Connect with us

The Conversation

DOJ funding pipeline subsidizes questionable big data surveillance technologies

Published

on

DOJ funding pipeline subsidizes questionable big data surveillance technologies

Predictive policing aimed to identify crime hot spots and ‘chronic’ offenders but missed the mark.
Patrick T. Fallon for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, American University

Predictive policing has been shown to be an ineffective and biased policing tool. Yet, the Department of Justice has been funding the crime surveillance and analysis technology for years and continues to do so despite criticism from researchers, privacy advocates and members of Congress.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., joined by five Democratic senators, called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to halt funding for predictive policing technologies in a letter issued Jan. 29, 2024. Predictive policing involves analyzing crime data in an attempt to identify where and when crimes are likely to occur and who is likely to commit them.

The request came months after the Department of Justice failed to answer basic questions about how predictive policing funds were being used and who was being harmed by arguably racially discriminatory algorithms that have never been proven to work as intended. The Department of Justice did not have answers to who was using the technology, how it was being evaluated and which communities were affected.

While focused on predictive policing, the senators’ demand raises what I, a law professor who studies big data surveillance, see as a bigger issue: What is the Department of Justice’s role in funding new surveillance technologies? The answer is surprising and reveals an entire ecosystem of how technology companies, police departments and academics benefit from the flow of federal dollars.

The money pipeline

The National Institute of Justice, the DOJ’s research, development and evaluation arm, regularly provides seed money for grants and pilot projects to test out ideas like predictive policing. It was a National Institute of Justice grant that funded the first predictive policing conference in 2009 that launched the idea that past crime data could be run through an algorithm to predict future criminal risk. The institute has given US$10 million dollars to predictive policing projects since 2009.

Because there was grant money available to test out new theories, academics and startup companies could afford to invest in new ideas. Predictive policing was just an academic theory until there was cash to start testing it in various police departments. Suddenly, companies launched with the financial security that federal grants could pay their early bills.

National Institute of Justice-funded research often turns into for-profit companies. Police departments also benefit from getting money to buy the new technology without having to dip into their local budgets. This dynamic is one of the hidden drivers of police technology.

How predictive policing works – and the harm it can cause.

Once a new technology gets big enough, another DOJ entity, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, funds projects with direct financial grants. The bureau funded police departments to test one of the biggest place-based predictive policing technologies – PredPol – in its early years. The bureau has also funded the purchase of other predictive technologies.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded one of the most infamous person-based predictive policing pilots in Los Angeles, operation LASER, which targeted “chronic offenders.” Both experiments – PredPol and LASER – failed to work as intended. The Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General identified the negative impact of the programs on the community – and the fact that the predictive theories did not work to reduce crime in any significant way.

As these DOJ entities’ practices indicate, federal money not only seeds but feeds the growth of new policing technologies. Since 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has given over $7.6 billion of federal money to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies for a host of projects. Some of that money has gone directly to new surveillance technologies. A quick skim through the public grants shows approximately $3 million directed to facial recognition, $8 million for ShotSpotter and $13 million to build and grow real-time crime centers. ShotSpotter (now rebranded as SoundThinking) is the leading brand of gunshot detection technology. Real-time crime centers combine security camera feeds and other data to provide surveillance for a city.

The questions not asked

None of this is necessarily nefarious. The Department of Justice is in the business of prosecution, so it is not surprising for it to fund prosecution tools. The National Institute of Justice exists as a research body inside the Office of Justice Programs, so its role in helping to promote data-driven policing strategies is not inherently problematic. The Bureau of Justice Assistance exists to assist local law enforcement through financial grants. The DOJ is feeding police surveillance power because it benefits law enforcement interests.

The problem, as indicated by Sen. Wyden’s letter, is that in subsidizing experimental surveillance technologies, the Department of Justice did not do basic risk assessment or racial justice evaluations before investing money in a new technological solution. As someone who has studied predictive policing for over a decade, I can say that the questions asked by the senators were not asked in the pilot projects.

Basic questions of who would be affected, whether there could be a racially discriminatory impact, how it would change policing and whether it worked were not raised in any serious way. Worse, the focus was on deploying something new, not double-checking whether it worked. If you are going to seed and feed a potentially dangerous technology, you also have an obligation to weed it out once it turns out to be harming people.

Only now, after activists have protested, after scholars have critiqued and after the original predictive policing companies have shut down or been bought by bigger companies, is the DOJ starting to ask the hard questions. In January 2024, the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security asked for public comment to be included in a report on law enforcement agencies’ use of facial recognition technology, other technologies using biometric information and predictive algorithms.

Arising from a mandate under executive order 14074 on advancing effective, accountable policing and criminal justice practices to enhance public trust and public safety, the DOJ Office of Legal Policy is going to evaluate how predictive policing affects civil rights and civil liberties. I believe that this is a good step – although a decade too late.

Lessons not learned?

The bigger problem is that the same process is happening again today with other technologies. As one example, real-time crime centers are being built across America. Thousands of security cameras stream to a single command center that is linked to automated license plate readers, gunshot detection sensors and 911 calls. The centers also use video analytics technology to identify and track people and objects across a city. And they tap into data about past crime.

A wall of monitors shows aerial and street views of a city
Real-time crime centers like this one in Albuquerque, N.M., enable police surveillance of entire cities.
AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan

Millions of federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act are going to cities with the specific designation to address crime, and some of those dollars have been diverted to build real-time crime centers. They’re also being funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Real-time crime centers can do predictive analytics akin to predictive policing simply as a byproduct of all the data they collect in the ordinary course of a day. The centers can also scan entire cities with powerful computer vision-enabled cameras and react in real time. The capabilities of these advanced technologies make the civil liberties and racial justice fears around predictive policing pale in comparison.

So while the American public waits for answers about a technology, predictive policing, that had its heyday 10 years ago, the DOJ is seeding and feeding a far more invasive surveillance system with few questions asked. Perhaps things will go differently this time. Maybe the DOJ/DHS report on predictive algorithms will look inward at the department’s own culpability in seeding the surveillance problems of tomorrow.The Conversation

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Professor of Law, American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

AI harm is often behind the scenes and builds over time – a legal scholar explains how the law can adapt to respond

Published

on

theconversation.com – Sylvia Lu, Faculty Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan – 2024-11-22 07:25:00

One AI harm is pervasive facial recognition, which erodes privacy.
DSCimage/iStock via Getty Images

Sylvia Lu, University of Michigan

As you scroll through your social media feed or let your favorite music app curate the perfect playlist, it may feel like artificial intelligence is improving your life – learning your preferences and serving your needs. But lurking behind this convenient facade is a growing concern: algorithmic harms.

These harms aren’t obvious or immediate. They’re insidious, building over time as AI systems quietly make decisions about your life without you even knowing it. The hidden power of these systems is becoming a significant threat to privacy, equality, autonomy and safety.

AI systems are embedded in nearly every facet of modern life. They suggest what shows and movies you should watch, help employers decide whom they want to hire, and even influence judges to decide who qualifies for a sentence. But what happens when these systems, often seen as neutral, begin making decisions that put certain groups at a disadvantage or, worse, cause real-world harm?

The often-overlooked consequences of AI applications call for regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with this rapidly evolving technology. I study the intersection of law and technology, and I’ve outlined a legal framework to do just that.

Slow burns

One of the most striking aspects of algorithmic harms is that their cumulative impact often flies under the radar. These systems typically don’t directly assault your privacy or autonomy in ways you can easily perceive. They gather vast amounts of data about people — often without their knowledge — and use this data to shape decisions affecting people’s lives.

Sometimes, this results in minor inconveniences, like an advertisement that follows you across websites. But as AI operates without addressing these repetitive harms, they can scale up, leading to significant cumulative damage across diverse groups of people.

Consider the example of social media algorithms. They are ostensibly designed to promote beneficial social interactions. However, behind their seemingly beneficial facade, they silently track users’ clicks and compile profiles of their political beliefs, professional affiliations and personal lives. The data collected is used in systems that make consequential decisions — whether you are identified as a jaywalking pedestrian, considered for a job or flagged as a risk to commit suicide.

Worse, their addictive design traps teenagers in cycles of overuse, leading to escalating mental health crises, including anxiety, depression and self-harm. By the time you grasp the full scope, it’s too late — your privacy has been breached, your opportunities shaped by biased algorithms, and the safety of the most vulnerable undermined, all without your knowledge.

This is what I call “intangible, cumulative harm”: AI systems operate in the background, but their impacts can be devastating and invisible.

Researcher Kumba Sennaar describes how AI systems perpetuate and exacerbate biases.

Why regulation lags behind

Despite these mounting dangers, legal frameworks worldwide have struggled to keep up. In the United States, a regulatory approach emphasizing innovation has made it difficult to impose strict standards on how these systems are used across multiple contexts.

Courts and regulatory bodies are accustomed to dealing with concrete harms, like physical injury or economic loss, but algorithmic harms are often more subtle, cumulative and hard to detect. The regulations often fail to address the broader effects that AI systems can have over time.

Social media algorithms, for example, can gradually erode users’ mental health, but because these harms build slowly, they are difficult to address within the confines of current legal standards.

Four types of algorithmic harm

Drawing on existing AI and data governance scholarship, I have categorized algorithmic harms into four legal areas: privacy, autonomy, equality and safety. Each of these domains is vulnerable to the subtle yet often unchecked power of AI systems.

The first type of harm is eroding privacy. AI systems collect, process and transfer vast amounts of data, eroding people’s privacy in ways that may not be immediately obvious but have long-term implications. For example, facial recognition systems can track people in public and private spaces, effectively turning mass surveillance into the norm.

The second type of harm is undermining autonomy. AI systems often subtly undermine your ability to make autonomous decisions by manipulating the information you see. Social media platforms use algorithms to show users content that maximizes a third party’s interests, subtly shaping opinions, decisions and behaviors across millions of users.

The third type of harm is diminishing equality. AI systems, while designed to be neutral, often inherit the biases present in their data and algorithms. This reinforces societal inequalities over time. In one infamous case, a facial recognition system used by retail stores to detect shoplifters disproportionately misidentified women and people of color.

The fourth type of harm is impairing safety. AI systems make decisions that affect people’s safety and well-being. When these systems fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. But even when they function as designed, they can still cause harm, such as social media algorithms’ cumulative effects on teenagers’ mental health.

Because these cumulative harms often arise from AI applications protected by trade secret laws, victims have no way to detect or trace the harm. This creates a gap in accountability. When a biased hiring decision or a wrongful arrest is made due to an algorithm, how does the victim know? Without transparency, it’s nearly impossible to hold companies accountable.

This UNESCO video features researchers from around the world explaining the issues around the ethics and regulation of AI.

Closing the accountability gap

Categorizing the types of algorithmic harms delineates the legal boundaries of AI regulation and presents possible legal reforms to bridge this accountability gap. Changes I believe would help include mandatory algorithmic impact assessments that require companies to document and address the immediate and cumulative harms of an AI application to privacy, autonomy, equality and safety – before and after it’s deployed. For instance, firms using facial recognition systems would need to evaluate these systems’ impacts throughout their life cycle.

Another helpful change would be stronger individual rights around the use of AI systems, allowing people to opt out of harmful practices and making certain AI applications opt in. For example, requiring an opt-in regime for data processing by firms’ use of facial recognition systems and allowing users to opt out at any time.

Lastly, I suggest requiring companies to disclose the use of AI technology and its anticipated harms. To illustrate, this may include notifying customers about the use of facial recognition systems and the anticipated harms across the domains outlined in the typology.

As AI systems become more widely used in critical societal functions – from health care to education and employment – the need to regulate harms they can cause becomes more pressing. Without intervention, these invisible harms are likely to continue to accumulate, affecting nearly everyone and disproportionately hitting the most vulnerable.

With generative AI multiplying and exacerbating AI harms, I believe it’s important for policymakers, courts, technology developers and civil society to recognize the legal harms of AI. This requires not just better laws, but a more thoughtful approach to cutting-edge AI technology – one that prioritizes civil rights and justice in the face of rapid technological advancement.

The future of AI holds incredible promise, but without the right legal frameworks, it could also entrench inequality and erode the very civil rights it is, in many cases, designed to enhance.The Conversation

Sylvia Lu, Faculty Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post AI harm is often behind the scenes and builds over time – a legal scholar explains how the law can adapt to respond appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Awkwardness can hit in any social situation – here are a philosopher’s 5 strategies to navigate it with grace

Published

on

theconversation.com – Alexandra Plakias, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hamilton College – 2024-11-22 07:25:00

‘I don’t even know what to say to that.’
Catherine Falls Commercial/Moment via Getty Images

Alexandra Plakias, Hamilton College

The holidays offer many opportunities for awkward moments. Political discussions, of course, hold plenty of potential. But any time opinions differ, where estrangements have caused lingering rifts, or when behaviors veer toward the inappropriate, awkwardness can set in.

Awkwardness is what happens in social interactions when you suddenly find yourself without a script to guide you through. Maybe the situation is new or catches you off guard. Maybe you don’t know what’s expected of you, or you aren’t sure what role you’re playing in the social drama around you. It’s characterized by feelings of self-consciousness, uncertainty and discomfort.

As a philosopher who studies moral psychology, I’m interested in awkwardness because I wanted to understand the ways social discomfort stops people from engaging with difficult topics and challenging conversations. Awkwardness seems to inhibit people, even when their moral values suggest they should speak up. But it has a positive role to play, too – it can alert people to areas where their social norms are lacking or outdated.

People often blame themselves when things take a turn toward the awkward. But awkwardness is really a collective failure – people aren’t awkward, situations are. And they become awkward because you don’t have the resources to navigate your way through tricky social situations.

Awkwardness is often confused with embarrassment, but the two are different in important ways, and so are their remedies. Embarrassment is a response to a personal failing or gaffe, and the right response is to acknowledge it, own it and move on. Because awkwardness is caused by a lack of social guidance, you can try to anticipate and head it off before it happens, or you can respond to it by trying to develop better or clearer social scripts to help you – and others – navigate similar situations in the future.

After researching and writing an entire book on awkwardness, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not something we can – or should – avoid altogether. But there are a few strategies people can use to minimize awkwardness and deal with it when it does, inevitably, happen.

1. Know your goals, know your roles

Uncertainty is the oxygen of awkwardness. Before you engage in a potentially awkward or contentious interaction, ask yourself: What do I want to get out of this?

When you’re clear on your goals for the interaction, not only are you better able to perform your role in it, but you’re also giving clearer signals to others, helping them perform their roles in the unfolding social drama.

So, if you’re worried it’ll be awkward when your uncle starts in on his annual political rant, think about what you want the outcome to be. Do you want to convince him he’s wrong? Unlikely to happen. Do you want other family members to feel less anxious? Do you want your own views to be heard?

I’m not suggesting that some forethought will make things go smoothly or guarantee that no one’s feelings will be hurt. But it will help you feel more confident in your ability to navigate toward your desired outcome.

woman bringing pie to a family dinner table
Serving dessert could provide a lifeline to someone looking for a diversion.
Drazen Zigic/iStock via Getty Images Plus

2. There’s no ‘I’ in awkward

Awkward situations breed intense self-consciousness. This is both uncomfortable and counterproductive. By focusing on yourself, you’re not attuned to the people around you or the signals they’re sending – signals that could offer you a pathway out of the awkward situation. So make sure you’re paying attention to the other players in the drama, not just your own discomfort.

3. Plan, coordinate and be explicit

People do so much planning in other areas of their lives, yet they expect social interactions to just flow effortlessly. But like a vacation or a hike in the woods, sometimes a conversation goes better when you approach it with a map. Have some go-to topics or questions at hand.

And you don’t have to go it alone. If you’re worried about broaching a sensitive topic, or interacting with a particularly prickly guest, coordinate with a friend or relative.

If you expect to see someone with whom you have an unresolved relationship – an estranged family member, an old friend you ghosted – try to do some prep work in advance. Emails or letters can give people a chance to process reactions without putting them on the spot.

Even having a scripted activity on deck can make things less awkward. It doesn’t have to be anything formal, like a board game. Just keep some tasks available for guests who might otherwise lurk uncomfortably – like shaking up the salad dressing or putting forks on the table.

4. Laugh it off

If, despite your best efforts, awkwardness does strike, offer people a way out – they’ll probably grab it. This doesn’t need to be momentous; it could be a little joke, a small-talk topic, or even – and only if things get very desperate – knocking a spoon off the table to break the silence.

5. Consider the alternatives

These strategies might help you avoid awkwardness. But take a moment to consider whether you really want to. Awkwardness is the result of social uncertainty; it slows things down and curbs your confidence.

In its absence, other emotions can set in. Having things out in the open can be a relief, but it can also lead to anger, sadness and other feelings that might best be saved for another occasion.

So if things are awkward, it’s worth looking around to see what role that awkwardness is playing, and what might take its place if it’s gone.The Conversation

Alexandra Plakias, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hamilton College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Awkwardness can hit in any social situation – here are a philosopher’s 5 strategies to navigate it with grace appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

No need to overload your cranberry sauce with sugar this holiday season − a food scientist explains how to cook with fewer added sweeteners

Published

on

theconversation.com – Rosemary Trout, Associate Clinical Professor of Culinary Arts & Food Science, Drexel University – 2024-11-22 07:24:00

Fall means cranberry season − and sweet seasonal holiday dishes.
AP Photo/Sergei Grits

Rosemary Trout, Drexel University

The holidays are full of delicious and indulgent food and drinks. It’s hard to resist dreaming about cookies, specialty cakes, rich meats and super saucy side dishes.

Lots of the healthy raw ingredients used in holiday foods can end up overshadowed by sugar and starch. While adding extra sugar may be tasty, it’s not necessarily good for metabolism. Understanding the food and culinary science behind what you’re cooking means you can make a few alterations to a recipe and still have a delicious dish that’s not overloaded with sugar.

Particularly, if you’re a person living with Type 1 diabetes, the holidays may come with an additional layer of stress and wild blood glucose levels. It’s no time for despair though – it is the holidays, after all.

Cranberries are one seasonal, tasty fruit that can be modified in recipes to be more Type 1 diabetic-friendly – or friendly to anyone looking for a sweet dish without the extra sugar.

I am a food scientist and a Type 1 diabetic. Understanding food composition, ingredient interactions and metabolism has been a literal lifesaver for me.

Type 1 diabetes defined

Type 1 diabetes is all day every day, with no breaks during sleep, no holidays or weekends off, no remission and no cure. Type 1 diabetics don’t make insulin, a hormone that is required to live that promotes the uptake of glucose, or sugar, into cells. The glucose in your cells then supplies your body with energy at the molecular level.

Consequently, Type 1 diabetics take insulin by injection, or via an insulin pump attached to their bodies, and hope that it works well enough to stabilize blood sugar and metabolism, minimize health complications over time and keep us alive.

Type 1 diabetics mainly consider the type and amount of carbohydrates in foods when figuring out how much insulin to take, but they also need to understand the protein and fat interactions in food to dose, or bolus, properly.

In addition to insulin, Type 1 diabetics don’t make another hormone, amylin, which slows gastric motility. This means food moves more quickly through our digestive tract, and we often feel very hungry. Foods that are high in fat, proteins and fiber can help to stave off hunger for a while.

Cranberries, a seasonal treat

Cranberries are native to North America and grow well in the Northeastern and Midwestern states, where they are in season between late September and December. They’re a staple on holiday tables all over the country.

A bowl of cranberries with the zest of an orange on top.
Cranberries are a classic Thanksgiving side dish, but cranberry sauce tends to contain a lot of sugar.
bhofack2/iStock via Getty Images

One cup of whole, raw cranberries contains 190 calories. They are 87% water, with trace amounts of protein and fat, 12 grams of carbohydrates and just over 4 grams of soluble fiber. Soluble fiber combines well with water, which is good for digestive health and can slow the rise of blood glucose.

Cranberries are high in potassium, which helps with electrolyte balance and cell signaling, as well as other important nutrients such as antioxidants, beta-carotene and vitamin C. They also contain vitamin K, which helps with healthy blood clotting.

Cranberries’ flavor and aroma come from compounds in the fruit such as cinnamates that add cinnamon notes, vanillin for hints of vanilla, benzoates and benzaldehyde, which tastes like almonds.

Cranberries are high in pectin, a soluble starch that forms a gel and is used as a setting agent in making jams and jellies, which is why they thicken readily with minimal cooking. Their beautiful red jewel-tone color is from a class of compounds called anthocyanins and proanthocyanidins, which are associated with treating some types of infection.

They also contain phenolics, which are protective compounds produced by the plant. These compounds, which look like rings at the molecular level, interact with proteins in your saliva to produce a dry, astringent sensation that makes your mouth pucker. Similarly, a compound called benzoic acid naturally found in cranberries adds to the fruit’s sourness.

These chemical ingredients make them extremely sour and bitter, and difficult to consume raw. To mitigate these flavors and effects, most cranberry recipes call for lots of sugar.

All that extra sugar can make cranberry dishes hard to consume for Type 1 diabetics, because the sugars cause a rapid rise in blood glucose.

Cranberries without sugar?

Type 1 diabetics – or anyone who wants to reduce the added sugars they’re consuming – can try a few culinary tactics to lower their sugar intake while still enjoying this holiday treat.

Don’t cook your cranberries much longer after they pop. You’ll still have a viscous cranberry liquid without the need for as much sugar, since cooking concentrates some of the bitter compounds, making them more pronounced in your dish.

A line of spoons, each heaped with a pile of powdered spice.
Adding spices to your cranberries can enhance the dish’s flavor without extra sugar.
klenova/iStock via Getty Images

Adding cinnamon, clove, cardamom, nutmeg and other warming spices gives the dish a depth of flavor. Adding heat with a spicy chili pepper can make your cranberry dish more complex while reducing sourness and astringency. Adding salt can reduce the cranberries’ bitterness, so you won’t need lots of sugar.

For a richer flavor and a glossy quality, add butter. Butter also lubricates your mouth, which tends to compliment the dish’s natural astringency. Other fats such as heavy cream or coconut oil work, too.

Adding chopped walnuts, almonds or hazelnuts can slow glucose absorption, so your blood glucose may not spike as quickly. Some new types of sweeteners, such as allulose, taste sweet but don’t raise blood sugar, requiring minimal to no insulin. Allulose has GRAS – generally regarded as safe – status in the U.S., but it isn’t approved as an additive in Europe.

This holiday season you can easily cut the amount of sugar added to your cranberry dishes and get the health benefits without a blood glucose spike.The Conversation

Rosemary Trout, Associate Clinical Professor of Culinary Arts & Food Science, Drexel University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post No need to overload your cranberry sauce with sugar this holiday season − a food scientist explains how to cook with fewer added sweeteners appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

Trending