Elizabeth E. Joh (University of California, Davis – School of Law Reckless Automation in Policing (Berkeley Technology Law Journal Online, 2022) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Automated decision-making plays an increasingly larger role in policing. Traditional methods of police investigation have been augmented by tools like facial recognition, predictive analytics, license plate readers, and robotics. How should we evaluate the growth of automation in policing? There is no shortage of answers, but this essay starts with a simple observation: by focusing on automation’s harms to persons first. American policing is rife with reckless automation. If we accept the premise of reckless automation, the conversation about accountability, artificial intelligence, and policing might benefit from a seemingly unrelated policy framework: that of experimentation on human subjects. Borrowing from that framework does not imply that reckless automation in policing is the literal equivalent of medical or psychological experiments on human subjects. Nor does such a comparison imply that the technical aspects of institutional review boards should apply directly to new policing strategies. But turning to a bioethical framework has value because it draws attention to the subjects – the communities affected – of policing. To the extent that the ethical considerations applied in human subjects research provide useful insights to apply to the many changes in policing, they open a new conversation. What if we think of new forms of automated decision-making in policing as experiments on communities that might impose harms with life-altering decisions?
Interesting and recommended.