Am I the only one for whom the article had the opposite than intended effect? I was expecting some real life horror story of a false positive or deliberate framing, but instead I was given examples of how this data could be used constructively to try and evaluate where there might be a high likelihood of crime occurring, and trying to prevent it. In my eyes, using tax dollars to prevent crime rather than punishing it a HUGE win!
The system only provides leads for further inspection, not evidence. When a metal detector has a positive, false or not, you inspect the bag, you don't arrest the person.
Comments
Am I the only one for whom the article had the opposite than intended effect? I was expecting some real life horror story of a false positive or deliberate framing, but instead I was given examples of how this data could be used constructively to try and evaluate where there might be a high likelihood of crime occurring, and trying to prevent it. In my eyes, using tax dollars to prevent crime rather than punishing it a HUGE win!
There was a false positive in there. There was a "probable criminal activity" that turned out to be a real estate agent.
Are we not willing to accept a certain number of false positives if the net effect is good?
The system only provides leads for further inspection, not evidence. When a metal detector has a positive, false or not, you inspect the bag, you don't arrest the person.