The UK Police is testing technology to ‘assess the risk of someone committing a crime’
The government is using Facebook’s business model to predict “criminal” behaviour
The UK police are exploring a cutting-edge method of using artificial intelligence (AI) to predict criminal behaviour. By analysing patterns and data, authorities aim to identify individuals who might commit crimes in the future and intervene early to provide them with support. On the surface, this sounds like a positive step towards a safer society. However, this practice brings up thought-provoking questions about personal freedom, privacy, and whether it is ethical to treat individuals as data points. Could such a system unintentionally criminalise people based on what they might do, rather than what they have done?
The shift towards data-driven policing
For years, social media companies like Facebook have perfected the art of data collection. They analyse every click, like, and comment to serve tailored content and advertisements. This process reduces individuals to data points in order to predict their future behaviour. Now, similar methods are being adopted by government agencies, including law enforcement.
When policing moves towards data-driven systems, it risks losing the human element. Individuals may be seen as a collection of statistics rather than as complex, unique people. Such depersonalisation can have troubling implications. It could lead to stereotyping and, in turn, disproportionately impact specific groups such as ethnic minorities, immigrants, and people from low-income backgrounds, amplifying existing inequalities in society.
The role of artificial intelligence in policing
AI works by analysing vast amounts of data to identify patterns and predict outcomes. In predictive policing, this involves looking at a combination of personal data, environmental factors, and crime statistics to assess the likelihood of an individual committing a crime.
But AI is not perfect. Its predictions are only as good as the data it learns from, which often reflects existing societal biases. For instance, if historical policing data shows disproportionate arrests in certain areas or among specific groups, the AI might reinforce those biases, labelling individuals as high-risk purely because they belong to a certain demographic or live in a specific neighbourhood.
This raises an essential question: are we ready to let a machine make decisions about people’s lives, especially when its understanding of human behaviour is limited and influenced by historical inequalities?
The risk of perpetuating stereotypes by predictive policing
Predictive policing tools, if not carefully designed, risk reinforcing harmful stereotypes. For example, if the AI consistently flags individuals from certain communities as high-risk, it could lead to unfair targeting by law enforcement. This not only harms the individuals involved but also damages trust between communities and the police.
Imagine a young person from a disadvantaged background who, despite their circumstances, is working hard to create a better future. If predictive policing labels them as a potential criminal, they may face unwarranted interventions, surveillance, or stigma. Such actions could discourage them from pursuing their goals, trapping them in a cycle of unfair treatment and reduced opportunities.
Being labelled as a criminal by predictive policing
Social media platforms have already shown us how data-driven algorithms can limit personal growth. By curating content based on our past behaviour, they create echo chambers where we are exposed only to ideas and perspectives that align with our preferences. This stifles our ability to think critically and engage with new ideas.
Similarly, predictive policing could limit an individual’s ability to grow and change. If a person is flagged as a potential risk, they may be treated differently by society, denied opportunities, or monitored more closely than others. This denies them the chance to prove themselves as more than just their circumstances or history. Consider historical figures like Malcolm X or Nelson Mandela, whose lives took transformative turns despite early challenges. Would they have been given the same chances to grow if they were labelled by predictive policing?
Is it possible to balancing technology and humanity?
Technology is a powerful tool that can improve our lives, but it must be used responsibly. Predictive policing has the potential to make society safer, but it also carries the risk of eroding personal freedoms if not implemented carefully. Balancing the benefits of technological advancements with ethical considerations is crucial.
We need systems that prioritise humanity over statistics. Individuals should be given the opportunity to change, to be treated with dignity, and to be recognised for their unique qualities. Policymakers must ensure that these tools are transparent, free of bias, and used as a supplement to human judgment, not a replacement for it.
As the government and law enforcement embrace AI, society must remain vigilant. The promise of safety should not come at the cost of personal freedoms. Citizens must ask critical questions about how this technology is developed, who it benefits, and how it is used.
We stand at a crossroads. Will AI in policing help us create a more just and equitable society, or will it push us towards a surveillance state where individuals are reduced to data points? The answer lies in how we balance innovation with our values as a society. Only by keeping humanity at the heart of technological progress can we ensure a future that is both safe and fair.