COMPONENT: Global Banner

Accelerate 2020 BWC Training is here!

There is potential for data-driven policing to predict and prevent crimes. Still, racial equality campaigner Mecole Jordan-McBride, Senior Program Manager at NYU School of Law Policing Project and a member of Axon's US ethics board, warns that its use comes with implications for civil liberties and BAME communities.

Predictive policing is already used in many places in the US as well as the UK, but there is increasing controversy over its rapid adoption due to lack of transparency and its potential to discriminate and alienate communities. This prompted the EU to propose new rules for AI in February 2020, saying that ‘Clear rules are needed to address ‘high-risk AI systems’ such as those in health, policing or transport, which should be ‘transparent, traceable and guarantee human oversight.’ 

Predictive policing was introduced around 2011, when Time magazine hailed predictive policing as one of the top 50 inventions that year. It was a time where we were just starting to grasp the potential of big data that came with the advancing digitisation as well as high hopes that this technology would improve our lives.

Numerous police forces in the US and UK have started trialling and using historic data to predict crimes over the last decade. 

Predictive policing systems work by using machine-learning algorithms, which can analyse millions of data points. These can include details of past crimes and identities of criminals, which can be combined with local intelligence, social media history and mobile phone data. The AI systems are trained to spot correlations and patterns within the data to, for example, learn the modus operandi of offenders, and make predictions of where future crimes are likely to occur and who may become a victim or perpetrator of violence. 

From the technology’s inception there has been great optimism that it would enable the police to move from traditional policing to intelligence-led policing, or from a reactive to a proactive approach, preventing rather than having to solve crimes. This would benefit not only victims and society as a whole but also perpetrators, who might avoid entering the criminal justice system and the detrimental effects this often has on their life chances.

However, there is mounting concern that this use of data negatively impacts civil liberties and communities. Mecole Jordan-McBride, Senior Program Manager at NYU School of Law Policing Project and a member of Axon's US ethics board, calls for a more cautious approach to predictive policing. “We live in a society which is becoming increasingly reliant on AI,” she says. “But this doesn't give a green light for applications such as predictive policing without taking a deep dive into how it works and how it impacts communities.”

Mecole also has concerns around how the technology affects BAME communities. Some systems focus on location, trying to predict where and when future crimes are likely to happen, while others try to prevent crimes by pinpointing the individuals that are most likely to become a victim or perpetrator of crime. To compile the list, the system looks at residents with a history of violence and criminal activity, as well as the people they are affiliated to, through, for example, gang activity or social media history.  

Mecole finds this deeply problematic because she argues that the data used replicates existing racial biases in society, risking a new kind of profiling. She says, “Some communities of colour are already over-policed, and these algorithms are simply reproducing this, focusing disproportionately on them.” 

Mecole observes how this is alienating the very people that agencies are trying to protect, and who feel not only targeted but occupied. “In some neighbourhoods, there are police on every corner, who look like they are just waiting for something to happen. That sends a negative message. It alienates people and erodes trust, creating a vicious circle.” 

But it doesn't only affect the people who have a criminal history, as these systems can also capture the identities of social connections, including friends and relatives. Mecole says, “It's forcing people to make difficult choices. For example, I have had no contact with law enforcement but, if I wanted to stay connected to a family member who did, I would have to face an invasion of my privacy on a very granular level, such as being put on strategic mapping lists, which puts me in view of law enforcement.” 

Civil liberty campaigners argue that this doesn't only violate associational freedoms, but also goes against a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are also concerns about the lack of transparency, as there is often no easy way to see the list and what kind of information is held, rectify errors or remove oneself from it.

So far, the evidence of how effective these systems are is mixed and difficult to assess, in particular, as moderate increases in crimes solved in the short term could be outweighed by the detrimental impact this has on some communities in the long run.

While Axon recognises the potential for data-driven policing, Axon is not currently developing such technologies and works closely with its ethics board to make sure any solution the company provides is effective as well as ethical. 

Mecole asks, “What message does it send to communities when police forces invest millions on AI rather than building relationships with these communities, or investing in much-needed social services, which would prevent some of the problems that lead to criminal activities? There is an absence of input by the communities as well as transparency.” 

Does she think predictive policing would be more suited to the UK, where communities tend to be more mixed? “It looks different but, at the core, there is the potential for the same institutional, systemic bias, which is replicated in AI,” she says.

Finally, could there be a new type of AI, developed to embed fairness into such a predictive policing system? “I won't say that AI doesn't have a place in policing,” says Mecole, “but technology won't ever replace relationship-building, sensitivity to social issues and trust. We need to have these difficult conversations. I think Axon is doing just that by working with an ethics board, so kudos to them. We are an independent board, so they don't have to follow our advice, but they have always listened and observed our recommendations, and I think this is helping them to succeed.” And, Mecole says, it's exactly this engagement that may enable the development of less-biased AI in future. “Nothing is impossible.”

ARTICLE: MACHINES, AI AND THE FUTURE OF INTELLIGENCE-LED POLICING

Machines, AI, and the Future of Intelligence-led Policing

Digital technology has advanced more quickly in the last 20 years than any other technological revolution.

It poses several interesting challenges for law enforcement. But it also offers solutions to deal with them – especially adopting agile software platforms that can help agencies work in more versatile ways: so says Bryan Wheeler, Axon’s Vice President and head of product development for Axon Records. In this article, Bryan:

Explains why digital technology may not always deliver anticipated benefits

Calls for technology to be a true force multiplier to give agencies superpowers that eliminate tedious, inefficient work

And outlines a manifesto for change to encourage a less risk-averse approach to decision-making and the adoption of versatile technology that enables agencies to work in more nimble and innovative ways

Digital technology has transformed every facet of modern life. We’ve seen breathtaking advances in areas like computing, social media, communications, and medicine.

Even before COVID, our day-to-day interactions were increasingly moving online. This can have far-reaching implications, including the types of problems the police have to respond to.

There are whole new classes of offences, like cyberbullying and online fraud, that weren’t even our vernacular 10-20 years ago. And the rate at which crime evolves typically outpaces the speed at which our criminal justice can adapt, leading to challenges in the way we police and prosecute crime in the digital world.  

We also see a high degree of asymmetry in terms of technology adoption. First, law enforcement officers often have access to better devices and applications in their personal lives than in their professional lives, which can lead to frustration with the tools they have on the job. Additionally, members of the public engaged in criminal activity are often quite adept at adopting technology as soon as it’s available and certainly do not pause to consider the ethical implications of their technology. This makes law enforcement agencies feel like they are at a distinct technological disadvantage.

Increasingly, the public assumes, for good reason, that technologies like body worn cameras are ubiquitous. There is an expectation that every police incident is captured on video and subsequently available to the public. But in many jurisdictions this is not the case. Furthermore, people are often surprised to find that officers routinely use pen and paper for critical workflows – despite the fact that all of these workflows could be done more efficiently in a digital world.  

However, the adoption of digital technology is no guarantee that an agency becomes more effective. When a piece of technology does not truly meet the objectives of an agency, it can lead to even greater inefficiencies, resulting in police forces requiring even more people to do the same work.

/ NEW CIRCUMSTANCES CALL FOR INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS

It is critical that public money is invested prudently. Tender programmes can therefore be exhaustive and exhausting. As a result, many technology vendors have far greater expertise in navigating the procurement process than they do in driving technological innovation. This dynamic is compounded by a selection process that is so slow that, by the time the technology is procured and deployed, it may be out of date. Furthermore, with budgets tight, there may be a reluctance to invest in new systems, resulting in technology landscapes that are often outdated and complex. 

With many agencies managing an increased workload, we simply can’t afford such inefficiencies. Technology must be a force multiplier and to help give agencies superpowers that eliminate tedious, inefficient work. We need a new way to adopt technology that is less risk averse and more easily adaptable to ever-changing conditions.

/ A MANIFESTO FOR CHANGE: THREE WAYS TO DEVELOP SOLUTIONS QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY

Working backwards from outcomes: If an agency wants to keep up with the digital transformation, it needs to think about outcomes, rather than individual features of the technology itself. If you create a tender for a horseless carriage, you will certainly get a horseless carriage. If instead, you want a faster way for people to get from point A to point B, make that outcome the focus of your tender. In addition, you should partner with vendors that are committed to continually improving these outcomes. 

Being iterative and agile: Agile development takes an iterative approach to technology development. Every couple of weeks, project teams check in to re-evaluate what the most important factors are to help an agency achieve the desired outcome. If a course change is needed, this is easily made, enabling systems to be updated on an ongoing basis rather than once a year or even longer. 

Deploying flexible solutions: Historically, law enforcement agencies have gone several years between major system upgrades. This process is massively disruptive to end-users who must go through significant training on substantially different software packages. The private sector has widely adopted cloud-based solutions. In the software-as-a-service model, incremental updates are available on a frequent basis. The approach I’m recommending is similar to what we see in consumer businesses. I don’t go to a two-day training every time Apple updates my iPhone. Instead, the software highlights what's new, and I quickly start using the new features.

If we want our police agencies to fulfil their missions and keep our communities safe, it’s critical that they approach technology in an interactive and agile fashion that prevents them from perpetually falling behind. 

HOW AXON INNOVATES TO EQUIP THE POLICE WITH TOOLS FOR THE DIGITAL AGE

At Axon we listen to our customers and innovate on their behalf. This has led us to develop into an unapologetically cloud-oriented technology provider, continually pushing the boundaries of how we put technology in the service of public safety. 

We have been pioneers in this space for 25 years, so we are familiar with the technology adoption curve, which has shown that, at the beginning, most people will misunderstand you and we’re ok with that. 

When we first pioneered TASER devices 25 years ago, a lot of people said ‘I don’t get it’. Today, we have the AB3 bodycam with capabilities like live-streaming and always on connectivity, again, some agencies don’t know what to make of it. 

It’s the same with report writing. We ask, ‘If you have body-worn cameras, couldn’t we automatically write most of that report by using AI?’ The very definition of innovation is doing things that have never been done before.  

Our innovations are based on working closely with our customers to achieve their outcomes, such as increasing officer efficiencies and reducing stress. To do so, we release enhancements to our software every month. 

One of the major projects we’ve been working on is merging two police systems that have traditionally always been separate – records and evidence. For example, in a case in Axon Records, you can press a button that allows police officers to instantly send an SMS with a link that could be used to upload evidence. So if there was a burglary at a hotel, for example, historically, a detective would have had to drive there, burn CCTV footage onto a DVD and then upload and process it. Now all of this is done with a single click. 

This is a prime example of software being able to break down historical and outdated barriers to create efficiencies and equip the police forces with tools fit for the digital age.

ARTICLE: THE FUTURE IS AGILE

The Future Is Agile

TAPPING INTO THE COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE OF THE POLICE FORCE

Collective intelligence takes many forms and has been shown to outperform individuals' decision making. Axon has devised a process that draws the insights and wisdom of its customers, allowing them to directly feed into product development. This, for example, made Axon's unique evidence sharing capability with the Crown Prosecution Service possible. Here are six prerequisites:

A well-functioning process and good communications

At the heart of it, is an agile set up that allows to quickly act on customers' needs in times of rapid technological and societal changes.

For example, with sky-rocketing amounts of digital evidence, police officers spent a lot of time copying and delivering CDs. The Met currently shares around 5.500 media clips with the Crown Prosecution Service every month – this used to mean that they had to make 3 DVDs per clip and then hand-deliver them, taking up considerable amounts of officers' time.

Axon had set up a user group with representatives of three police forces and when Mike Ashby-Clarke joined as the UK's Axon manager, he wanted to work with this group to find a way how police could share evidence digitally via Axon Evidence. He says, 'Axon managed to deliver this sharing capability of Axon Evidence in only six months, while the government has tried and failed to implement such a move for six years now. We got Greater Manchester Police, the Metropolitan Police Service and the West Midlands Police together to make sure the CPS sharing link was suitable for all those three big forces and for the CPS. West Midlands Police reports that every time an officer uses a photo exhibit around two hours is saved with Axon Evidence over the previous manual based system.'

He believes that it's all down being agile enough to respond to changing demands quickly. He says, 'Our digital products are constantly evolving, ensuring, for example, that our systems can integrate any national programmes as and when they become a reality.'

/ A WELL-FUNCTIONING PROCESS AND GOOD COMMUNICATIONS

At the heart of all collective intelligence is a process that works well. It can be formal, or informal, or a combination of both.

At Axon UK, the initial user group meetings that gave rise to Axon Evidence's sharing capability, have evolved now into a formal process. Now Axon hosts four two-day meetings a year, which are centred around the National Change Request Log.

These meetings start with a closed meeting for representatives of the police force, followed by a session run by Axon. Ashby-Clarke says, 'We normally fly over a couple of key developers in current projects, from the US to answer questions and share our roadmap, which is often driven by previous change requests from the group. We close off with a Q&A session about the latest innovations, as well as anything that is still outstanding from the previous meeting. Between these meetings, the Met  (who chair the meetings) and our engineering team meet to assess progress, which we share with all members.'

/ PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY AND AN OPEN FLOOR

An essential prerequisite for collective intelligence to arise is 'psychological safety'. It means that members can contribute without fear of embarrassment. Google, which is known for their focus on collective intelligence uses this principle as the foundation of their teamwork.

In order to give the police complete freedom to gather ideas, Axon is not present during the first day of meetings. Ashby-Clarke says, 'Officers can freely talk about their challenges or what they like or don't like about our products, or what problems they're experiencing. Anybody can put forward an idea, and if it gets verified by the views group, it is put forward and prioritised according to how many voices were in favour of it.'

Collective intelligence thrives with diversity. Interestingly, studies have found diverse groups are more collectively intelligent, than homogenous groupings.

Ashby-Clarke thinks that this is also one of the reasons why the Change Request Log is so successful. He says, 'A wide range of representatives from the police forces attend these meetings – from frontline police officers, through to programme managers and ICT architects, there's a real wide range of kind of expertise,' says Ashby-Clarke, who has also started to invite prospective Axon customers as well.

But beyond the process itself, engaging with groups in this way represents a powerful shift: with collective intelligence, the focus is on the collective and the community, rather than the individual or one organisation.

In order for this to work, Axon is relinquishing some control – the sessions are hosted by Axon, but currently chaired by the Met, which presides over the Change Request Log. Together with other forces, they have some autonomy, working with Axon in a mutually beneficial partnership.

Pierre Lévy, the thinker who coined the term collective intelligence in the 90s, wrote, 'The basis and goal of collective intelligence is mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishised or hypostatised communities.' This is echoed by Ashby-Clarke, who says, 'The police forces who work with us know that we have the best interest of the police forces and the communities they serve at heart. So if senior leaders decide to go with us, it's because they see the benefits to them and the community.'

This process and the UK Change Request Log has already been highly successful and shaped over 100 improvements to Axon's products and Australia and Canada have also set up similar user groups. 

But Axon's commitment to do right by the communities they serve doesn't stop here. The company's ethics board follows similar principles, listening to diverse voices about complex and difficult ethical questions. As the public increasingly and urgently demands that corporations act responsibly, Axon leads the way, showing that it's possible for a company to be profitable as well as ethical. In fact, in the near future companies may need to be ethical in order to be profitable. 

Resources

Smart Devices

Cameras

Software

Industries

Accelerate / 2020

News

Machines, AI, and the Future of Intelligence-led Policing

The Future Is Agile

Collective Intelligence