An Ethical Evaluation of Predictive Policing Applications

Abstract

This study aims to examine predictive law enforcement practices in the literature and to conduct an ethical evaluation of predictive law enforcement practices using artificial intelligence in this context. The concept of big data is now present in every moment of our lives, and objects other than humans (IoT) are constantly generating data. The increase in big data in recent years has increased the number of artificial intelligence applications in many fields. Artificial intelligence applications, including machine learning, are rapidly becoming widespread in health, finance, and e-Commerce areas. Different technologies are also being developed for security forces in the context of the defence industry and preventive services, such as weapon technologies and law enforcement applications. Predictive policing is one such application. Within the scope of this study, a literature review was used to examine the structures and examples of artificial intelligence applications used in predictive law enforcement, and evaluations were made on the ethics of artificial intelligence applications used in this field. This study will raise awareness about predictive law enforcement applications using artificial intelligence and shed light on the ethics of these applications for future academic studies.

Keywords

• Predictive Policing
• Artificial Intelligence
• Machine Learning
• Ethics

Öngörücü Kolluk Uygulamalarına İlişkin Etik Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Büyük veri kavramı artık hayatımızın her anında yer almakta ve artık insanların dışındaki nesneler dahi (IoT) sürekli olarak veri üretmektedirler. Büyük verideki son yıllarda yaşanan yaygın kullanım ve artış birçok alanda yapay zekâ içeren uygulamaların sayısını da giderek artırmaktadır. Yapay öğrenme içeren yapay zekâ uygulamalarının sağlık, finans, e-ticaret gibi alanlarda hızla yaygınlaştığı görülmektedir. Silah teknolojileri ve kolluk uygulamaları gibi savunma sanayi ve önleyici hizmetler bağlamında güvenlik güçleri için de farklı teknolojiler geliştirilmektedir. Öngörücü kolluk (predictive policing) uygulamaları da bunlardan bir tanesidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı yapay zekâ uygulamalarının güvenlik alanındaki uygulamalarından biri olan ve alan yazında yer alan öngörücü kolluk uygulamalarını incelemek ve bu bağlamda yapay zekâ kullanan öngörücü kolluk uygulamaları hakkında etik açıdan bir değerlendirme yapmaktır. Araştırma kapsamında yöntem olarak alan yazın taraması kullanılmış, öngörücü kolluk alanında kullanılan yapay zekâ içeren uygulamaların yapıları ve örnekleri incelenerek bu alanda kullanılan yapay zekâ içeren uygulamaların etiği üzerine değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın yapay zekâ kullanan öngörücü kolluk uygulamaları ile ilgili farkındalığı artıracağı ve söz konusu uygulamaların etiği hakkında ileride yapılacak akademik çalışmalar için ışık tutacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öngörücü Kolluk
• Yapay Zeka
• Makine Öğrenmesi
• Etik

Kaynakça

1. Akter, S., McCarthy, G., Sajib, S., Michael, K., Dwivedi, Y. K., D’Ambra, J., & Shen, K. N. (2021). “Algorithmic bias in data-driven innovation in the age of AI”. International Journal of Information Management, 60.
2. Alikhademi, K., Drobina, E., Prioleau, D., Richardson, B., ve Gilbert, J.E. (2022). “A review of predictive policing from the perspective of fairness”. Artificial Intelligence Law, 30, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10506-021-09286-4
3. Asaro, P. M. (2019). “AI ethics in predictive policing: From models of threat to an ethics of care”. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 38 (2), 40-53. doi: 10.1109/MTS.2019.2915154
4. Bakke, E. (2018). “Predictive policing: The argument for public transparency”. NYU Annual Survey American Law, 74, 131.
5. Beck, C., ve McCue, C. (2009). “Predictive policing: what can we learn from Wal-Mart and Amazon about fighting crime in a recession?”. Police Chief Magazine, 76 (11), 18.
6. Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., & Pfingst, L. (2006). “Race, drugs, and policing: Understanding disparities in drug delivery arrests”. Criminology, 44 (1), 105-137.
7. Bellamy R.K., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S.C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilovic, A., vd. (2018). “Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias”. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.01943
8. Bennett Moses, L. ve Chan, J. (2018). “Algorithmic prediction in policing: assumptions, evaluation, and accountability”. Policing and Society, 28 (7), 806-822.

9. Berk, R. A. (2021). “Artificial intelligence, predictive policing, and risk assessment for law enforcement”. Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 209-237.
10. Berk, R. ve Bleich, J. (2013). “Statistical procedures for forecasting criminal behavior”. Criminology & Public Policy 12 (3), 513–544.
11. Berliner Zeitung (2014, 1 Aralık). “Precobs: Berliner Polizei will mit Software auf Verbrecherjagd gehen”. Erişim Adresi: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/precobs-berliner-polizei-will-mit-software-auf-verbrecherjagd-gehen-li.11650
12. Block, R.L. ve Block, C.R. (1995). “Space, place, and crime: Hot spot areas and hot places of liquor related crime”. Eck, J. ve Weisburd, D. (Ed.), Crime and place (ss. 145–183) içinde. New York: Willow Tree Press.
13. Brantingham, P.J. ve Brantingham, P. (1984). Patterns in crime. Prentice-Hall: Macmillan.
14. Buhrmester V., Münch D. ve Arens M. (2021) “Analysis of explainers of black box deep neural networks for computer vision: A survey”. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 3 (4), 966-989. https://doi.org/10.3390/make3040048
15. Christman, J. (2009) The politics of persons: Individual autonomy and socio-historical selves. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Degeling, M. ve Berendt, B. (2018). “What is wrong about robocops as consultants? A technology-centric critique of predictive policing”. AI & Society, 33 (3), 347-356.
17. Egbert, S. (2019). “Predictive policing and the platformization of police work”. Surveillance & Society, 17 (1/2), 83-88.
18. Hardyns, W. ve Rummens, A. (2018). “Predictive policing as a new tool for law enforcement? Recent developments and challenges”. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 24, 201-218.
19. Holcomb, S. D., Porter, W. K., Ault, S. V., Mao, G. ve Wang, J. (2018, Mart). “Overview on deepmind and its alphago zero ai”. Proceedings of the 2018 international Conference on Big Data and Education (ss. 67-71) içinde. doi: 10.1145/3206157.3206174
20. Hung, T. W. ve Yen, C. P. (2021). “On the person-based predictive policing of AI”. Ethics and Information Technology, 23, 165-176. doi: 10.1007/s10676-020-09539-x
21. Jobin, A., Ienca, M. ve Vayena, E. (2019). “The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines”. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1 (9), 389-399.
22. Joh, E. E. (2018). “Artificial intelligence and policing: First questions”. Seattle University Law Review, 41 (1139).
23. Kantar, N. ve Bynum, T. W. (2022). “Flourishing Ethics and identifying ethical values to instill into artificially intelligent agents”. Metaphilosophy, 53 (5), 599-604.
24. Kim, W., Choi, B. J., Hong, E. K., Kim, S. K. ve Lee, D. (2003). “A taxonomy of dirty data”. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7, 81-99.
25. Kordzadeh, N. ve Ghasemaghaei, M. (2022) “Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions”. European Journal of Information Systems, 31 (3), 388-409. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2021.1927212
26. Lum, K. ve Isaac, W. (2016). “To predict and serve?”. Significance, 13 (5), 14-19.
27. Mali, B., Bronkhorst-Giesen, C. ve Den Hengst, M. (2017). Predictive policing: Lessen voor de toekomst. Apeldoorn: Politieacademie.
28. Mason, R.O. (1986). “Four ethical issues of the information age”. MIS Quarterly, 10 (1), 5-12.
29. Mcbride, N. K. (2014) “ACTIVE ethics: An information systems ethics for the internet age”. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 12 (1), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-06-2013-0017
30. McElreath, D. H., Sherri DioGuardi, ve Doss, D. A. (2022). “Pre-Crime Prediction: Does It Have Value? Is It Inherently Racist?”. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET), 13 (1), 1-17. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.298672
31. Oosterloo, S., van Schie, G., Bates, J., Clough, P., Jäschke, R. ve Otterbacher, J. (2018). “The politics and biases of the ‘crime anticipation system’ of the Dutch police”. Proceedings of the international workshop on bias in information, algorithms, and systems (s. 30-41) içinde.
32. Perry W.L, McInnis, B., Price, C.C., Smith S. ve Hollywood, J.S. (2013). Predicting policing: the role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Washington: Rand Corporation Erişim Adresi: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR233.html
33. Perrot, P. (2017). “What about AI in criminal intelligence: From predictive policing to AI perspectives”. European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 16, 65-76.
34. Persson, A. ve Kavathatzopoulos, I. (2018). “How to make decisions with algorithms”. ACM SIGCAS Computer and Society 47 (4), 122–133. doi: 10.1145/3243141.3243154
35. Prince, A. E. R. ve Schwarcz, D. (2020). “Proxy discrimination in the age of artificial intelligence and big data”. Iowa Law Review, 105 (3), 1257-1318.
36. Richardson, R., Schultz, J. M. ve Crawford, K. (2019). “Dirty data, bad predictions: How civil rights violations impact police data, predictive policing systems, and justice”. New York University Law Review, 94, 15-55.
37. Ridgeway, G. (2013). “The pitfalls of prediction”. NIJ Journal, 271, 34-40.
38. Robbins, S. (2019). “A misdirected principle with a catch: Explicability for AI”. Minds and Machines, 29 (4), 495-514.
39. Ryan, M. ve Stahl, B. C. (2020). “Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: Clarifying their content and normative implications”. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 1 (19), 61-86.
40. Safat, W., Asghar, S., & Gillani, S. A. (2021). “Empirical analysis for crime prediction and forecasting using machine learning and deep learning techniques”. IEEE access, 9, 70080-70094.
41. Scantamburlo, T., Charlesworth, A. ve Cristianini, N. (2018). Machine decisions and human consequences. Erişim Tarihi: 18 Ağustos 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.06747
42. Schlehahn, E., Aichroth, P., Mann, S., Schreiner, R., Lang, U., Shepherd, I. D. ve Wong, B. W. (2015, Eylül). “Benefits and pitfalls of predictive policing”. 2015 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (s. 145-148) içinde. doi: 10.1109/EISIC.2015.29.
43. Seidensticker, K., Bode, F. ve Stoffel, F. (2018). Predictive policing in Germany. Erişim Adresi: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-14sbvox1ik0z06
44. Shapiro, A. (2017). Reform predictive policing. Nature, 541(7638), 458-460.
45. Sherman, L.W., Gartin, P.R. ve Buerger, M.E. (1989). “Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activ- ities and the criminology of place”. Criminology 27 (1), 27–56.
46. Siau, K. ve Wang, W. (2018). “Building trust in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics”. Cutter Business Technology Journal, 31 (2), 47–53.
47. Uchida, C.D. (2009). Predictive policing in Los Angeles: Planning and development. Erişim Adresi: http://newweb.jssinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Predictive-Policing-in-Los-Angeles.pdf
48. van Brakel, R. ve De Hert, P., (2011). “Policing, surveillance and law in a pre-crime society: understanding the consequences of technology based strategies”. Journal of Police Studies, 20 (3), 163-192.
49. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. ve Xu, X. (2016). “Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead”. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17 (5), 328-376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428
50. Willems, D. ve Doeleman, R. (2014). “Predictive Policing–wens of werkelijkheid”. Het tijdschrift voor de Politie, 76 (4), 5.
51. Xiang, A. ve Raji, I. D. (2019). On the legal compatibility of fairness definitions. Erişim Adresi: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.00761
52. Završnik, A. (2021). “Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice settings”. European Journal of criminology, 18 (5), 623-642.