Is predictive-policing, facial recognition helpful or intrusive? Voters will decide
Initiative 2 on the Nov. 2 ballot asks Bellingham voters to prevent the city and its Police Department from using technology such as facial-recognition programs and predictive-policing software, according to the Voter’s Pamphlet provided to Whatcom County voters from the state Secretary of State’s Office.
Predictive policing has been used for more than a decade, using algorithms to interpret police records, analyzing arrest or parole data to send officers to target chronic offenders, or identifying places where crime may occur, according to a June 2020 Reuters article on the first U.S. city to ban its use.
It’s similar to how retailers know that demand for certain items rises when a snowstorm is in the forecast, according to a 2010 article in the National Institute of Justice Journal.
“Proponents of predictive policing argue that computer algorithms can predict future crimes more accurately and objectively than police officers relying on their instincts alone. Some also argue that predictive policing can provide cost savings for police departments by improving the efficiency of their crime-reduction efforts,” according to an April 2020 report published by the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive think tank.
“Critics, on the other hand, warn about a lack of transparency from agencies that administer predictive policing programs. They also point to a number of civil rights and civil liberties concerns, including the possibility that algorithms could reinforce racial biases in the criminal justice system,” the Brennan Center wrote.
Police departments in cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and Chicago have stopped using or limited their use of predictive technology.
Bellingham has restricted use of police technology before, after traffic cameras were installed at several intersections and the city sought to use them to ticket drivers who ran red lights.
Some 68% of Bellingham voters rejected the use of red-light cameras in a November 2011 citywide initiative.
But such predictive policing methods were used to solve a series of crimes in 2016, Police Chief Flo Simon told the City Council in an Oct. 12 hearing.
“We were actually able to capture someone committing the crime. It was in progress,” Simon told the council.
Bellingham Police stopped using the software in 2018 because of technical troubles and its high cost, she said.
Ballots were mailed Wednesday, Oct. 13, and must be postmarked — not simply mailed — or placed in ballot drop boxes by 8 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 2.
Pro
“We just don’t need to spend money on facial-recognition and predictive-policing methods that are racially biased,” initiative volunteer Sage Jones told The Bellingham Herald.
“It’s important for people to understand that it’s dirty data in, dirty data out,” she said.
According to their Voter’s Pamphlet statement, such artificial intelligence is prone to bias against people and communities of color.
“Invasive policing tools are already used — and our faces picked up by surveillance cameras and scanned — without our consent,” the statement said. “When used alongside law-enforcement databases, social media monitoring, drone surveillance, stingray devices (for tracking mobile phones), license-plate scanners and more, the potential for egregious abuse of power and biased targeting is enormous.”
The measure is supported by the ACLU of Washington state, along with Whatcom County Jobs With Justice, Imagine No Kages, Whatcom Democratic Socialists of America, Whatcom Peace and Justice Center, Whatcom Human Rights Task Force, Sunrise Bellingham, Bellingham Unity Committee, Riveters Collective, Bellingham Tenants Union, Whatcom Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Con
In their Voter’s Pamphlet statement against the initiative, authors Phyllis McKee, David Charleston and Sean Brogan said that Bellingham Police already reject facial-recognition software and some forms of predictive policing.
Their statement said that the measure is written so broadly that it prevents use of “standard and proven methods of tracking and crime prevention” used by police, such as sending extra patrols to a part of town where burglaries had been increasing.
Opponents also criticize the initiative for combining predictive policing and facial-recognition technology into the same measure.
“This initiative is an outright ban and would severely hinder future law enforcement,” their statement said.
McKee, who lives in the Puget neighborhood, told The Herald that she was worried that the measures could invalidate convictions.
“It seems short-sighted to me to eliminate those technologies when they could be helpful,” McKee told The Herald. “Really a slippery slope for people to turn away from any kind of technology that might aid police.”
Other social measures
The initiative is one of four Bellingham voters will face on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.
The measures were brought forward by a coalition of local groups called People First Bellingham are seeking renter protections, limits on police technology, neutrality on labor issues from city contractors, and hazard pay and other rights for hourly wage workers, volunteer Jones told The Herald.
Council members voted 4-0-1 to place the measures on the ballot at their July 12 meeting. Councilman Michael Lilliquist abstained, and council members Pinky Vargas and Dan Hammill were absent.
But council members and the city’s legal staff said at the meeting that they think the measures won’t survive a court challenge if voters approve them.
Jones disagreed, saying the measures were modeled on successful initiatives in other cities across the country.
At its Oct. 12 meeting, the council voted 6-0 to urge voters to reject them.
If approved, the measures would take effect 10 days after the final election canvass, and City Council members cannot change or amend them for two years after they take effect.
People First Bellingham had raised $71,137 through Oct. 14 in support of the four measures, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission. That includes a $50,000 grant from the nonprofit Group Health Foundation in Seattle.
This story was originally published October 20, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
