> Does being black or Muslim, having far-left or far-right political views, increase or decrease your threat score?
One of the things they explicitly mentioned was "gang associations". In my US experience, groups of black or Hispanic* youths who sometimes do illegal things (shoplifting, trespassing, underage drinking, pot smoking) are often called "gangs" in cases where groups of white or Asian youths wouldn't, even if they were doing the same things. So I think it's inevitable that this kind of Citizenship Score will reproduce and fortify existing structures of racist discrimination.
* This primarily applies in parts of the US where the local system of racism classifies Hispanic people as nonwhite.
A minority male between 14 and 40 is more likely to mug someone than a 70 year old caucasian woman; that's not something made up by racist conservatives. But if there's such a thing as rights, they must apply even to higher-threat demographics.
One interesting exercise is thinking about base rates of mugging, and likelihood ratios for mugging, and discerning your own personal "4th amendment suspension" breaking point for each percentage.
This would be a likely outcome if used as you describe. However a big danger is using it to convince minorities/immigrants who haven't done anything actually wrong.
I think probably the most effective way to solve the problem would be to make people better aware of what makes you appear threatening and non-threatening in a confrontation.
Unfortunately in America, what makes you seem threatening is based on the color of your skin.
I am an African American living in a predominantly White county in the south that was made famous 30 years ago nationally for being anti-minority.
While, the county has changed somewhat because of an influx of younger people to the burbs, I still worry when my son starts driving because he is a big tall dude even though he would never hurt a fly, has lived in the burbs all of his life, and his friendship circle is like the cast of a WB show.
Yes but so you can try and target your scare resource against those more likely to commit illegal acts not round up all insert ethnic group of your choice.
Sounds like a stellar way to miss out on talent, alienate people thereby creating opportunities for foreign intelligence agencies, and create institutional and cultural blind spots. Much like the obsession with Islamic terrorism, it ignores the potential of betrayal from racially/culturally “safe” places.
Most of all though, if your security relies on racism to succeed, it’s already failing. You can’t psychically find traitors, and traitors don’t have a race. Traitors can be turned from any group and the only defense is to evaluate everyone impartially, relentlessly, and consistently. If you find those measures insufficient, don’t turn to profiling race, study behavior!
Profiling is like torture... it appeals to people who don’t understand a damned thing about how either fails in practice... or it appeals to people who already like such ideas regardless of merit.
I believe Duskstar's point was that minorities without records would be treated better, and non-minorities with records would be treated worse. Thus, police would react to someone's criminal history, and not just their skin color.
Well that's downright horrifying. An article from somewhere else notes some categories beyond not only criminals, but ethnic profiling for potential separatist groups, etc.
This is some straight up Minority Report business.
The boundary is where racial demographics are closest to the national average, are you arguing that voter intimidation is more likely in places demographically similar to average national demographics and less likely in places statistically further from the average (either higher % white people or higher % non-white people than national average)?
> came under fire from activists and civil libertarians who argued the firm provided a sort of “tech-washing” for racially biased, ineffective policing methods.
Well, yes. The function of labelling crime as "gang related" is primarily to impose higher sentences on nonwhite criminals.
The most effective approach is pre-emptive intervention in the style of the Violence Reduction Unit: http://www.actiononviolence.org.uk/about-us (invented in Boston, extremely effective in Glasgow)
It's a bit simplistic to speak only about migrants.
In the case of Islamic terrorism, I've heard it commented that recruits come from the children of migrants rather than the migrants themselves.
This certainly seemed to borne out by the London 7/7 bombers and the Charlie Hebdo attackers to name two cases.
Prison populations in western countries also seem to have disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities.
I also heard that Canada refuses to break down crime figures by ethnicity/race as a matter of public policy. If that is true it seems that there is a fear that the figures might look bad for minorities.
In the interests of community harmony, authorities commonly seem to want to accentuate the positive and sweep any negativity under the rug.
We are also seeing a huge rise in harassment, intimidation and other non-criminal precursors to violence. Especially towards Asian, Afro, and Hispanic people.
One of the things they explicitly mentioned was "gang associations". In my US experience, groups of black or Hispanic* youths who sometimes do illegal things (shoplifting, trespassing, underage drinking, pot smoking) are often called "gangs" in cases where groups of white or Asian youths wouldn't, even if they were doing the same things. So I think it's inevitable that this kind of Citizenship Score will reproduce and fortify existing structures of racist discrimination.
* This primarily applies in parts of the US where the local system of racism classifies Hispanic people as nonwhite.
reply