
Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database - Jerry2
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzdp5v/police-in-canada-are-tracking-peoples-negative-behavior-in-a-risk-database
======
emptybits
FTA: The Ontario Provincial Police say, “We can knock on someone’s door and
say, ‘We’re so worried about you, can we come in and chat?’”

Yikes. I understand the positive spin is the police care about the wellbeing
of at-risk people with these visits. But wouldn't it also be true that
anything and everything the police observe and believe as a result of such a
visit could also be used against the resident or others in the home?

~~~
mattlondon
What I find weird about all of this is that people actually answer their door
to unexpected & unknown visitors?! Do you also answer your phone to unexpected
& unknown callers?!

My rule of thumb built up over years of annoyance & bullshit is: if you don't
know who it is, or aren't expecting anything, ignore it; 99.9% of the time
someone unexpected/unknown on the phone or at your door are just going to be
wasting your time and attention. (trying to sell you something/con
you/religious recruitment/generally be weird/mad etc)

~~~
sonnyblarney
When the police come to your door, you're going to answer.

Agree with the program or not, this is not spam.

~~~
king_magic
There’s a reaaaaaally thin line between (sincere) “We’re so worried about you,
can we come in and chat?” and (menacing, oppressive) “We’re so worried about
you, can we come in and chat?”.

And there’s a really thin line between having the choice to answer your door,
and being compelled to for no legitimate reason.

~~~
liability
Less menacing than either would be _" can you come out to chat"_, or better
yet, _" come to the door to chat"_.

I'd let concerned EMTs into my house, but I'd rather keep concerned cops out.

------
jammygit
“Information about people believed to be “at risk” of becoming criminals or
victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to
the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention
intended to lower their risk levels.”

Remind anybody else of precrime from minority report?

~~~
laumars
First of all I want to say that I don't agree with the collection of this
data.

...however there is an important distinction with Minority Report in that
people were _convicted_ of crimes based on premonitions. If this data was
instead used to _support_ at risk people - like how disruptive kids at school
are often given support to help enable them to grow into better people - then
I'd be more sympathetic with the motives. For example "at risk" people might
be those from less affluent or educated backgrounds who might be resentful but
they might just need a little help to realise they too have opportunities and
potential.

The problem is, once you have this data, it becomes increasingly small steps
from using it to enable those who need help the most to abusing it to
persecute those who are already neglected by society.

~~~
tempguy9999
> help enable them to grow into better people

Wow, 'better people' \- that's loaded and almost completely unspecified here.
That's ripe for abuse.

"become christian, god will make you a better person"

"do as you're told, obey orders, you'll be a better person"

"don't disrupt the teacher even if they're wrong, people don't like 'clever'
people"

I could go on all day. That's the thin end of a dangerous wedge. I don't like
conformists.

~~~
laumars
You're looking for outrage rather than trying to understand point I'm making
and in doing so you've gotten the wrong end of the proverbial stick.

I'm not saying everyone should conform, I'm just saying some people need more
help than others to make a life for themselves. Sometimes it's because of
substance abuse, sometimes it's because of mental, physical or sexual abuse as
a kid that leads them into a pattern of bad behaviour. Sometimes it's just
circumstances or a mental attitude that is less dramatic than the
aforementioned. But in each case it's better to work with them to help enable
them to lead happy lives rather than ignore them, outcast them and then
incarcerate them because they had nowhere else to turn.

If people are just disruptive because they're smart then they're just
disruptive because they're smart. They're not an "at risk" group. By "at risk"
we're talking people who turn to crime because they felt it was their only
option in life. What I was talking about is supporting them so they realise
they do have options. If they then choose crime, well that's then their
choice. But in many instances people actually don't want that when they
realise they have options in their life.

~~~
perl4ever
This is the sort of logic that is used everywhere, whether by police or social
services, but it doesn't work in practice the way it does in theory.

Providing help to people before there is a crisis sounds so nice and helpful,
but due to the inherent drastic negative consequences of entering into the
system, it ends up merely moving the punishment for not fitting in forward of
the crisis. Thus, trying to be pro-active ends up harming people and/or
reinforcing the mentality that you try to cope at all costs without help until
you reach a breaking point.

For example, we all want to help people who are suicidal, right? But if
someone's behavior triggers a response to such apparent potential, then very
traumatic and non-helpful things can take place, including the temporary
and/or permanent loss of freedoms.

~~~
laumars
I understand where you're coming from and did address some of what you
discussed in my first post too. I completely agree it's a short hop from
helping to interfering, however where we differ is I think not having a
support system at all is more negligent. I should also reiterate my earlier
caveat that I don't agree in profiling people at a mass level like the article
suggests is happening.

I'd be interested to read the figures you have on why support systems like
these don't work in practice because all studies I've read suggest otherwise.
Whether it be programmes that offer ex-convicts jobs and thus reduces their
likelihood of re-offending; or support at an earlier age such as special
schools for kids who are frequently expelled from the mainstream schools and
how they've reduced the rates of young offenders.

The key is really to give people alternative options rather than "protecting"
them by removing options.

Your suicidal point is a separate topic though. That's a mental illness rather
than an action someone chooses or is lead into.

~~~
perl4ever
"Your suicidal point is a separate topic though. That's a mental illness
rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into."

I don't understand the distinction you are making. People with mental illness
make choices, are lead into things, etc.

People who are expelled from school or incarcerated don't _want_ to be in that
situation but they are anyway. That seems like mental illness to me -
counterproductive behavior that can't be willed to stop.

The tragic fact I'm trying to communicate about attempts to help people is
that the first step is to get someone who is vulnerable to trust authorities.
And then that trust is necessarily betrayed, because the whole point is to try
to help people without their consent. Not being able to trust is a primary
cause or contributing factor to being unable to function properly in society.

~~~
laumars
> _I don 't understand the distinction you are making. People with mental
> illness make choices, are lead into things, etc._

> _People who are expelled from school or incarcerated don 't want to be in
> that situation but they are anyway. That seems like mental illness to me -
> counterproductive behavior that can't be willed to stop._

Fair point. I probably shouldn't have made that distinction.

> _The tragic fact I 'm trying to communicate about attempts to help people is
> that the first step is to get someone who is vulnerable to trust
> authorities. And then that trust is necessarily betrayed, because the whole
> point is to try to help people without their consent. Not being able to
> trust is a primary cause or contributing factor to being unable to function
> properly in society._

In many of the more extreme cases that is true. However it doesn't always work
out that way. Realistically this is a far to broad a topic to be generalising
the way we have but it's still been a read regardless.

------
hedgedoops2
The problem is that police are being involved in the job of social workers. I
guess it would be an acceptable and useful system if:

\- Police had write-only access to the database.

\- Police had no involvement in interventions.

\- Anyone was able to fill out a form and get their data purged.

\- Everyone in the database could easily discover it.

Basically, separate law enforcement and social work. And enforce strict data
souvereignity.

The next problem is that it blurs the line between 'client' and 'suspect'.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Basically, separate law enforcement and social work. And enforce strict data
souvereignity.

This is how things used to be in decades past. The police did police things
and social workers did social work things and there was no way in hell the
police were reading the social workers notes without a warrant and even then
there's a chance that would still be protected.

------
dsfyu404ed
> a collaborative approach to policing called the Hub model that partners
> cops, school staff, social workers, health care workers, and the provincial
> government.

So this is like the social work version of combined arms? Use all your
resources in coordination to quash any potential threat.

"Little Jimmy gave his teacher the bird, his parents told the social workers
to fuck off and they've got a Gadsden flag hung in the window of their
trailer, better send the cops to harass them so they learn that we don't
tolerate people who don't take our authority seriously"

------
titzer
First thing the site does is pop up the standard "may we please track the crap
out of you" dialogs (Thank god they are required by law now to do this).

There might be some irony here, I just can't put my finger on it.

~~~
freeflight
And unlike many other sites (or this Canadian program), it has a nice "say no
to all" button and still takes you to the article, I see no problem with any
of that.

------
lofties
We tend to complain when failure by communication between social services and
law enforcement results in unnecessary deaths. Now Canadian law enforcement
has started a program that brings this synergy and we raise concerns about our
privacy.

Although the concerns about privacy are grounded; I would love to see the
evaluation of this program after one year. I believe that if we want to
protect those most at risk in our society, this is a step in the right
direction.

~~~
raxxorrax
Cynical view: As with surveillance laws, these kind of control is never rolled
back, so we could skip the evaluation.

------
canadigyt
The Canadian social credit score

~~~
freeflight
It's really amazing how very comparable things can trigger such vastly
different reactions.

------
ilovetux
I cant wrap my head around this. They say identifiable information is removed
but if that's true how do they know who to intervene with? How do they re-
identify people who are at risk?

------
EliRivers
The principle here - that good community policing has a strong preventative,
social aspect - is nothing new. It has long been expected that good community
police officers know people in their area who might be at risk of going down a
criminal path and use their judgement to intervene appropriately.

So is the objection (of some) that this principle is wrong, or is the
objection that this aspect of what is generally considered good policing
shouldn't be systematised and recorded?

~~~
SiempreViernes
Halfway down a person _actually knowledgable_ about the system raises the
legitimate concern that there are many non-consensual interventions, which is
bad because they work way worse than the consensual ones.

A hypothesis could be that the predictions of an impressive sounding system
means people are less concerned about getting consent.

This hypothesis is _completely_ absent from the text, and instead it is just
the textual equivalent of a video with menacing music aling pictures of the
text "Government" and clips of police brutality.

Honestly I wonder if the author of the piece even accept that the government
keeps a record of who has citizenship.

------
ulisesrmzroche
Big Brother A.I is quite scary, like an evil santa, as in: "He knows when you
are sleeping, he knows when yr awake, he knows if you've been bad or good; so
be good! for goodness sake"

~~~
freeflight
Or the much more common: "He knows if you are a terrorist" [0]

[0] [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2016/02/the-n...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2016/02/the-nsas-skynet-program-may-be-killing-thousands-of-
innocent-people/)

------
webappguy
Pre-crime. Thanks Tom Cruise.

------
gosseyn
Most comments are about the negatives ...but I wonder ...the data is here
...we have the technology to make use of it ... AI alone cant be "trusted" (
as it's still primitive ) humans alone cant be trusted ( as abuse of power and
not objective ) there must be a way ? An in between ? I don't have much
knowledge about the subject but I'm genuinely curious !

------
diveanon
So at what point would this become a net positive to society?

Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic
homicides, will the cost of lost privacy be worth it?

I don't like the idea of systems like this, but in places like the United
States where gun control and mental health treatment are off the table I don't
see many other options.

~~~
PostOnce
What if we move the TSA into the streets and have mandatory inspections of
every home every day?

We could mandate reporting on neighbors.

We, too, could become a shining example of what happens when the state is
primarily concerned with the welfare of its citizens, just like North Korea.

~~~
diveanon
You're missing the point.

Americans already value physical privacy over digital.

Nobody is taking their guns, just their privacy, which they gave away long ago
for likes.

Use the idiocy of masses for some good and maybe we can solve some real
problems instead of dancing around the same old issues.

Net neutrality and digital privacy are dead, and most western countries are
well on their way to becoming surveillance states.

Time to start looking towards the future and being pragmatic about the flaws
we have built into our societies.

~~~
PostOnce
Well the point was that an utter absence of privacy, a world where privacy was
illegal, even, would theoretically catch A LOT of bad people, but the losses
far, FAR outweigh the gains -- think of what living in a fearful society would
be like.

Net neutrality and digital privacy aren't remotely dead, for one thing because
we don't live in a Universal Jurisdiction. The EFF exists for a reason and
they're not trying to revive a corpse; they're trying to bring a slightly
unhealthy body back to full strength.

It's not hard to imagine how this whole thing could go incredibly awry, and
lead to abuses of power previously seen only in dystopian fiction.

~~~
diveanon
"the losses far, FAR outweigh the gains"

I disagree and think the topic should be open to public debate.

Would I trust the US or China to implement a system like this fairly?

No.

However, in a country with a functional and impartial judicial system I think
it has the potential to save many lives and redefine the criminal justice
system into something that focuses on preventing crime and treating mental
illness instead of just prosecuting it.

I don't place a lot of value on your existential fear of abuse, just as I
don't place a lot of value on 2nd amendment supporters existential fear of
tyranny.

"Muh data" sounds just as hollow as "muh guns" when weighed against the very
real threats faced by innocent people every day.

~~~
PostOnce
So your policy is in effect "Let us oppress the many to protect the few."

Alright, then.

~~~
diveanon
As I said in my previous comment, it's only oppression when implemented as
such.

Technology is a tool, the one who wields it bears the moral responsibility to
use it correctly.

Address the root causes of systemic oppression in your country and systems
like this have potential to do tremendous good.

~~~
PostOnce
This is like tying up a zombie and hoping it doesn't get loose. Well, as long
as the handcuffs are secure "we'll be fine!". It always bites you in the end.
Power corrupts, remember? Best to limit it.

~~~
diveanon
You do realize we have thousands of nuclear weapons right?

~~~
PostOnce
They've been used and will be again ... there's a reason we have so much media
exploring that fear in fiction, a reason so many fallout shelters were built,
a reason we derailed Iran's nuclear program. It's a big risk, and it's going
to go really badly for us all one day, or at least that is as likely as peace
is. So, what's your point?

~~~
diveanon
They are a reality and have arguably saved more lives than they have taken.

We have systems in place to prevent their abuse and despite our personal
dislike of them they serve purpose.

If we have learned to be judicious and cautious with their use I am confident
we can handle something like an ai driven social monitoring program.

We trust our governments with the greatest destructive capability ever
devised, what I am proposing is a far smaller threat.

------
mises
Oh man. I've been hearing people complain for years that there was "suspicious
behavior" before a lot of the school shootings. I was always nervous about the
kind of precedent that set. Maybe just a bad day? Dog died? Suspicious. If
some one calls and reports you, police can come "check on you" and monitor you
(cause no one would _ever_ abuse that).

When people say "nanny state", this is possibly a more literal interpretation
than I ever hoped to see. "You feeling all right? Maybe take a time out and
calm down".

I guess my annoyance is based on the same issues I have with facial
recognition, fingerprinting, or any "databases": if I have committed no crime,
police should not have my information, know where I am, or maintain
information on me.

------
born2discover
"Big Brother is Watching You."

------
Quanttek
Stupid question but how can they perform interventions when the data is de-
identified? I could see how that would work on a community level but not on an
individual level

------
bayesian_horse
Starting mental health interventions before that mental health problem turns
into compulsory admission or criminal problems, sounds generally like a good
idea.

~~~
freeflight
Even human doctors struggle with proper mental diagnosis, I seriously doubt an
AI is gonna do any better.

Not to mention that every false positive would lead to the compulsory mental
treatment of completely healthy people.

~~~
bayesian_horse
I share that concern. The policies referenced in the article emphasize
interventions short of compulsory treatment.

In some cases even these "door knocks" can lead to admission, for example if
the person visited exhibits strong signs of psychosis or potential for self-
harm. The judgement of police officers may not be perfect but it is better
than nothing.

I know that there are trade-offs to be made and caution is to be exercised,
but in general I think it's worth a try to prevent escalation of mental health
crisis.

------
jjtheblunt
Sincere question: why is that not benevolent?

~~~
n4r9
It might have benevolent intentions, but it's often very dangerous to put
these technologies into the hands of law enforcement.

It reminds me of an incident in the UK a few years ago, when the Metropolitan
(London) police trialed a facial recognition camera on the high street. One
man reacted by covering up his face as he walked past. He was grabbed aside
and ordered to remove the covering. When he responded angrily, he got fined
£90 (=$115). It got caught on camera and gives me chills to this day.

[https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-police-fine-
pe...](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-police-fine-pedestrian-
after-he-covered-face-from-facial-recognition-camera-a4144156.html)

~~~
dghf
> It reminds me of an incident in the UK a few years ago

It was in January this year: [https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/01/man-fined-
refusing-show-face-...](https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/01/man-fined-refusing-
show-face-police-face-recognition-software-8425143/)

But yes, it was very worrying, especially the plains-clothes offficer's
assertion that not voluntarily submitting to facial recognition was itself
enough to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to compel you to submit to
it.

~~~
n4r9
You're right. I got confused with this and facial recognition being used at
Notting Hill Carnival in 2016 and 2017:

[https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2017/3628](https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2017/3628)

------
jbeales
Is the main photo a Naughty by Nature reference?

------
Stubbs
Oh Canada ...

------
metrxqin
Certianly copied from China.

------
super_mario
Good to see our police is tracking us but are not worried about liberal
government laundering Isis fighters and bringing them into our neighborhoods
to live next to our children.

------
3pt14159
People here are overreacting.

First, Vice is an unreliable news organization with seriously substantiated
claims that one of its founders has backed white supremacists, including Proud
Boys. It's also been involved in international drug smuggling. And inflating
its advertising numbers by an order of magnitude.

Second, the police in Canada are some of the finest in the world. There are
problem spots that I've seen with my own eyes[0] but by-and-large the police
and intelligence services in Canada bend over backwards to respect individual
rights. If you've never actually talked to members of the RCMP or Canadian IC
then I respectfully ask that you educate yourself before worrying that the sky
is falling. If you're from out of the country and don't know where to start,
try The Intrepid Podcast. Start from the beginning, as it gets more weeds-y as
the episodes progress. In my opinion, it's insightful, fair, and nuanced.

[https://www.intrepidpodcast.com/podcast](https://www.intrepidpodcast.com/podcast)

[0] Track level Toronto police working in the tunnels of the TCC were being
paid off to turn a blind eye to drug running, but that was over a decade ago
and a very atypical occurrence.

~~~
heavenlyblue
>> It's also been involved in international drug smuggling.

This person is probably mentioning the arrest of a Vice music site editor on
cocaine smuggling (as you can see, parent's take on this is very different
from reality):

[https://www.spin.com/2019/02/vice-editor-slava-p-arrested-
co...](https://www.spin.com/2019/02/vice-editor-slava-p-arrested-cocaine-
smuggling/)

Makes me question everything else you are commenting here on.

~~~
3pt14159
I can't open your link due to a stupid firewall restriction whilst I'm
travelling, but I was talking about this article. If it has been debunked
since, then I apologize for the error. I stand by my overall point. The
Canadian Government is far, far more careful than one of ten thousand
companies tracking people around the world, including Canada.

[http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-an-editor-
alleg...](http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-an-editor-allegedly-
used-vice-canada-to-recruit-drug-mules-for-a-global-smuggling-ring)

