Predictive Policing Models Have Already Determined Your “Threat Level”

33_34_Predictive_polic-300x231

Whether you like it or not, police departments across the country have been accessing a special data base which contains a plethora of personal information on you and the rest of the American population. And much like a ‘credit report,’ these computerized predictive policing models have likely already issued your personal ‘threat level.’

So what started all of this?

These Pre-Crime systems and technologies were first introduced and were fully functional just days after the alleged attacks on the Pentagon and WTC in September of 2001 and have been advancing ever since. To put it in layman’s terms; if you have ever seen any of the Terminator movies — essentially “Skynet” has been activated right here in good old America and has been running now for some 15 years.

In fact, the systems are so advanced that police departments can now literally toggle between license plate, facial, iris, and gate recognition software/camera networks, along with satellite data, StingRay, and drone technologies to track suspects throughout the country in realtime, thus assigning any new active and open case a ‘targeted individual‘ status which also ties into the National Security Agency’s current Domestic Spying.

According to the Washington Post, “The number of local police departments that employ some type of technological surveillance increased from 20 percent in 1997 to more than 90 percent in 2013, according to the latest information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics,” which is alarming to say the least.

Via: IntelliHub

China wants to make Minority Report A Reality

chinag-cyber

(Insert U.S. in the place of China while reading this article, and you wont be far off from how this technology/ Data gathering is being used here against the public as well)

China has a new strategy in fighting crime, ripped from science fiction and hastily pasted at the top of the list of paranoia-inducing concepts. It’s called pre-crime. It goes further than sting operations, counterterrorism, or any other government action to preempt criminal activity ever before.

Like the 2002 film Minority Report, China wants to fight crimes before they happen. They want to know they’ll happen before they’re planned—before the criminal even knows he’s going to be part of them. The Chinese Communist Party “has directed one of the country’s largest state-run defense contractors, China Electronics Technology Group, to develop software to collate data on jobs, hobbies, consumption habits, and other behavior of ordinary citizens to predict terrorist acts before they occur.”

The Chinese government wants to know about everything: every text a person sends, every extra stop they make on the way home. It’s designed for dissidents, but it means that they’ll know every time a smoker buys a pack of cigarettes, how much gas a car owner uses, what time the new mom goes to bed, and what’s in the bachelor’s refrigerator.

Science fiction aside, pre-crime is already somewhat of a reality; data gathering is part of intelligence communities’ and police surveillance efforts and has been for years. A lot of that surveillance has helped nab those responsible for things like child pornography. But whereas it’s been largely surgical here in the U.S., China wants total coverage, which makes crime prevention look a lot different.

Crime prevention is a double-edged sword when it comes to individual rights: The logic that promotes deterrents (like better locks, larger police forces) doesn’t target individual criminals, but rather focuses on protecting people and property from any criminals that might do harm. And again, this sort of thing isn’t going to be used to stop break-ins and muggings, but rather anti-government and anti-stability crimes. This activity isn’t getting a lot of pushback from civil liberties groups, and part of that could be because a lot of people aren’t convinced the government doesn’t already have all of this information.

Original Story: The Daily Beast

The Crime you have not “yet” comitted. Pre-Crime Tech on the rise

precrimevision

Pre-Crime once belonging to the real of Science Fiction, is becoming a very real tool in our current Surveillance society. Althought it may be justified as profiling criminals and not ordinary citizens, the Author of this article seems to be ignorant of the slide towards a Police state here in the U.S.

You might think you’re immune from spying and surveillance, but there is also the fact that any citizen is now liable to become a criminal for even the most minor offenses.
And so now if you survive your encounter with the police,you can still be marked and classified as a future potential threat or repeat criminal.

Computers are getting pretty good at predicting the future. In many cases they do it better than people. That’s why Amazon uses them to figure out what you’re likely to buy, how Netflix knows what you might want to watch, the way meteorologists come up with accurate 10-day forecasts.

Now a team of scientists has demonstrated that a computer can outperform human judges in predicting who will commit a violent crime. In a paper published last month, they described how they built a system that started with people already arrested for domestic violence, then figured out which of them would be most likely to commit the same crime again.

For two decades, police departments have used computers to identify times and places where crimes are more likely to occur, guiding the deployment of officers and detectives. Now they’re going another step: using vast data sets to identify individuals who are criminally inclined. They’re doing this with varying levels of transparency and scientific testing. A system called Beware, for example, is capable of rating citizens of Fresno, California, as posing a high, medium or low level of threat. Press accounts say the system amasses data not only on past crimes but on web searches, property records and social networking posts.

Critics are warning that the new technology had been rushed into use without enough public discussion. One question is precisely how the software works — it’s the manufacturer’s trade secret. Another is whether there’s scientific evidence that such technology works as advertised.

One of the creators of that system, University of Pennsylvania statistician Richard Berk, said he only works with publicly available data on people who have already been arrested. The system isn’t scooping up and crunching data on ordinary citizens, he said, but is making the same forecasts that judges or police officers previously had to make when it came time to decide whether to detain or release a suspect.

Bloomberg Article Here

Are you a threat? Police software scans your social media

mediatracking

In our current age what you say, and what is said about you is now more likely than ever to land you in trouble with the law, or disqualify you for employment, promotion, government benefits or other opportunities. Almost gone is the age of personel privacy, and freedom from scrutiny by governmental authorities. While you may not be concerned as to wether or not The N.S.A. is keeping tabs on you. On the smaller micro level, you could soon be subject to technological spying by your local Police Department.

The Washington Post reports:

Perhaps the most controversial and revealing technology is the threat-scoring software Beware. Fresno is one of the first departments in the nation to test the program.

As officers respond to calls, Beware automatically runs the address. The searches return the names of residents and scans them against a range of publicly available data to generate a color-coded threat level for each person or address: green, yellow or red.

Exactly how Beware calculates threat scores is something that its maker, Intrado, considers a trade secret, so it is unclear how much weight is given to a misdemeanor, felony or threatening comment on Facebook. However, the program flags issues and provides a report to the user.

Rob Nabarro, a Fresno civil rights lawyer… said the fact that only Intrado — not the police or the public — knows how Beware tallies its scores is disconcerting. He also worries that the system might mistakenly increase someone’s threat level by misinterpreting innocuous activity on social media, like criticizing the police, and trigger a heavier response by officers.

“A police call is something that can be very dangerous for a citizen.”


It now matters if you are labeled by the mental health system with a “condition.” It also matters what you say on Facebook to aloof “friends” – the mere suggestion of wrong-doing counts towards your score as a threat to the system.Not only has your permanent record been kept and used against you, but the informal chatter and “keywords” that fill up the spaces of life previously reserved for leisure and private life is now fair game for law enforcement “threat assessment.”

For some time now, police have followed up on threats of violence posted in comment threads, particular if they threaten violence against a high profile politician or celebrity.But now, they are armed with the “buzz” of background minutia about a person, too – which may or may not legitimately characterize intended criminal and illicit behavior. Guilt by association prevails. Like so many other surveillance technologies, they scan in the background, with little or no presence in the lives of the people it watches.

One thing is certain: this is the near-future world of “Minority Report” has arrived on scene. It is already in its first phase of life, and most of the public still hasn’t imagined its form or capabilities.

The government they fear has dawned upon us, but its face is not the familiar one of the opposing political camp, or the aspiring totalitarian despot. It is a hive army of technological and bureaucratic soldiers, come to eat out our substance and the Declaration of Independence warned in the long-train of abuses.

The whisper campaign at its most dreadful. A world where a random police call could become a Gestapo nightmare. Where thought crimes are bred. Orwell, P.K.D., etc. were right (but what else is new?).

Via IntelliHub