平衡了在采用新的犯罪控制技术方面对警察专业知识的需求,以及在潜在危害方面的透明度和公众投入。这种公共程序还将有助于增加警察部门与其所服务的社区之间的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书