
An algorithm wipes clean the criminal pasts of thousands - jjp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48072164
======
dahart
It sounds like Code For America is doing great things! That said, I wish the
title wasn’t tech focused, since that’s not the real news here, and the red-
herring implication that it might be some kind of algorithmic mistake is not
just completely irrelevant, but subtly pushing the narrative that tech is out
of control and fallible — the exact opposite of what happened here.

Possibly the most important piece of summarizing information in this article
is that a person in the position to do so actually decided to expunge records
automatically, without waiting for those convicted to defend themselves.
That’s pretty good news!

~~~
zaksoup
Hey, I'm on the team at Code for America that built these tools. I really
appreciate your comment because you're exactly right - the issue is and has
always been one of policy and implementation. One of the core parts of our
mission at CfA is to "show what's possible." In this case that means showing
DAs and legislators that proactive record clearance is possible, simple, and
good for communities.

As other commenters are pointing out what we built amounts to a few "if"
statements and an excel macro. They're right! That's a good thing too, because
it means that governments are well positioned to follow our work without
needing a high-cost technology partner or RFP.

If you're in California and would like to ask your state reps and senators to
support more legislation what would require proactive record clearance please
take a look at AB 1076 and AB 972 (linked below).

AB 1076:
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1076)
AB 972:
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB972)

~~~
dahart
I love the point that the simplicity of implementation is one of the strengths
here, that's true!

Does Code For America have room for occasional and/or part time
contributors... people with full time jobs that would love to help for a few
hours a week here and there?

~~~
zaksoup
You should totally check out our brigade network:
[https://brigade.codeforamerica.org/](https://brigade.codeforamerica.org/)

While they brigades aren't always working on the same projects as full time
staff they're often doing high impact work and are super well connected to
their local communities. They've built some really great projects in
partnership with their local governments and CBOs.

~~~
AdamM12
I'm a member of the KC brigade and I know there is a team working on this for
MO. Similar law was passed.

------
erentz
> "As part of the new law, those with prior convictions could now seek to have
> them struck off their record."

I really don't get the thought process that leads to this kind of thing.
"Let's make it so we have to have to implement a new system that people
petition and we review to determine if we expunge their record."

Versus: "The new standard is if the conviction was for X, and the person does
not have Y on their record, (etc.), then the record of X conviction is
considered expunged. And then behind the scenes automatically make it so."

~~~
turc1656
I could be wrong, but I believe the logic behind this is that the law is still
paramount and because the person did in fact break the law (in this case a
_felony_ crime), they should have to apply for their conviction to be expunged
and make the case in court. Because at the end of the day, while we might not
consider what they did a big deal now, when they committed the act it was a
serious crime.

I also think they want manual reviews because there could be plenty of cases
where they only charged the person with possession for personal use but might
actually suspect them of worse crimes like intent to distribute or something
else like possible gang affiliation. So I don't think they ever really want
there to just be a blanket "oh there's no charge of a violent crime so we can
wipe it" because they might be wiping the record of a known gang member or
serious criminal but didn't have quite enough evidence to charge and convict
them on the other offenses.

~~~
4ntonius8lock
So basically, don't expunge records for people who are innocent of other
crimes, but who we think are bad people?

How is this not a punishment outside of due process?

------
denzil_correa
The software mentioned in the article is Clear My Record [0].

[0] [https://www.clearmyrecord.org](https://www.clearmyrecord.org)

------
kelchm
Ah, yet another example of a switch statement being "AI".

~~~
tw1010
I think that's fake code in the images ;)

~~~
arethuza
I was trying to work out what language it is - also switching on strings like
that doesn't seem like a great idea.

~~~
denzil_correa
The project is hosted on Github [0], I'm not sure if the entire source code is
available though.

[0]
[https://github.com/codeforamerica/autoclearance](https://github.com/codeforamerica/autoclearance)

~~~
RiverBanshee
Hi, engineer on the project here! That's an old version of the code that
turned out to be too slow for the volume of records we need to process. The
current version, which you see in the images from the article, is written in
Golang.

~~~
xvector
You’re doing incredible work. Keep it up!

(Also use consts so you don’t make typos - or so your typos are at least
consistent :)

------
nmstoker
Minor point: the headline keeps it quite neutral as to whether this is a good
thing or a mistake!

~~~
tracker1
That's probably a good thing overall... I mean neutral reporting and titling
of articles. Too much reporting has become editorialized.

~~~
dahart
It is not a good thing in this case. The mere suggestion that it might be a
mistake _is_ editorializing, not being neutral to the article. I assume the
comment above is being diplomatic in it's wording, but being "neutral" about
whether these convictions were intentional or a mistake is not the same thing
as neutral reporting.

The topic of AI or algorithms making mistakes is not relevant to this article
at all. It doesn't summarize the content, and the implication that it might be
code run amok, in the title, is super misleading and undermines the positive
things the people in the article are trying to do, both the politicians who
did the right thing, and the efforts of Code For America.

~~~
tracker1
I wasn't just commenting in this case. I just mean in general, I'd prefer to
see more neutral reporting and less editorializing.

------
triplee
Wasn't this a maguffin in one of the Batman movies?

~~~
syx
my thoughts exactly lol

------
darepublic
Is this really a sophisticated algorithm or simply a script or database update
statement. Every piece of code as reported by the news these days is
algorithmic or AI related

------
aportnoy
Imagine having a switch fallthrough bug in code like this…

------
tobbe2064
No break statements!

------
kwhitefoot
Well done George Gascon!

