The linked article about traumatic experiences and memory is incorrect. I haven't read anything by the psychologist whose research the article is about, so it might be the author, and not the psychologist, got things a little wrong. Research in neurophysiology shows that stressful events are more memorable as stress hormones increase the ability of the hippocampus to lay down new memories. That doesn't mean that those memories are particularly accurate and this is where the confusion might have originated.
The 6 month test in the Foothill Division of the LAPD was a blind test. The police received maps every day but they didn't know if the map was generated by PredPol or the LAPD crime analyst. Unfortunately, PredPol has obfuscated the results in their "proven accuracy" chart. It is positive result for their software but not as positive as it leads you to believe. The accuracy part didn't need the blind setup but it will be useful for the efficacy study. They will have to wait years for such a study to yield accurate results. There is no way around that. Still, that doesn't mean the software isn't useful. It is way overpriced though. I am thinking about writing my own implementation and selling it at only $10K a pop, one time sale, no SAAS here.
A final point on predictive policing. A number of media articles treat this as an application of "Big Data". It is not big data. Mohler says that he needs 1200 to 2000 crime data points to generate prediction boxes that have a reasonable amount of accuracy. That is the size of data for about any statistical analysis and is no where near what is considered big data. The reason that murder is not included is because cities don't usually have enough data points for murder (God, what an awful euphemism this is, as I write it).
I dug into this and found a useful video of a lecture by George Mohler who is the chief scientist for PredPol. http://vimeo.com/50315082 Fair Warning! this video is rather technical and assumes familiarity with the subject.
He talks about this chart at 30 min. into the video. The graph is a comparison of the LAPD crime analyst hot spot generation compared with that generated by PredPol's algorithm which uses a semi-parametric self-exciting point process. The x axis represents the number (or possibly a percentage of total crimes on a particular day) of crimes that happen within all hot spots. Their repeated claim that PredPol's algorithm is twice as accurate as an analyst is really only valid when generating 20 hotspots. At higher numbers of hot spots this ration falls but is still better in all cases. This is data for a six month period in the Foothill division of the LAPD.
The video eliminates the secrecy of all this. Mohler, in fact, points out that you can take the same equations he lists along with crime data and write a program to generate hot spots (prediction boxes) yourself. Oee critical point is that the algorithm is different from traditional hotspot generation in that it is predictive rather than just reflecting past crime activity.
I am guessing the first chart's x-axis ranges from 0%-90% predictive accuracy. I think they cut off the upper 10% because they wouldn't have the data for that part. The curve would likely be asymptotic towards 100% accuracy as the boxes are increased from 100 to the number of boxes covering an entire city. Anyway it would stretch police resources too much to include more boxes and contradict the whole point of hot spotting. A better description of that graph would be to say that PredPol's software is 20%-25% more accurate in predicting locality of crime than some crime analyst would be using statistical methods that are not mentioned.
I am not following your logic. One square mile can potentially contain, roughly, 100 prediction boxes (500ft x 500ft). At 500 square miles, LA has a total of 50,000 potential prediction boxes. If all are used that will indeed be assured to account for 100% of crime. The whole point of predictive policing, and hot spot policing in general, is that a small portion of the total area is selected for additional periodic patrols.
Re: Re: Re: In addition to the reasons given above...
I don't see why you need to use the margin of error to affect the shape of the box. The margin of error can be a separate value while holding the shape to a square. A patrol just has to include the whole box while traveling streets that don't necessarily align with the box anyway. Including territory just outside of the box doesn't invalidate the conformance of a patrol to the Koper Curve Principle. The only difference that variability in the nature of structures contained in the box makes is how the patrols take place (i.e. whether by vehicle, on foot, or by boat).
If you look at the partial map of Santa Cruz on their website, it includes one prediction box that is 300 feet from police headquarters. Knowing Santa Cruz, that seems conceivable, but it is an odd result.
There is an important aspect of predictive policing that is not mentioned in any of the press releases or press articles. I am guessing the reason it isn't mentioned is because law enforcement is afraid that if it was common knowledge the effectiveness would be diminished. Unfortunately, leaving it out skews our understanding of predictive policing and leads to false ideas like the software can predict a crime at this spot and this particular time. If this missing aspect, the Koper Curve Principle, was explained than it would probably lead to a greater public acceptance and less skepticism.
The Koper Curve Principle is used in association with any type of "hot spot" type patrolling. It basically says that periodic, and highly visible, patrols of an area that are 12-16 minutes in length maximize the use of police resources. Crime will be reduced in that area as a result of criminals noticing what seems to be an increase in police presence. This effect will differ depending on the crime and obviously, will have little effect on crimes of passion. At any rate, predictive policing is not a stakeout within a prediction box. The following is a recent study about the effectiveness of various police practices. http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/Telep_Weisburd.pdf
Why is this software package any better that a veteran cop's intuition or any other statistical analysis of crime data? The advantage over intuition is that it avoids cultural or emotional biases, it adapts to changes more quickly than a human would, and it can be more easily communicated to officers who are not veterans within a particular police department. Since the data proving effectiveness is not there yet we can't know if this secret algorithm is any better than some other mix of statistical analysis. This secrecy is the snake-oil part. If the multitude of Phd's had truly figured out a unique statistical analysis then they would have patented it and secrecy would not be part of the package. All I can see is that they update this daily with yesterday's statistics, the algorithm this new data and applies Bayesian Inference, and it is fed into GIS software to produce convenient maps. This is something that is not too hard to reproduce. Don't dismiss the idea that predictive policing might be effective but do be skeptical that PredPol has the only true answer. PredPol's hard sell approach certainly makes me more skeptical of them.
At some point an active shooter drill will run into some kid who has martial arts experience. The fake shooter will be maimed and the resulting paranoia about potential lawsuits will kick in and end this insanity all across the nation.
As for the simulated drug searches, this makes sense because the police are preparing the students for future, non-simulated, random drug searches. The child being bitten teaches all the other kids they must remain still.
From the Washington Times article which is the most thorough about this story no doubt because Audrey Hudson used to work for WT and the notes seized were for an article published by the WT.
The search warrant for the raid, issued to Maryland State Trooper Victor Hodgin by a district court judge, made no reference to the documents. A copy obtained by The Times indicates that the search was to be narrowly focused on the pursuit of “firearms” and their “accessories and/or parts,” as well as any communications that that might be found in Ms. Hudson and Mr. Flanagan’s home related to “the acquisition of firearms or accessories.”
The documents seized were printed documents and not files on a computer. The did seize guns that were registered to Ms. Hudson. The agents claimed that she was not allowed to possess guns because her husband had been convicted of resisting arrest for an incident in 1985. The thin justification starts with an on-line purchase of a silencer for a machine gun from Sweden. Paul Flanagan claims this was a potato launcher but law enforcement is claiming that "potato gun" is slang for a silencer. There is more investigation by the Coast Guard, who Flanagan works for, and evidence from acquaintances that Flanagan possessed gun himself. The warrant allowed them to look for documentation but they also knew that Ms. Hudson was a journalist before the raid started. That fact should have constrained their search of her documents. The agents assume that documents labelled "for official use only" and "law enforcement sensitive" were obtained illegally and seize them. What really seems unjustified is their seizure of the related notes by Ms. Hudson. They had to know these were journalistic notes. The Washington Times is filing a lawsuit. This might seem risky for Paul Flanagan considering his case is still being investigated. I suspect Flanagan and his wife and their lawyers have figured out that there is not much of a case against him and that the misdeeds of the Coast Guard/Maryland State Police can be pursued.
There are too many prosecutors willing to punish parents further for a child's death even in marginal circumstances. That argument might come into play in a decision to prosecute, or a judges sentencing decision, but I don't see a fair way of keeping a victim's parents from being included in such a law. Once you take a step away from direct criminality (i.e. bully/victim and that's assuming the bully can be prosecuted under the law) then both sets of parents are criminal in allowing unmonitored internet access.
If you accept O'Mara's argument that the parents of a bullying child are criminally responsible because they exhibit "willful blindness or gross negligence" in allowing the bullying to occur, then you have to accept the same argument for the victim's parents. The victim's parents also must have been too lax in monitoring their child's online behavior. I doubt O'Mara is willing to hold the victim's parents equally responsible and I wonder how he would argue himself out of that inconsistency.
The experience with LulzSec two years ago show that a VPN service can be subject to a court order (in the UK) or other legal subpoena or warrant despite not having servers, or any presence, in the U.S. http://blog.hidemyass.com/2011/09/23/lulzsec-fiasco/
Law enforcement cooperation between countries may mean you are not necessarily protected although you might be more protected than being subject to U.S. law enforcement (or CIA etc.) activities directly.
Even during the Nixon administration the Pentagon Papers were allowed to be published at the New York Times without prior restraint. There are a lot of countries that don't have that level of press freedom including the UK. The chilling effect from the Obama administration's pursuit of leakers is an important and unfortunate side effect. However, it is indirect, not a direct attack upon press freedom. You may argue that is just quibbling about the details but wait and see what happens in the UK concerning the Guardian.
I think I understand what Cameron means by double standard. The Guardian wrote about and criticized the phone hacking done by other newspapers. The phone hacking illegally invaded the privacy of individuals. Now the Guardian is publishing information acquired illegally by Snowden. There is an equivalency made about an individual's privacy with the government's privacy, its official secrets. There is another argument implied in this that is hard for me, as an American, or any American to see. UK law tends to treat ill-gotten information as ill-gotten no matter how many times removed from the original source. I saw this in the recent censorship case brought against researchers Flavio Garcia et. al. concerning the publication of weaknesses in the Megamos Crypto based vehicle immobilizers. In that case the High Court judge in his preliminary ruling said that because the Megamos Crytpo algorithm that was published by a Bulgarian company on the internet possible might have been acquired illegally then that information was tainted. That meant that the analysis by Garcia et. al. was also tainted and could be kept from being published through prior restraint. If one assumes that the information that Snowden acquired is similarly tainted, then the Gaurdian's act of publishing portions of it is also tainted and possibly illegal. There, now you have a double standard being used by the Guardian. I am not expert in UK law so if anyone with more knowledge can expound on this, please do.
On the post: DailyDirt: Memories Are Not As Reliable As They Used To Be
stress and memory
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
Re:
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
Big Data?
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
Re: proven accuracy chart
http://vimeo.com/50315082
Fair Warning! this video is rather technical and assumes familiarity with the subject.
He talks about this chart at 30 min. into the video. The graph is a comparison of the LAPD crime analyst hot spot generation compared with that generated by PredPol's algorithm which uses a semi-parametric self-exciting point process. The x axis represents the number (or possibly a percentage of total crimes on a particular day) of crimes that happen within all hot spots. Their repeated claim that PredPol's algorithm is twice as accurate as an analyst is really only valid when generating 20 hotspots. At higher numbers of hot spots this ration falls but is still better in all cases. This is data for a six month period in the Foothill division of the LAPD.
The video eliminates the secrecy of all this. Mohler, in fact, points out that you can take the same equations he lists along with crime data and write a program to generate hot spots (prediction boxes) yourself. Oee critical point is that the algorithm is different from traditional hotspot generation in that it is predictive rather than just reflecting past crime activity.
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
proven accuracy chart
A better description of that graph would be to say that PredPol's software is 20%-25% more accurate in predicting locality of crime than some crime analyst would be using statistical methods that are not mentioned.
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
Re: Fuzzy math
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
Re: Re: Re: In addition to the reasons given above...
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
prediction boxes in Santa Cruz
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
The Koper Curve Principle is used in association with any type of "hot spot" type patrolling. It basically says that periodic, and highly visible, patrols of an area that are 12-16 minutes in length maximize the use of police resources. Crime will be reduced in that area as a result of criminals noticing what seems to be an increase in police presence. This effect will differ depending on the crime and obviously, will have little effect on crimes of passion. At any rate, predictive policing is not a stakeout within a prediction box.
The following is a recent study about the effectiveness of various police practices.
http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/Telep_Weisburd.pdf
Why is this software package any better that a veteran cop's intuition or any other statistical analysis of crime data? The advantage over intuition is that it avoids cultural or emotional biases, it adapts to changes more quickly than a human would, and it can be more easily communicated to officers who are not veterans within a particular police department. Since the data proving effectiveness is not there yet we can't know if this secret algorithm is any better than some other mix of statistical analysis. This secrecy is the snake-oil part. If the multitude of Phd's had truly figured out a unique statistical analysis then they would have patented it and secrecy would not be part of the package. All I can see is that they update this daily with yesterday's statistics, the algorithm this new data and applies Bayesian Inference, and it is fed into GIS software to produce convenient maps. This is something that is not too hard to reproduce. Don't dismiss the idea that predictive policing might be effective but do be skeptical that PredPol has the only true answer. PredPol's hard sell approach certainly makes me more skeptical of them.
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
Re: Self Fulfilling Prophecy
On the post: Educational Exercises Aimed At School Shootings, Drug Abuse Result In Terrorized Students And K-9 Attacks
active shooter scenario
As for the simulated drug searches, this makes sense because the police are preparing the students for future, non-simulated, random drug searches. The child being bitten teaches all the other kids they must remain still.
On the post: Educational Exercises Aimed At School Shootings, Drug Abuse Result In Terrorized Students And K-9 Attacks
Brazil
On the post: Feds Took Reporter's Notes During Unrelated Search, After They Spotted Documents She Had Obtained Via FOIA
Re:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents-seize-records-reporter-washington-tim/? page=all#pagebreak
The search warrant for the raid, issued to Maryland State Trooper Victor Hodgin by a district court judge, made no reference to the documents. A copy obtained by The Times indicates that the search was to be narrowly focused on the pursuit of “firearms” and their “accessories and/or parts,” as well as any communications that that might be found in Ms. Hudson and Mr. Flanagan’s home related to “the acquisition of firearms or accessories.”
The documents seized were printed documents and not files on a computer. The did seize guns that were registered to Ms. Hudson. The agents claimed that she was not allowed to possess guns because her husband had been convicted of resisting arrest for an incident in 1985. The thin justification starts with an on-line purchase of a silencer for a machine gun from Sweden. Paul Flanagan claims this was a potato launcher but law enforcement is claiming that "potato gun" is slang for a silencer. There is more investigation by the Coast Guard, who Flanagan works for, and evidence from acquaintances that Flanagan possessed gun himself. The warrant allowed them to look for documentation but they also knew that Ms. Hudson was a journalist before the raid started. That fact should have constrained their search of her documents. The agents assume that documents labelled "for official use only" and "law enforcement sensitive" were obtained illegally and seize them. What really seems unjustified is their seizure of the related notes by Ms. Hudson. They had to know these were journalistic notes.
The Washington Times is filing a lawsuit. This might seem risky for Paul Flanagan considering his case is still being investigated. I suspect Flanagan and his wife and their lawyers have figured out that there is not much of a case against him and that the misdeeds of the Coast Guard/Maryland State Police can be pursued.
On the post: GoDaddy's Chief SOPA Supporter Now Running For Arizona Governor Highlighting Her 'Internet' Experience
top 10 Go Daddy girl outfits Christine should wear
Poorly photoshopped, but amusing nonetheless.
On the post: Lawyer Wants New Law To Hold Parents Criminally Liable For Their Kids' 'Cyberbullying'
Re: Re: legal inconsistency
On the post: Lawyer Wants New Law To Hold Parents Criminally Liable For Their Kids' 'Cyberbullying'
legal inconsistency
On the post: Another US 'Secure' Service Shuts Down: CryptoSeal VPN Goes Dark To Protect Against US Surveillance
Re: Re:
http://blog.hidemyass.com/2011/09/23/lulzsec-fiasco/
Law enforcement cooperation between countries may mean you are not necessarily protected although you might be more protected than being subject to U.S. law enforcement (or CIA etc.) activities directly.
On the post: UK Prime Minister Urges Investigation Of The Guardian Over Snowden Leaks; There Shall Be No Free Press
Re: did you say "deeply engrained"...?
On the post: UK Prime Minister Urges Investigation Of The Guardian Over Snowden Leaks; There Shall Be No Free Press
the double standard
If one assumes that the information that Snowden acquired is similarly tainted, then the Gaurdian's act of publishing portions of it is also tainted and possibly illegal. There, now you have a double standard being used by the Guardian. I am not expert in UK law so if anyone with more knowledge can expound on this, please do.
On the post: School Suspends Student Indefinitely For A Drawing Of A Cartoon Bomb He Made At Home
Re: Re:
Next >>