LOL

Who said we have to tell THEM? Laughing...little buggers...

If the said program could be used against THEM, Then THEM would make sure that there was no program.

Ok...we'll add "Statist" to that list...

"Statist" would replace that long list of miscreants.

"The computer finds patterns, and those serve as the basis for predictions about which arrestees will re-offend."
I am bothered by statistical models such as this as well as those in climate research. At least in climate models the results have weasel words like 'might' or 'could' in statistical predictions. Here the weasel word is replaced by 'will' as though the model can actually predict future behavior of an individual. It is like bringing the 'Person of Interest' TV show into reality.
I would ask what was the crime and what does the law prescribe for that crime. Do the time and be over with it. No brainwashing during or after the sentence should be legal. Those who don't like liberty will continue to be re-imprisoned until their liberty is used up. Don't need a lot of social engineers getting paid from taxes in the mix. Let them get real jobs or die out.

I am so done with this government. Its rotten to the core. I would rather get together with neignbors and hire a cop to patrol our neighborhood, and get rid of the city cops who do little but give out traffic tickets and enforce anti-drug laws- and cost me money

Got a laugh out of that. +1.

Yea, me too...maybe we could use same said program against THEM!...repeat liberals, progressives, communist, marxist, fascist and tyrants.

A third of the way through the article, I imaged a near future government using such a system against those known to criticize the same said government over issues of power overreach.
We already have PC and an evil hag's planned persecution of man-made climate change deniers included in the Democratic Party platform.
Ruler elites shall always appreciate courtesy of high tech better sharpened tools to more efficiently weed out troublemakers in order to convert people into sheeple.
Just troublemakers? Why not also potential troublemakers?

We do but they (not being consciously human -not using or having access to a mind) do not.

Not to mention non political, non "Good ole boys", old fashion Honesty and ethics in the court room.

Funny...the liberal idiots never mention the profiling that goes on during our teenage years. We all were into mischief a bit not to mention driving and being unfamiliar with all the laws. We all in some respect or another were rebels.

We really need to go back to a time before teddy and woodie (per-militaration of the police.) where each cop was a citizen of each neighborhood...but that too, is probably to late to accomplish.

It may work, but it creeps me out.
It feels like putting my fate into the hands of a foreign judge. No matter how fair, it eliminates the ability to debate any decision or characterization made by a machine.

Profiling involves a lot more than race, but liberals try to focus on that to prevent profiling altogether. This deprives law enforcement of one of its most effective tools.

Making profiling better through the use of computerized analysis can be a great tool in crime prevention, if done right. If misused to target specific individuals for their political views, it becomes a Gestapo-like persecution net, and that's the inherent danger.

We've already seen how government can use monitoring elements like the IRS to persecute opponents. One can readily see what great harm can be inflicted if profiling is expanded beyond the population of known criminals.

There's a temptation to use profiling to head off possible terrorist events, focusing on immigrants from suspect countries of origin, or members of certain notorious Mosques who have yet to commit a crime. If done, it should be a human profiling operation, not computerized.

This technology will be used to control us into doing what the government wants. I am against it. I already dont use facebook, twitter, and the like.
Best thing if you want to commit crimes is to SHUTUP and just do it quietly without telling anyone.

Plan ahead for a long enough time where they cant easily connect the dots (as they say). The latest group of terrorists are doing just this.

This is really politically incorrect, but I think in a number of cases the police have been too quick on the trigger, have made assumptions based on the people who typically violate laws, and are empowered to enforce victimless laws (like anti drug laws, basic non injury traffic laws, and others) and do so with lethal force. The system has asked for people to rise up against these things, and invite the less stable ones to engage in random violence against the police.

Exactly...From what I get is that it was desired or intended to be used on people with no past history as you say but judged by the past behavior of others in similar situations...that is what an algorithm would do right...it would not be racist but it certainly would be wrong most of the time.

It's still scary that someone would even try it and it seems to me that a conscious, honest human Mind...could make that assessment without a computerized algorithm.

If it is based upon an individual's past behavior, then the default expectation of criminality for someone who has not committed a crime would be zero. Otherwise ...

I didn't know and up till now thought it was only SiFi...seems that SiFi was based on reality...come to think about it...it usually is.

I think, after readingt that the assumption of the algorithms turned out to be racist was incorrect, the data was honest.The data was based on statistics of individuals that had committed crimes, went to jail and committed crimes again and again...seems to me that the data was honest, it was based upon the individuals past behavior...I am sure if an "AH HA" moment had occured the judge would of taken that in consideration. Well, maybe these days that is not a consideration.

Such risk assessment for criminal behavior would be easy to ridicule as "racist", especially depending on the assumptions that would be built into the algorithms. However, if it were completely based on crime statistics without assumptions, it could be an excellent tool for crimefighting. I knew this was going on, but boy, this is like playing with an IED. Handle VERY carefully.