Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Algorithmic Suspicion in the Era of Predictive Policing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law and Technology in a Global Digital Society

  • 1359 Accesses

Abstract

The rise of new technologies allow massive collection of data and transform the suspicion standards, as well as the old school small-data policing. Our daily routines, social networks, biometrics and thoughts feed private and public databases, while profiling algorithms turn all the noisy data into information. Inferences from digitised data lead to a new type of suspicion that drives not from the observation of individuals’ actions, but rather from their interconnected data. This chapter analyses the technologies, which pave the way for a new type of policing and traces the consequences of algorithmic suspicion. It further elaborates the legality and proportionality of the interference with fundamental rights before a citizen does anything overtly criminal. Finally, it questions whether new data protection rules at European Union level meet the challenges of the data-driven predictive policing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hu (2015).

  2. 2.

    Joh (2016).

  3. 3.

    Kerr and Earle (2013).

  4. 4.

    Miller (2014).

  5. 5.

    Hu (2015).

  6. 6.

    Timan et al. (2017).

  7. 7.

    Norris (2003).

  8. 8.

    Rajpoot and Jensen (2015).

  9. 9.

    Rajpoot and Jensen (2015).

  10. 10.

    Norris (2003).

  11. 11.

    Norris (2003).

  12. 12.

    Clive and Armstrong (1999).

  13. 13.

    Hoque et al. (2012).

  14. 14.

    Lyon (2003).

  15. 15.

    Norris (2003).

  16. 16.

    Timan et al. (2017).

  17. 17.

    Schlehahn et al. (2013).

  18. 18.

    Schlehahn et al. (2013).

  19. 19.

    Schlehahn et al. (2013).

  20. 20.

    Marquis-Boire (2013).

  21. 21.

    Marquis-Boire and Marczak (2013).

  22. 22.

    Schlehahn et al. (2013).

  23. 23.

    Schlehahn et al. (2013).

  24. 24.

    Joh (2016).

  25. 25.

    Timan et al. (2017).

  26. 26.

    Ferguson (2017b).

  27. 27.

    Hu (2015).

  28. 28.

    Hu (2015).

  29. 29.

    Joh (2016).

  30. 30.

    O’Neil (2016).

  31. 31.

    Ferguson (2017a).

  32. 32.

    Wheeler and Steenbeek (2020).

  33. 33.

    Ferguson (2017a).

  34. 34.

    Skorup (2014).

  35. 35.

    Ferguson (2017a).

  36. 36.

    O’Neil (2016).

  37. 37.

    O’Neil (2016).

  38. 38.

    Joh (2016).

  39. 39.

    President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2014).

  40. 40.

    Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ 2016 L 119.

  41. 41.

    Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 119, 4 May 2016.

  42. 42.

    The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2018).

  43. 43.

    Crawford and Jason (2014).

  44. 44.

    The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2018).

  45. 45.

    ECHR, Cemalettin Canli v. Turkey, No. 22427/04, 18 November 2008, paras. 40–43; ECtHR, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], No. 28341/95, 4 May 2000, para 58–63, available at hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  46. 46.

    De Hert and Papakonstantinou (2016).

  47. 47.

    ECHR, Weber and Saravia v. Germany, No. 54934/00, 29 June 2006, paras. 92–95; ECHR, Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom, Nos: 58170/13, 62322/14, 24960/15, 13 September 2018, para 306–307, available at hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  48. 48.

    ECHR, S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom, Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 December 2008 para 125, available at hudoc.echr.coe.int.

  49. 49.

    CJEU, Joined cases C-203/15 and C-698/15, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post- och telestryrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Tom Watson and Others [GC], 21 December 2016, paras 105–106, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CJ0203.

  50. 50.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion on some key issues of the Law Enforcement Directive (EU 2016/680), p. 4.

  51. 51.

    The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2018).

  52. 52.

    Gutwirth and De Hert (2008).

  53. 53.

    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion on some key issues of the Law Enforcement Directive (EU 2016/680), p. 12.

  54. 54.

    Id. at 13.

  55. 55.

    Hildebrandt (2008).

  56. 56.

    Ferguson (2017a).

  57. 57.

    Ferguson (2017a).

  58. 58.

    Gless (2018).

  59. 59.

    Hildebrandt (2008).

References

  • Clive, N., & Armstrong, G. (1999). CCTV and the social structuring of surveillance. In K. Painter & N. Tilley (Eds.), Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention (pp. 157–178). Criminal Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, K., & Jason, S. (2014). Big data and due process: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55(1), 93–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P., & Papakonstantinou, V. (2016). The new police and criminal justice data protection directive: A first analysis. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 7, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441600700102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, A. G. (2017a). Policing predictive policing. Washington University Law Review, 94(5), 1109–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, A. G. (2017b). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gless, S. (2018). Predictive policing: In defense of ‘true positives’. In E. Bayamlıoğlu, I. Baraliuc, L. Janssens, & M. Hildebrandt (Eds.), Being profiled: Cogitas ergo sum: 10 years of profiling the European citizen (pp. 76–83). Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutwirth, S., & De Hert, P. (2008). Regulating profiling in a democratic constitutional state. In M. Hildebrandt & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Profiling the European citizens: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 271–302). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt, M. (2008). Defining profiling: A new type of knowledge. In M. Hildebrandt & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Profiling the European citizens: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 17–47). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoque, M. E., McDuff, D. J., & Picard, R. W. (2012). Exploring temporal patterns in classifying frustrated and delighted smiles. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3, 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2015.7344617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M. (2015). Small data surveillance v. big data cybersurveillance. Pepperdine Law Review, 42(773), 773–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joh, E. E. (2016). The new surveillance discretion: Automated suspicion, big data, and policing. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 10(1), 15–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, I., & Earle, J. (2013). Prediction, preemption, presumption: How big data threatens big picture privacy. Stanford Law Review Online, 66(65), 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2003). Technology vs terrorism: Circuits of city surveillance since September 11th. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 666–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis-Boire, M. (2013). Backdoors are forever: Hacking team and the targeting of dissent. The commercialization of digital spying report. The Citizen Lab. Retrieved August 26, 2021, from https://citizenlab.ca/storage/finfisher/final/fortheireyesonly.pdf

  • Marquis-Boire, M., & Marczak B. (2013). From Bahrain with love: finFisher’s spy kit exposed? The commercialization of digital spying report. The Citizen Lab. Retrieved August 26, 2021, from https://citizenlab.ca/storage/finfisher/final/fortheireyesonly.pdf

  • Miller, K. (2014). Total surveillance, big data and predictive crime technology: Privacy’s perfect storm. Journal of Technology Law and Policy, 19(1), 105–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, C. (2003). From personal to digital: CCTV, the panopticon, and the technological mediation of suspicion and social control. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and digital discrimination (pp. 249–281). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2014). Big data and privacy: A technological perspective report. Retrieved August 26, 2021, from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_big_data_and_privacy_-_may_2014.pdf

  • Rajpoot, M. Q., & Jensen, C. D. (2015). Video surveillance: Privacy issues and legal compliance. In V. Kumar & J. Swensson (Eds.), Promoting social change and democracy through information technology (pp. 1335–1358). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlehahn, E., Hansen M., Krieger-Lamina J., & Samaniego, J. S. (2013). Report on surveillance technology and privacy enhancing design. SurPRISE Project. Retrieved August 26, 2021, from http://surprise-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SurPRISE-D3.1-Report-on-surveillance-technology-and-privacy-enhancing-design.pdf

  • Skorup, B. (2014, December 12). Cops scan social media to help assess your ‘threat rating’. Reuters. Retrieved August 26, 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS384038468220141212

  • The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2018). Handbook on European data protection law. Imprimerie Centrale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timan, T., Galič, M., & Koops, B. J. (2017). Surveillance theory and its implications for law. In R. Brownsword, E. Scotford, & K. Yeung (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the law and regulation of technology (pp. 731–754). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, A. P., & Steenbeek, W. (2020). Mapping the risk terrain for crime using machine learning. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09457-7

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istanbul, Turkey

    Irmak Erdoğan

Authors
  1. Irmak Erdoğan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irmak Erdoğan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Legal Informatics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Georg Borges

  2. Institute of Legal Informatics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Christoph Sorge

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Erdoğan, I. (2022). Algorithmic Suspicion in the Era of Predictive Policing. In: Borges, G., Sorge, C. (eds) Law and Technology in a Global Digital Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90513-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90513-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90512-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90513-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation