Thread
Not it effing can't. This headline is breathtakingly irresponsible.
h/t @hypervisible
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-30/new-algorithm-can-predict-crime-in-us-cities-a-week-before...
h/t @hypervisible
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-30/new-algorithm-can-predict-crime-in-us-cities-a-week-before...
Some interesting 🙃 details from the underlying Nature article:
1. Data was logs maintained by the cities in question (so data "collected" via reports to police/policing activity).
2. The only info for each incident they're using is location, time & type of crime.
>>
1. Data was logs maintained by the cities in question (so data "collected" via reports to police/policing activity).
2. The only info for each incident they're using is location, time & type of crime.
>>
3. A prediction was counted as "correct" if a crime (by their def) occurred in the (small) area on the day of prediction or one day before or after.
>>
>>
4. The authors acknowledge some of the ways in which predictive policing has "stirred controversy" but claim to have "demonstrate[d] their unprecedented ability to audit enforcement biases". >>
Those "enforcement biases" have to do with sending more resources to respond to violent crime in affluent neighborhoods. They claim that this would allow us to "hold states accountable in ways inconceivable in the past".
>>
>>
5. The final section is called "Limitations and conclusion" which is a weird combo and maybe is an attempt to excuse a weird mess of a section that talks out of both sides of its mouth? Note the phrase "powerful predictive tools" here, hyping what they've built: 
In summary, whenever someone is trying to sell predictive policing, always ask:
1. Why are we trying to predict this? (Answer seems to be so police can "prevent crime", but why are we looking to policy to prevent crime, rather than targeting underlying inequities?)
>>
1. Why are we trying to predict this? (Answer seems to be so police can "prevent crime", but why are we looking to policy to prevent crime, rather than targeting underlying inequities?)
>>
2. What happens when police are deployed somewhere with the "information" that a crime is about to occur?
>>
>>
3. What about wage theft, securities fraud, environmental crimes, etc etc? See this "risk zones" map:
whitecollar.thenewinquiry.com/
whitecollar.thenewinquiry.com/
One other fishy/squirrely thing I noticed about the article. In this paragraph they talk up the evaluation as a "true prospective forecasting test" but their of use of it was purely retrospective. 
Typo fix #1: this should say No, not Not.
Typo fix #2: this should say police, not policy
If I'd known my tweets were going to lead to the Bloomberg article being revised, I guess I might have spell checked better? But seriously: journalists covering this should be talking to people who know something about mass incarceration, over policing, &c.
