« Thurman Arnold and Edward Corwin on the Supreme Court | Main | Hamer Time »

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

New Book on "The Rise of Big Data Policing"

As previewed on Prawfsblawg in May, The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement is now published and available.

The book addresses how predictive analytics, big data, and new surveillance technologies are changing the “who,” “where,” “when,” and “how” police do their jobs.   From predictive policing to social media surveillance to persistent aerial surveillance (among many other fascinating and terrifying technologies), the book exposes the problems of racial bias, transparency, and constitutional distortion that will bedevil law professors for years to come.  Buy, read, share, review, recommend to your librarians… (and thanks).

In addition, keep your eyes open for PreCrime the documentary also previewed in Prawfsblawg in May which has its US premiere October 19th in Chicago.  

Ferguson Twitter graphic

Posted by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson on October 3, 2017 at 09:30 AM | Permalink

Comments

Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior. I suspect, therefore, that members of our society will be shocked to learn that the Court, the ultimate guarantor of liberty, deems unreasonable our expectation that the aspects of our private lives that are concealed safely in a trash bag will not become public.

-Justice Brennan’s dissent in California v. Greenwood

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 3:47:43 PM

Members of the public use the airspace for travel, business, or pleasure, not for the purpose of observing activities taking place within residential yards. Here, police conducted an overflight at low altitude solely for the purpose of discovering evidence of crime within a private enclave into which they were constitutionally forbidden to intrude at ground level without a warrant. It is not easy to believe that our society is prepared to force individuals to bear the risk of this type of warrantless police intrusion into their residential areas. [10]

-Justice Powell’s dissent in California v. Ciraolo

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 3:49:55 PM

On the value of the right to privacy, as dear as any to free men, little can or need be added to what was said in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1030, Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, and Justice Brandeis' memorable dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 277 U. S. 471. Suffice it to say that the spiritual freedom of the individual depends in no small measure upon the preservation of that right. Insistence on its retention does not mean that a person has anything to conceal, but means rather that the choice should be his as to what he wishes to reveal, saving only to the Government the right to seek out crime under a procedure with suitable safeguards for the protection of individual rights, such as the warrant whose requisites are set forth in the Fourth Amendment.

-Justice Murphy’s dissent in Goldman v. United States

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 3:51:27 PM

The Fourth Amendment demands that we temper our efforts to apprehend criminals with a concern for the impact on our fundamental liberties of the methods we use. I hope it will be a matter of concern to my colleagues that the police surveillance methods they would sanction were among those described forty years ago in George Orwell's dread vision of life in the 1980's:
"The black-mustachio'd face gazed down from every commanding corner. There was one on the house front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said. . . . In the far distance, a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the Police Patrol, snooping into people's windows."
G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four 4 (1949)
Who can read this passage without a shudder, and without the instinctive reaction that it depicts life in some country other than ours? I respectfully dissent.

-Justice Brennan’s dissent in Florida v. Riley

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 3:53:44 PM

The battle for personal liberty seems to have been attained, but, in the absence of the din and clash, we cannot comprehend the meaning of all the safeguards employed. When we see the shield held before the briber, the liquor seller, the usury taker, the duelist, and the other violators of accepted law, we are moved to break or cast it aside, unmindful of the splendid purpose that first threw it forward. But whatever its disadvantages now, it is a fixed privilege until taken down by the same power that extended it. It is not certain, either, that it may not yet serve some useful purpose. The oppression of crowns and principalities is unquestionably over, but the more frightful oppression of selfish, ruthless, and merciless majorities may yet constitute one of the chapters of future history.

-Justice Douglas’ dissent in Ullmann v. United States

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 3:57:19 PM

In upholding and enforcing the Bill of Rights, this Court has no power to pick or to choose. When we lose sight of that fixed star of constitutional adjudication, we lose our way. For then we forsake a government of law, and are left with government by Big Brother.

-Justice Stewart’s dissent in Ginzburg v. United States

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 3:59:03 PM

We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy, where everyone is open to surveillance at all times; where there are no secrets from government. The aggressive breaches of privacy by the Government increase by geometric proportions.

-Justice Douglas' dissent in Osborn v. U.S.

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 4:03:21 PM

Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.

-Justice Scalia’s dissent in Maryland v. King

Posted by: The GarbageMan Cometh | Oct 4, 2017 4:16:56 PM

Post a comment