
Fighting Human Trafficking: Open Data, Big Data, and Python - ahaque
https://wiredcraft.com/blog/human-trafficking-open-data-python/
======
mahyarm
Why don't they call human trafficking slavery? Once I realized that it was
basically that, it made a lot more sense.

I think PR wise you would get far more support in the public if you called it
what it was.

~~~
leejoramo
In addition to the differentiation from former legal system of slavery, human
trafficking casts is a broader definition and includes forced labor,
prostitution, indentured servitude, child labor, organ harvesting, etc and the
systems that support such activities.

Your point about the PR value is an important one. In my own volunteering with
local anti-trafficking groups, this slavery/trafficking debate comes up. But
the choice of words is not straight forward. Yes, people have a clear
understanding of what slavery was (at least in the American context). But many
people think slavery is part of long ago history and become very quick to shut
off the conversation. Using the more unknown term "human trafficking"
sometimes allows you to start the conversation.

~~~
mahyarm
I think 'human trafficking' is a victim of it's own success. Because modern
slavery is called trafficking, people think slavery doesn't exist anymore. A
concerted effort to teach 'modern day slavery' alongside education about
historical slavery will help increase awareness about it.

I also know that things like forced labor, indentured servitude and so on were
considered slavery in the past too. Legal prostitution and child labor (like
paper routes) are not called trafficking today, and the coerced & illegal
versions were called slavery back then.

Trafficking also sounds like human smuggling. And many people who were
smuggled out a bad country and ended up as refugees/illegal immigrants at a
better country don't like human sex slavery being lumped together with
voluntary smuggling.

This is why I suggest calling it slavery and using it as part of the media
narrative, complete with john stossel style 20/20 expose's and 60 minute
specials introducing it.

------
carlmcqueen
Cool Site. Especially the example with the open source tool.

Working in finance the data and statistics I do can tend to be so similar, I
have been looking for ways to use the tools and methods working with big data
for other purposes.

This is something to consider.

------
telecuda
Is human trafficking being facilitated over your app? Recommended reading by
(Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore's) non-profit Thorn:
[https://www.wearethorn.org/sound-practices-guide-stopping-
ch...](https://www.wearethorn.org/sound-practices-guide-stopping-child-abuse/)

Want to contribute your time/talent to addressing the problem?
[https://www.wearethorn.org/survey/](https://www.wearethorn.org/survey/)

------
Practicality
Hey look, a population density map.
[https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/)

------
stopthelies
Fun. I'm doing my PhD thesis on human trafficking at DePaul University (in
Chicago, Illinois).

[http://www.villagevoice.com/news/real-men-get-their-facts-
st...](http://www.villagevoice.com/news/real-men-get-their-facts-
straight-643164)

I'm actually a little concerned about the concept of "human trafficking" since
the stats being calculated tend to omit realities.

One big reality people ignore? People who pay and attempt to cross the border
from Mexico to US? Those are counted as people being human trafficked.

>99% the immigrants that arrived illegally? Human trafficked, paper after
paper when you read into them. They even count cases where they came alone,
but had monetary help from a friend or family member.

So it's ironic. About my thesis - it points out the contradiction of people
who push for the rights of illegal immigrants who propose fighting human
trafficking, are really advocating the opposite position.

By extension, not mentioned in paper, I wanted to show for the longest time
how people abuse "human trafficking" out of sheer political opportunism.

I'll gladly post the paper on my blog when it's checked by our department.

~~~
cinquemb
I think this post, including what you are saying, is even more interesting
because you have privately funded NGO's and companies like Palantir in on the
game which makes me wonder more what exactly is going on that we're not
seeing. What are the other incentives (beyond altruism because we're already
supposed to accept that) of these different actors[0] who continue to operate
under the same assumptions? Do you elaborate on such questions in your thesis?

[0]
[https://polarisproject.org/supporters](https://polarisproject.org/supporters)

~~~
ethanbond
The pragmatic justification for Palantir's involvement seems straightforward
to me:

1\. The problems that Polaris are working on are _exactly_ what Palantir
software is made for.

2\. Most other instances of this problem do not generate unequivocally _good_
publicity.

To be absolutely clear, when I say "instances," I'm not referring to instances
where Palantir is used. I'm referring to instances of the problem-type that
Palantir solves.

Other examples of this problem and why they wouldn't generate _unequivocally_
good publicity: counter-insurgency ("we shouldn't be involved in the middle
east"), counterterrorism ("at the expense of civil liberties"), counterfraud
("rich people get away with fines after stealing millions anyways"), etc.

Palantir works with Polaris and NCMEC because they actually care (IMO),
Polaris/NCMEC needs align precisely with Palantir capabilities, and they're a
rare opportunity to be somewhat public about the company, if not the software.

~~~
cinquemb
> _2\. Most other instances of this problem do not generate unequivocally good
> publicity._

`stopthelies comments brings the " _unequivocally good_ " into question (maybe
not to the general public, but certainly here in this thread), which makes
this bit seem a bit handwavy if I state the circumstance like this: Even
though we help enable organizations, whose methods are based on questionable
ways of classifying what is going on to continue in order to attract
funds/status/etc which can skew how resources are allocated and how certain
populations would be negatively affected, this is still unquestionably a good
thing to do. I wonder how many times "victims" are "helped" when "every
country offers counselor services where they'll print them a new temporary
visa and even a ticket back home"[0] and makes sure they're on the flight?
We'll probably never know until everything isn't jumbled into "human
trafficking" tag.

> _Palantir works with Polaris and NCMEC because they actually care (IMO),
> Polaris /NCMEC needs align precisely with Palantir capabilities, and they're
> a rare opportunity to be somewhat public about the company, if not the
> software._

If I pass this through an altruism filter, the 2nd and 3rd remain. I can say
sure to 2 because anyone with ability to generate such plots and access to the
data could do that, but I think 3 is the most interesting. Can you elaborate
on the benefits of this? The last bit makes me think someone could plausibly
construct this as some kind of recruiting gambit for the company and not the
unequivocally _good_ cause (which of course would be a valid benefit, but only
as far as others choice to perceive such as unequivocally _good_ [i.e. act as
a negative signal of sorts, kind of like whiteboard interviews for experienced
devs]).

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546)

~~~
ethanbond
Fair, but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want
to." You can of course choose not to see goodness if you don't want to. I also
don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a
substantive argument that presents the relationship that way.

I'm not quite sure what evidence there is for this assertion that
miscategorization is happening. The categories seem to be pretty
straightforward. Unless you're accusing them of blatantly _lying_ , I don't
see the criticism here.

Examples directly from Polaris' "Facts" page: "The International Labour
Organization estimates that there are 20.9 million victims of human
trafficking globally... 68% of them are trapped in forced labor."

Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are
"slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have
no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an
applicable term.

Further, this is not some charity-wide conspiracy of definition manipulation.
In fact, on Polaris's "Labor Trafficking" page, you only ever see the 14.2
million figure: people forced into labor. I assume the most readily
manipulated figure would be the last one on the page: "31% of undocumented
Spanish-speaking migrant workers interviewed in San Diego County had
experienced labor trafficking." If it is the case that NGO's are seizing
situations like these to call every illegal immigrant who utilizes a coyote to
cross the border a "victim of trafficking," then certainly it would surface in
this figure.

View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put
towards manipulating _or even exploiting_ technical definitions. Section 2 of
the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional
problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and
then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here
([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf),
Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense.

If these people are miscategorizing things, I simply can't see how. If they
are lying, then I'd like to see evidence that that's the case. More evidence
than an anonymous person claiming to be writing a thesis on the topic would be
nice.

Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you
really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make
even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you
can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia.

~~~
cinquemb
> _but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want
> to."_

You are free to your own opinions… one doesn't need to believe, and one
shouldn't have to be swayed by stat inflation to address problems.

> _I also don 't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I
> haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that
> way._

I guess you have missed over the years bad press companies received because on
threads of hn (Palantir may be above this affecting their bottom line though
not all companies are as fortunate)… I've already asked for more sources from
the commenter beyond the post they shared that pointed to some of the
discrepancies in how people are counting, because I would actually be
interested in seeing/collecting more accurate data from more nuanced
definitions for myself (and it appears others in this thread would like to see
that to).

> _Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are
> "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have
> no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an
> applicable term._

Sure, lets hand wave stat inflation and questionable definitions, and accept
NGO's/governments/large corps have no control whatsoever compared to
individuals as actors in a given society in how they aggregate data and
generate their pretty plots.

> _View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put
> towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of
> the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem:
> "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for
> dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record,
> it can be found here
> ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf),
> Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense._

Ok, the definition makes sense, so lets just accept it prima facie, and not
question it or think about how we could improve upon it in certain ways that
minimize even further how certain parties are negatively affected? How would
people learn anything if we approached problems like that all the time? So
just because one states how they're defining something, it absolves them from
critique if people disagree and wish for something more nuanced? lol

> _Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they 'd like. If
> you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can
> easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is
> whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise
> paranoia._

There would have to be a component of fear or anxiety for this to be true,
which if one has neither (i.e. Me), casting such as paranoia in order to
bolster ones argument because one may not think an NGO or its corporate
sponsors are being upfront or relying on "not being able to do anything about
the definitions we benefit from at the expense of others to the degree of
which we are not certain", then one must not "believe" (not sure why we have
to believe when we can look at the definitional flaws that can negatively
affect certain populations lives they may be seeking out) _anything_ can be
_good_ is pretty weak, when noting how certain parties mere existence hinges
on such (or at least their marketing pitches lol)… people are free to
_believe_ all the stat inflation they want, its not my time or after tax
currency being sucked into the church lol

Do you work for Palantir or something? It would be good to know as I can not
waste my time further hereticing in front of the choir.

~~~
ethanbond
I have interned there (obligatory "this opinion is my own" etc etc), so if you
believe that disqualifies a discussion which actually has nothing to do with
Palantir (one of NGO stat inflation), then that's fine.

I guess it comes down to this: you have the same question as I do. I'm curious
to see what the actual evidence for the alleged manipulation is. Has the
commenter who put forth the allegation re: stat inflation provided evidence
for the claim?

The question of definition is fair in principle. I'd be glad to discuss
whether or not the definition is fair. I'm of the opinion that it is, and if
you're of the opinion that it's not then I really do want to know why.

Not sure what this discussion is, to be honest. You seem to be saying that we
should be able to criticize these stats/categories/definitions. __I agree with
you __, and then I 'm asking you what your criticisms actually are. So far
you're still pointing to "definitional flaws that can negatively affect
certain populations." If there are such flaws with such consequences, that
would be really problematic, _I agree._

What are the definitional flaws, and how are they negatively affecting which
populations?

