The Instigator
Jordan_Fletcher
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zerotime
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Predictive Policing (PredPol)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 869 times Debate No: 82656
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Jordan_Fletcher

Pro

I believe that the U.S. government should either work with or establish an OGA (Other Government Agency) that specializes in detecting and eliminating potential, probable, and guaranteed threats to society (shooters/killers; violent people in general). The militia will operate covertly and will be given a federal license to shoot a perpetrator on sight if he or she is posing an immediate threat to the public--though arresting the offender is preferred. In order to accomplish their tasks, they will operate using Predictive Policing (PredPol) technology. Out of the various types of predictive law-enforcement types of technologies, PredPol interferes with privacy the least and has proven itself better than the human counterparts.
Zerotime

Con

The clear advantage of your idea is to discover evil before it takes place, to reveal the ones who try to avoid the hand of justice. But, in the eyes of your organization, by what is justice defined if anyone who poses an immediate threat should be eliminated by either taking their freedom for time or completely? What happens if the numerical justice fails, if your strategy fails and the order to eliminate is executed anyway? Will there be the possibility to get the bringers of justice to justice?

What are guaranteed threats? Are these people who strongly oppose ideology and idea or the ones trying to plan a bomb attack? By what means can you define justice if an organization is granted the license to kill whenever they see a threat. And following up, how can you drag these people to justice if their purpose is to act covertly? The margin of making mistakes is equal to zero, you must not do mistakes when the state gives you everything to change the life of one human being irreversibly.

However, you can't prove if the law bringers have acted like death bringers, if they have done a mistake, if they have changed someone's life gravely. By acting hidden, every source is hidden in the spider web of inaccessible information. Do you think that there will be documents which will record missions? Very unlikely, and even if there are some, do you think those might be telling us the truth about the story between the law bringers and the victims of the law?

The approach of forming an organization like that comes near to form a stately supported hitman organization. The president doesn't like this person? It's a threat which hereby has to be eliminated and be eradicated of the grounds of earth. How can you assure people that there is no corruption and misuse of this executive power? Do these people even need a trial to act? Will there even be judges legitimating acts of aggression and elimination?

These are key questions to the problem set of unregulated law or death bringers, to the hitmen of the state. Nonetheless, these are not the only concerns.

In this time and age, where privacy is a matter of utmost importance, can we allow an unregulated organization to collect data for the greater good? Where is the line between necessary and additional? Where is the line between needed and nice to know? Where is this line?!

You assure me that "PredPol", how you call it, interferes the least with privacy but what does that mean? How much data is required to create a crime profile of me to judge my upcoming actions, my actions of good and evil?

Combining the matter of having an unregulated stately supported organization with the matter of privacy, we should be able to conclude that there will be misuse and severe corruption. And are the law bringers who might be part of the corruption even be morally liable for their actions? If we are to accept the organization, they are not. By accepting, we give our agreement which covers up their actions!

Taking this into account, we would even be morally at fault for someone being killed, because we have legitimated their actions! This is no goal we should achieve but one to avoid.
Debate Round No. 1
Jordan_Fletcher

Pro

You bring up some really good points that I am eager to address, :3! I will break it down by going over each one of your paragraphs, one at a time:

1. In the eyes of the OGA, justice can be served one of two ways: (1) through forceful arrest during which the subject may have to be shot in a limb in order to be apprehended or (2) the operatives can shoot the suspect dead if he or she poses a great enough threat to the civilians around or he or she is engaging the OGA. Arrest without having to shoot the subject is most definitely the favored outcome though. Something that is really important to understand is that these operatives mainly respond to crimes like mass shootings, bombings, public gang shootings, or dangerous people at large. Local police will handle crimes that are not extremely high risk, like store robberies. S.W.A.T. teams will be able to respond to events that could involve a subject barricading himself in house after shooting someone else in the house; basically events that require strategic planning or a lengthy stand-off. Unlike the S.W.A.T. team, the OGA will be primarily"if not completely"composed of ex-Special Forces soldiers with V.I.P. access to do almost whatever is needed to take control of a situation that could negatively escalate quickly. And what do you mean by "numerical justice"? It sounds like you are saying"please correct me if I am misinterpreting this"what will happen if the militia will not be able to detain the offender and they must kill the person. Well, no questions asked, they will shoot him or her. These operatives do not negotiate. Their engagement rules will be very similar to that of police, but there mindset will be the same as it was when they were conducting operations overseas: get in, take-out the subjects, and get out as quickly as possible.

2. Guaranteed threats are those who have all signs pointing in a bad direction. For example, a mentally ill veteran that has purchased an AR model fire arm, hundreds or rounds of ammunition, possibly looked-up how to build IEDs (Improved Explosive Devises), researched or has been caught on camera visiting public places for the purpose of surveying the busiest hours, where police stations are located in relation to the crowded location, a good place to make a nest (if he or she is sniping), or a flat and open space that could guarantee a lot of deaths. That person would be a guaranteed threat and the OGA would track him or her down, ask the subject about his or her intentions"and if he or she does not comply by answering the questions or being arrested, the operators will raid the person"s house, or kill the subject as soon as they find him or her. The OGA is designed to respond to a dire emergency in only a couple minutes at the most, not ten minutes or more like the S.W.A.T team. Operatives will not respond to people "strongly oppose[ing] ideology and idea[s]", since U.S. citizens are protected by the first amendment. It is the people that take physically violent action that will be arrested or eliminated. Regarding taking people to court, all the operatives have to do is to place a subject in the back of one of their cars, drive the detainee to a police station (or wherever newly arrested highly dangerous people are dropped off), hand him or her over to the police, and leave. Later, the operatives will be required to send a video of each operative"s actions during the "operation" (the soldiers will be wearing body or helmet cameras) to the federal government"only non-confidential details of the operation will be released the public so they can generally understand what happened.

3. For issues that involve specific targets to be taken out by the president him or herself (Hilary Clinton, :D!), there will be secret meetings held between the head of the OGA, the president, a few representatives from congress, and possibly even the Supreme Court. A majority vote will be held and if at least 66.6% are in favor, then the OGA operatives have a new mission. Even these operatives have stricter engagement rules"in some respects"than the police. But if there is a civilian injured or killed as a result of an operative"s actions (i.e. accidental or intentional car ramming or shooting), then the court will definitely be involved. The court details of the meeting will be secret, but if word escapes out to the public, then details will be released to the public of what the operative did to the civilian. Manipulating data and lying to the public in any similar manner will be utterly unacceptable for the OGA to do, and could result in the termination of that person"s career as a member of the OGA.

4. Even though it does depend on your definition of what privacy truly is, I can tell you that as soon as the internet became regularly available to the majority, there was no such thing as true privacy. And is it wrong to suspect that someone possibly has something illegal to hide from the government if he or she is extremely concerned about his or her "privacy"? The word "privacy" is funny, really, because people are flipping out about it. As if they had no idea the government could get access to the camera on your phone, tablet, or computer to get images of your face and surrounding environments if you are of interest. Or get access to your hard drive to scan for anything malicious. Since I can definitively say that privacy, literally, does not exist anymore for anyone depending on the federal government in any way, it would be great for an OGA to get that information for the greater good. Something else that must be clarified is that the OGA is not a vigilante group, they work for the federal government and still have combat procedures to follow. I cannot tell you the difference between "need to know" and "nice to know" information, since people who try to plan mass chaos, bloodshed, and suffering are blending those two lines way too much. For example, ISIS communicates in code sometimes using gaming consoles like the PS4. So is knowing what you type in a game "nice to know" anymore? Or what if someone arrives and leaves their house at odd hours meeting with odd people that ended up being part of the next mass shooting? In my opinion, that is no longer "nice to know" information anymore.

5. PredPol is the abbreviation the company uses for their program called Predictive Policing. Yes, it does not require nearly as much personal information to operate effectively. Here is a quick rundown on how it works: PredPol can only predict when and where a crime is most likely to occur, not definitely. Data from the past is collected and put into an algorithm, which includes many variables such as weather, time of day, surrounding environment, and lighting (just to name a few). Arguably the most important piece of data is when previous crimes have occurred in that area. Basically, the program focuses on and analyzes the environment in 500 foot by 500 foot squares on a map, not the individuals. Each box in the map (which looks like a basic Google Maps view from a satellite"s perspective) is highlighted in a different color, pink signifying a high potential for crime. If an area has a high probability for crime, police officers will drive around in that area to help ward off anyone who may want to commit a crime just by having a presence there. Matter-a-fact, PredPol has a caused a 12% decrease in crime with only a sixth month time period after being introduced in the Foothill portion of Los Angles in 2011. If you would like to read into the pros and cons of this technology, check out the following links: http://www.sfweekly.com..., http://www.economist.com..., and http://www.predpol.com....

6. This OGA is very similar to Blackwater in ways, but very different as well. If you would like too, something I highly recommend, you can look-up Blackwater. The company was started and is owned by a former U.S. Navy SEAL and is composed of Special Forces operators only. They do have a presence in the United States, but their efforts are majorly focused in foreign countries. Blackwater works hand-in-hand with the U.S. government, but it is not overseen by the federal government, so you can see how some serious gray areas emerged when some operatives accidentally killed a handful of Iraqi civilians (I believe they were Iraqi"s). The U.S. government did not claim responsibility for their actions since Blackwater is not part of the U.S. military, but wanted the operatives to be tried in a U.S. court. While the Iraqi government wanted the Blackwater operatives to be tried in an Iraqi court, which would have pretty much guaranteed the operatives a very long prison stay and possibly even death. Now focusing on corruption, the OGA will be overseen by the government, but not owned by the government. So bribery or any form of corruption will not be supported at all, these are Special Forces soldiers we talking about anyways! They have put way too much into their work to ruin everything over a bit of cash. Trust me, Special Forces operatives put ideals and morality before money. They are loyal until death, seriously. But if an operative where to accept a bribe, he or she would be tried in the Supreme Court secretly. If convicted, the operative would be kicked-out of the OGA and forced to serve prison (the exact amount of time depends on how bad the offense was).

I hoped this has clarified a few things!
Zerotime

Con

[Let's clarify something little first. "Numerical justice" is a reference to the algorithms which are used by the application Predictive Policing.]

Your arguments are really helpful to justify the need and use of this organization, yet, there are still major points a normal citizen can't accept.

The first one still is corruption. The concept of having someone overseeing the organization is clear, in this case the government which makes sense. At least, it's Government Agency, the name implies that the government should be involved in any action the organization takes. The judge oversees the executive power, judicature orders executive. In this context, we see that its model of power is legitimate and we're accustomed to it.

You say that the judge, the state, oversees the organization but it doesn't own it so that the judge can't pose a corruption risk. Nevertheless, if the judge doesn't own the organization, who does? In the context of a court, will the jurors own the organization? Or even the attendees of a trial? Who will own the government organization which is not owned by the state itself? Who will, therefore, regulate and control the hitman organization?

Even if we believed what you say about the morality and loyalty of specially trained soldier, can you guarantee us that the politicians who oversee the organization can't be bribed by the owners of the organization? The problem of having a hitman association just became a society problem, or to point it out better: an investor problem. How can you assure me that the one who owns the organization, investors, capitalists seeking for more money than they can count, will not use his money to bribe high ranking politicians or officers?

We would just found a organization which is infected by the brood of corruption, power lust and avarice. And if the organization is infected from the very beginning, can there even be any goal which is justified by the greater good or are most goals just justified by money?

But, would we even know if the organization was infected? We would not! We would probably never! How can we know if documents are regulated and inaccessible because they have a high level data security. How can we know if the organization acts covertly? How can we know if basically everything is secret? We have to wait for the next whistleblower.

Money is important in this matter. We're not talking about a non-profit, we're talking about an agency which is legitimated to kill anyone who poses a security risk. We can't know who a risk is and neither why one is a risk, we can't know because confidentiality levels are too high and data is, apparently, handled very carefully.

Leading into the next civilly controversial point: privacy. Most people know that their privacy has gone with the introduction of the internet. They know that you can google them, they know that you can get information about them, but they don't want you to use their data for evaluation without their consent! We have a glass skin, nonetheless, you are not allowed to just use what is inside our glass skin.

Even though you clarified a lot of things, the matter of corruption just rose on another level, alongside the problem of having less privacy. It should be clear that the demand of more information and less secrets is huge. Nobody can believe something entirely if he has not seen it. You can't expect us to sit back and see people intervening in situations which will be covered up afterwards due to possible miscalculations and wrongdoings. We will be informed if something went well, we will not be informed if something went badly.

The whole organization seems like Pandora's box. From the outside, we see a shiny box, but the moment we open it, we will get to know of corruption and bribery. Good from the outside, not so good from the inside.
Debate Round No. 2
Jordan_Fletcher

Pro

Jordan_Fletcher forfeited this round.
Zerotime

Con

Zerotime forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jordan_Fletcher

Pro

Jordan_Fletcher forfeited this round.
Zerotime

Con

Zerotime forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Jordan_Fletcher

Pro


Alrighty, what you had to say was some good stuff. I will do my best to prove that corruption will have an extremely low chance of happening within the OGA and being okay with the government possibly knowing a bit more about the people that it governs.



To kick it off, I’m curious what would drive a politician to bribe an operator whose sole purpose is to protect the public from mass shooters, bombers, and such? Personal protection? If that is the case, then the politician would have to come up with a good reason and present it to the president, representatives from congress, and the Supreme Court as to why he or she should have personalized protection from OGA instead of secret security. If an operator is presented with an opportunity to accept a bribe, then the operator will be told to decline the offer respectfully and report it to his commanding officer. What happens to the person who attempted to bribe the operator depends on what and how much he or she would give the operator, what they wanted the operator to do, and the motivation behind why he or she wanted done. And why would a rich investor want to bribe politicians? Could you give me an example of what the briber would gain from doing so? Because I literally cannot think of anything, unless it is for personal protection, which I listed above.



To help aid in making accepting bribes less appealing, the median salary for each operative will be around $85,000. Operatives’ salaries will increase the more years they do it and the higher ranking they are in the OGA.



I also think that you are misunderstanding my use of the term “hitman”. These operatives can be overly generalized as hitmen and women (hopefully some women want to join, fingers crossed, :D), since they are sent to find and observe, arrest, or—if the situation gets way out of hand—shoot and kill certain people based on intel gathered on the subject(s). Do not forget that these operatives roam But they are more defenders of the majority that federal hitmen. The OGA are like an undercover, unassuming S.W.A.T. team with access to do what they need to in order to apprehend the subject—or kill, depending on the circumstances.



The problem with asking people’s consent to view their search history for any compiling eyebrow raising searches and purchases is that the people who are doing wrong, will say no (that is almost guaranteed). Those who are doing right, but do not feel comfortable with being tracked by the government may say no as well. As you can see, confusion will arise because now the bad guys are mixed in with the good guys. Plus, what is that is so confidential that it cannot be used to help others? Oh, and the software programs that the government uses scrolls through messages, emails, and transcripts of calls looking for key words that are suspicious and the frequency in which they are used. The rest of the message is disregarded unless to many “shady” words pop-up from the software’s skimming.



Care for an example? Bryce Williams, a former news reporter was fired from his job because of the inappropriate ways that he interacted with his fellow coworkers. It was later determined that he had mental health issues, which solidified his termination as a news castor. Williams was not able to control his anger inside of him, so he let out his steam on social media. In his Twitter posts, he posted threats and accused his former coworkers of saying racist comments not long before he tracked down two of his coworkers that were briefly talking with someone on live TV, and shot and killed all three of them. The thing that is so frustrating about this incident is that he displayed all of the signs of himself being a guaranteed threat to society, but the government did not act on the information that was lying right at its finger tips. Three complete innocent people died that day that had done nothing wrong and everything right, not to mention the viewers that saw them being shot on TV. There very well could have been children watching that, imagine how disturbing that would be, viewing it through the eyes of a parent. Would you have wanted your kid(s) to see three people get murdered in cold blood during their adolescent years? That entire scenario could have been totally avoided if the government were to have skimmed through his social media, realized he was a threat, arrested him, and had him put in a mental health institution for a period of time longer than most. Two husbands, a wife, and children would have been able to see their loved ones return home from work.



P.S.: I did not know that numerical justice was used in the algorithms of PredPol. Is it used just used in PredPol are is that a general term used for a number of other crime predicting software?


Zerotime

Con

Zerotime forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Jordan_Fletcher 1 year ago
Jordan_Fletcher
Sorry for not posting a while ago, :(.
Posted by Jordan_Fletcher 1 year ago
Jordan_Fletcher
And finally:
Care for an example? Bryce Williams, a former news reporter was fired from his job because of the inappropriate ways that he interacted with his fellow coworkers. It was later determined that he had mental health issues, which solidified his termination as a news castor. Williams was not able to control his anger inside of him, so he let out his steam on social media. In posts on Twitter, he posted threats and accused his former coworkers of saying racist comments not long before he tracked down two of his coworkers that were briefly talking with someone on live TV, and shot and killed all three of them. The thing that is so frustrating about this incident is that he displayed all of the signs of himself being a guaranteed threat to society, but the government did not act on the information that was lying right at its finger tips. Three complete innocent people died that day that had done nothing wrong and everything right, not to mention the viewers that saw them being shot on TV. There very well could have been children watching that, imagine how disturbing that would be, viewing it through the eyes of a parent. Would you have wanted your kid(s) to see three people get murdered in cold blood during their adolescent years? That entire scenario could have been totally avoided if the government were to have skimmed through his social media, realized he was a threat, arrested him, and had him put in a mental health institution for a period of time longer than most. Two husbands, a wife, and children would have been able to see their loved ones return home from work.

P.S.: I did not know that numerical justice was used in the algorithms of PredPol. Is it used just used in PredPol are is that a general term used for a number of other crime predicting software?
Posted by Jordan_Fletcher 1 year ago
Jordan_Fletcher
Continuing:
I also think that you are misunderstanding my use of the term "hitman". These operatives can be overly generalized as hitmen and women (hopefully some women want to join, fingers crossed, :D), since they are sent to find and observe, arrest, or"if the situation gets way out of hand"shoot and kill certain people based on intel gathered on the subject(s). Do not forget that these operatives roam But they are more defenders of the majority that federal hitmen. The OGA are like an undercover, unassuming S.W.A.T. team with access to do what they need to in order to apprehend the subject"or kill, depending on the circumstances.

The problem with asking people"s consent to view their search history for any compiling eyebrow raising searches and purchases is that the people who are doing wrong, will say no (that is almost guaranteed). Those who are doing right, but do not feel comfortable with being tracked by the government may say no as well. As you can see, confusion will arise because now the bad guys are mixed in with the good guys. Plus, what is that is so confidential that it cannot be used to help others? Oh, and the software programs that the government uses scrolls through messages, emails, and transcripts of calls looking for key words that are suspicious and the frequency in which they are used. The rest of the message is disregarded unless to many "shady" words pop-up from the software"s skimming.
Posted by Jordan_Fletcher 1 year ago
Jordan_Fletcher
Oops, I ran out of time, XP. I was really busy with school work this week and I have very limited internet connection time, so sorry about not responding sooner. Anyways, here is my rebuttal to you, Zerotime:

Alrighty, what you had to say was some good stuff. I will do my best to prove that corruption will have an extremely low chance of happening within the OGA and being okay with the government possibly knowing a bit more about the people that it governs.

To kick it off, I"m curious what would drive a politician to bribe an operator whose sole purpose is to protect the public from mass shooters, bombers, and such? Personal protection? If that is the case, then the politician would have to come up with a good reason and present it to the president, representatives from congress, and the Supreme Court as to why he or she should have personalized protection from OGA instead of secret security. If an operator is presented with an opportunity to accept a bribe, then the operator will be told to decline the offer respectfully and report it to his commanding officer. What happens to the person who attempted to bribe the operator depends on what and how much he or she would give the operator, what they wanted the operator to do, and the motivation behind why he or she wanted done. And why would a rich investor want to bribe politicians? Could you give me an example of what the briber would gain from doing so? Because I literally cannot think of anything, unless it is for personal protection, which I listed above.

To help aid in making accepting bribes less appealing, the median salary for each operative will be around $85,000. Operatives" salaries will increase the more years they do it and the higher ranking they are in the OGA.
No votes have been placed for this debate.