All language subtitles for Pre-Crime.2017.1080p.WEBRip.x264-RARBG

[man] The term "pre-crime"
comes from this movie,

Minority Report, in which
a prediction is being made

about something an individual
has not yet done

but is going to do, and a
preemptive arrest is made

of someone before they've
performed the act.

[man 2] If you would have
asked me 37 years ago

if we would have gunshot
detection or video cameras
in neighborhoods

or be able to predict
where crimes occur,

I would have said you're crazy.

[man 3] It's not aiming
to a certain future,

the future is already in
the present right now.

It's the securitization
of our society.

[man 4] I have no idea what
the next five or ten years

is going to mean to
law enforcement in terms
of technology advancement.

Just looking at where
we've come so far,

it's gonna be mind-boggling.

[man 5] Can we predict
an actual crime event
before it occurs?

[waves crashing]

[man] When I heard of this
story for the first time,

I thought,
"Now it's finally happening."

Hollywood has eventually
merged with real life.

Software that predicts where
and when

the next crime occurs,
police that arrive
at the crime scene

before the perpetrator,

computers that generate lists
with tomorrow's murders.

Pre-crime, they call it.

A friend writes to me,
"There's something foreign

"looming on the horizon,
and we can only guess

that it will shape
us entirely one day."

[distant police sirens]

[man 2] Our strategic subject,
list, or it's called the SSL,

is a system that we
worked with a professor

from the Illinois
Institute of Technology,

an academic partner
here in Chicago,

to be able to assess
and analyze those people

that are at the greatest risk
of being a party to violence.

The system is able to
prioritize and tell us

those individuals that we
really have to focus on,

to work with to try to
prevent that violence.

When you have so many
different data sets,

or you have
so many cameras to watch,
which ones do we watch?

Social media, right?
So many different social media
communications out there.

How do you know what
to concentrate on?

That's what our
predictive aspect towards

that strategic subject list,
that's what it does.

[man] They experimented with
it a little bit in 2012.

2013 is really when it took off.

They came-- the police
department came up with,

um, more than 400 names
of people who fit that bill.

Individuals who were most
likely to be prone to violence,

either as a victim
or a perpetrator.

Each of the 22 police
districts came up with 20 names.

And they were chosen,
I don't know the science of it,

but it was all through
mathematical algorithms,
basically.

And it didn't have
anything to do so much with

them being hardened
criminals as much as it had

to do with,
"Who are they arrested with?"

[mutters indistinctly]

[doorbell rings]

[dog barking]

-Mr. Robert McDaniel?
-Yes.

Hi, I'm Commander West
and I am with

the 15th District
Chicago Police Department.

-May we come in?
-Yes.

[Gorner]
Like, take
Robert McDaniel, for example.

He was not a hardened criminal.

He had been arrested
for many minor offenses,

like gambling, shooting dice,
or smoking marijuana.

Minor offenses, but the people
who he was arrested with

during those crimes,
some of them,

or least one of them,
was a victim of violence.

So, the logic was
is that, well, Robert belongs

on the list because he has
a relationship with somebody

who's been
a victim of violence,

because he's been arrested
with that person before.

[man] I was unemployed,
a school dropout.

It was either go get work
or sell drugs in the street,

and selling drugs
wasn't for me.

I tried to put myself...

I tried to get my GED.
That didn't work.

And in the midst of me
trying to get my GED,

I started getting followed home,
started having police officers

walk up on me, ride up on me,
saying my name, government name,

where I had been and...
just things like that.

Then... I had Miss Officer West

and a social worker--
I can't remember his name,

but they had stopped at my home,
they stopped at my house

and subpoenaed me,
told me that I was put through
some type of test,

they're saying I was supposed to
be eligible to shoot somebody
or get myself shot.

That I was put on the Heat List
of 400 people in Chicago.

Mr. McDaniel, as part of our
violent reduction strategy,

our software has generated a
list of potential criminals,
actors, and victims.

We are here today to
inform you of the fact that

our computers have placed
you on the Heat List
of the police department.

Now, should you decide
to continue to engage
in criminal activity,

you should know we're gonna
charge you

and we will prosecute you to
the fullest extent of the law.

[McDaniel] I guess we was
associated or had friends

that's supposed to be
in the streets,

or however the scenario go.

But we was put through a test,

and we supposed to came
out the most...

The, like, top 400 dangerous
people in Chicago.

Now, yet again,
like I asked you,

how can I be dangerous for
smoking weed or shooting dice?

Who does this hurt?

[Caluris] The timeline shows all
the criminal activity

that that person's
associated with.

If you see on the bottom,
those are all interactions

that he's had with the police.

Either as an arrest,
as a contact,

as a victim,
anything with it.

So, you know,
who he hangs with,
you know where he's been,

everything to do with
him that we've documented

through police interaction.

Scroll down, please,
whoever's got that.

This shows-- this is what
they'll compile
and put together

and get back out into the field
within 15 minutes.

So, if this person is
the victim of a shooting
or a violent crime,

they'll pull up there,
it's got their
criminal history...

That's associates...

So everything you saw before
was all the criminal history

involved with that individual,
so there's probably

maybe about 25, 30 arrests
that you saw on that subject.

The associates,
people that they're documented

as having an affiliation with,

that's, again,
a pretty comprehensive list.

Certainly, we can actually
do even like a link analysis

to be able to show how
that network interacts.

The idea that you
could essentially connect

all of the data streams
that government collects
in different ways,

everything from your arrest
records,

to your contacts,
to your foreclosures,

to your mental health records,
to your social benefits,

and put 'em in a particular
computer database,

and then be able
to do link analysis where
you connect a phone number

from all the different sources
and go out several links
and be able to see the world,

is something you would
never imagine that
is technologically possible now.

[man] Let's summarize:

Firstly, they are quite
serious about fighting
crime with algorithms.

Secondly, Robert McDaniel
is on the wrong side
of the algorithm.

Thirdly,
apart from its developers,

nobody knows how the algorithm
behind the Heat List works.

Fourthly, in 2016,
statistically,

2.0876 people are killed
every day in Chicago.

How does an algorithm that
promises safety actually work?

[distant police sirens]

[man] We've been
using predictive policing

in Kent now for three years.

And we use
a system called PredPol.

This is a system
that is predominantly
a patrol strategy for us.

So it tells our officers where
the high-risk areas are today,

and they go to those areas
and carry out their duties
as they normally would.

We find the system is
very adaptable,

very easy
for our officers to use.

What we would describe as an
operationally ready system.

We've helped
to develop PredPol,
which is an American system,

and we've played
a large role in what
PredPol looks like today.

In terms of the future,
we're looking at how we can

protect against
less tangible areas

around organized crime
and modern slavery,

sexual crime,
and protecting our borders.

And that's the next
big challenge for us,

and we're working with
PredPol around data fusion,

and also with the home office,
the government in the UK,

to produce more and better
predictive policing models.

[waves crashing]

[man] That's quite a
remarkable list.

Organized crime,

human trafficking,
sexual offenses,
border security.

An algorithm that targets
criminals just as migrants.

Question:
what else does it target?

Question: who gets
what kind of security?

Question: who is protected
by the algorithm

and who isn't?

[Johnson] What's embedded within
the algorithm, within PredPol,

is something called
routine activity theory,

which is-- as you know, we to
tend to do the same things

day in, day out,
in the same way.

You know,
I go to the same supermarket,

I tend to drive the same
direction to that supermarket,

even though I don't have to.
I tend to go to the same bar.

Um... criminals are the same,
you know,

they're creatures of habit,
and they don't like to
take risks.

A lot of the theory
and research within PredPol

is based on some pretty heavy
criminological research,

most of it done in Europe
that says, you know what?

There's a lot around
repeat behavior,

repeat behavior of victims
as well as criminals.

What we did initially with
the system is give it,

it was put through five years
worth of crime data

and three year's worth of
antisocial behavior data.

So if you think about how long
we've had it in place now,

that means we've got eight
years of crime data in it

and about six years of
antisocial behavior data.

We send data over
on a daily basis

and the data is analyzed,
and then that is sent back to us

in the form of Google Maps
with red boxes on it.

Those boxes represent
the high-risk areas

that we then say to our
officers,

"Get in the box
and police what you see."

[Gorner] They have like
a ranking system...

which shows how many times
more likely are they

than the general population
to be prone to violence.

So, Robert
had a rating of 215,

which meant he's 215 times

more likely to be
prone to violence.

But Robert wasn't... I mean,
that paled in comparison

to a number of other
people on the list.

There were a lot of people
on that list

who were than 500 times
more likely

to be party to violence.

And, again, that's not because
of their criminal history.

That's because of the people
they've been arrested with.

[man on P.A.] Doors closing.

[Ferguson] You know, so, this
is what's really frightening,

is that there are companies
now scoring every citizen.

And our political elections
right now,

the Republicans and Democrats
are really doing

this nanotargeting where
they really are scoring

families to the address, right?
So that information's out there.

It's not really out there
whether they're a felon or not,

but it is out there.

And so what
the police here are doing,

is they're literally just
purchasing the information

that other people already have.

Now that scored society,
of course, is frightening.

Of course
it's not just a privacy sense

that you are giving out
this information.

It's about a government
owning this information, right?

This is a different situation.

In America, we are pretty
willing to let big companies

like Google and Apple
know pretty much everything
about ourselves,

but we're more reluctant
to have government,
and that's a good line to draw.

What's happening here is this
sort of data convergence,

where you're really
seeing private companies

collecting this information,
and then essentially selling it

or offering it through
different services
to law enforcement.

And people do know
that information.

Even if the police
don't have it,

the private companies
do have it,

and that's part of
where we are now

as technology is collecting
as much information

about us as it can.

[man]
Facebook like, click, saved.

We deliver the data which
generates information about us

that circulate on the internet
until the next update

creates yet another
data set, and so on.

Data mining endlessly.

Somewhere fairly
lost at the bottom
of the digital food chain,

there are people
like Robert McDaniel.

Privacy? What privacy?

[man]
Whenever someone fills out
an application for a loan,

they're going to be providing
certain information.

The Beware Software,
they access databases

from financial institutions,
the courts,

any type of loaning
institutions.

Beware has the ability
to access all of those
databases, simultaneously.

So when a call comes in
to our dispatch center

and it is categorized
as a life-threatening call
or a in-progress crime,

then-- and there's an address
attached-- the Beware Software

automatically searches
all of these databases

and then provides the operator
in the real-time crime center,

information specific
to that address.

People that have lived there,
do live there,

their cell phone numbers,
prior addresses, associates.

The other piece
that Beware allows for

is to research social media

and to gather any type
of information

that might be in there
in terms of threats.

The theory behind Beware
makes a lot of sense.

If I was that police
officer on the street

and I was entering a house
and I didn't know
who lived there,

I'd want all the information
I could.

But the problem is,
if it's sourced through these
data brokers,

there just isn't really
much accuracy.

So, you might be
arriving at a house,
and the address alerts

says "a dangerous place,"
that maybe somebody
lives there.

Maybe that dangerous
person moved.

The problem is accuracy.
I mean, have you ever gotten

the wrong catalog in the mail
and, like, "Why did someone
send me a particular catalog?

I don't have children,
why do I have it?"

That's the inaccuracy
that comes along with these

data brokers, right?

They don't need to be perfect,

because what they're
really doing is trying to
sell products to people.

Well, if the algorithms
used in the private sector

have allowed them to become
more successful

in targeting their audience
to sell product,

then we should take advantage
of that same algorithm

that allows us to become
more successful

in law enforcement
and preventing crime.

[people chattering]

[man] In the case of
the Beware Software,

I think the bad far outweighs
any potential good.

And I can see how
in a perfect world,

and if the software
were perfect,

it could help make
police officers safer.

The problem is,
nothing is perfect.

For instance, one of the
things that the software

company says that it looks at

are postings on social media,
such as Facebook and Twitter.

There was one woman in
another city who was flagged
in the software

for making comments on Twitter
about rage.

Rage has a very specific
meaning in terms of anger,

violence, but the rage
she was talking about

was a card game called
"Rage" that had nothing to do

with violence, or aggression,
or anything like that.

Yet she was flagged
as being a possible problem

because she had sent
these messages about rage.

And what if someone is
making comments about that
they don't trust the police?

Is that gonna flag them as
being a potential problem?

So there are too many
opportunities for the computer
to get it wrong.

And if they get it wrong
coupled with a police department

that already is much more likely
than other police departments

to shoot citizens,

that's a recipe,
potentially, for disaster.

[waves crashing]

[man]
Taking up one question again.

Why are we forcing these
technologies upon ourselves?

The Silicon Valleys
of this world are making

a lot of money with them, okay.

We, the users, enjoy the
comfort in Google land, fine.

And that's it?

What if the internet,
fed by the permanent feedback
of its users,

already had
its virtual awakening?

What if it developed its
own needs and interests?

If it was always leading us
to more convenient technologies

because we pay for it
with private data?

What if freedom
was just an illusion?

[man] If we build a game,
a city game,

in which technology's in
everything and you're a hacker,

then you'll have a lot of
control and a lot of power.

So that was an
interesting idea for us.

So I started doing research.

And we started looking
at what existed already.

And we started seeing that
a lot of that technology
was already out there.

That it was technically
almost feasible to do that.

So instead of us trying
to invent science-fiction,

we started grounding
our creation to reality.

You know,
we've all heard of big data,

the notion that
all those cameras,

but also all those devices--
our phones,

computers we use,
the chips in our cars--

they're gathering
our informations.

Those informations are stored.
We don't even know where.

Oftentimes we accept
that they get accumulated.

And big data,
it's a neutral technology.

It can be used for good,
it can be used for bad.

We like calling it
the digital shadow of people.

You knew
what was their earnings...

you know, some important
facts of their lives.

And as you go around
the game simulation,

you could open what
we called a profiler,

which would tap in
all those devices,

do facial recognition
and all that,

and give you information
on the citizens

of our virtual Chicago.

This is not a dystopian game.

It happens in a little
different version of our world.

It's very much grounded
in reality,

but we turn the dial to 11

and we say,
"What if this happened?"

And so it's not
the dystopian reality,

it's before
the dystopian reality,

when things
can be done about it.

[man] "Metropolitan Police,
territorial police,

"are working together
for a safer London.

"To who it may concern,
the Metropolitan Police service

"and all of its partners
are committed

"to reducing knife
and gang crime.

"Information indicates
that you have,
or are associated with,

"a gang that is linked to crime.

If you are involved in crime
and do not stop..."

"If you are involved in crime
and do not stop,

"you may be targeted by the
police and partner agencies.

"Under a piece of legalization
called Joint Enterprise,

"you may be convicted of a crime
and sent to prison

"for just being present when
a serious crime is committed

"or being with those persons
who commit a crime

"and you don't try to stop it.

"You will need to
change your lifestyle.

We can help you to do this."

[chuckles]

"You can speak in confidence
to a police officer

"and/or contact any of
the organizations listed
at the end of this letter.

"I would encourage you
to speak to them,

"as they can help you
break any gang links.

Yours sincerely,
borough commander."

That's some bullshit.

Reading that letter
just took me back

to when I first received it.

And it's funny, 'cause
everybody that's in my circle,

yeah, we all received that
at the same time.

You can't ever,
ever let somebody tell you

that you can't chill
around somebody,

you can't go
to a certain area,
you can't do certain things.

Especially when these people
are trying to bring us down.

They put things like this
into place just so that

we can act up and--
do you know what I'm saying?

Because what they
don't realize, yeah--

actually, no,
they do realize it.

The police do realize it.

They realize that
we haven't got a voice.

Do you know what
I'm saying?

It's like when you was
in school once upon a time

and you put your hand up
to ask the teacher something

or to answer a question,
and the teacher don't
point at you.

And you get frustrated,
do you know what I'm saying?
You get frustrated.

The teacher don't notice you
until you get mad.

That's the only time
that they notice you.

So that's how
the mentality of us...

The only way that we
can get our point across

is by putting fear into people
because that's the only time

that they're willing to
listen to us.

[man] The doctrine
of Joint Enterprise

was actually brought in
over 200 years ago

to stop people
encouraging duels.

So, if two people were dueling,
whether it's by
pistols or swords,

their seconds, who are there
to support them,

they can be done
for joint enterprise

if someone's killed.

So that doctrine
is not actually law.

It is doctrine
adopted by the courts.

But it has an operational
and tactical implication

in terms of the Matrix.

Um, the Matrix wasn't around
when I was in the Met.

I retired three years ago.

But the Matrix is primarily
an enforcement tool

to be more proactive,

to target those who are
committing the crimes.

Unfortunately, when you
cast the net very wide,

you are bringing in people
who are not necessarily
involved in gangs.

[man] For whatever reason they
called their database "Matrix."

The name, however,
seems like a bow
to a technological system.

The London Matrix works like
the Heat List in Chicago.

Identify individuals,
connect them,

detect patterns
and social networks,

calculate the statistical
possibilities.

Score people, issue warnings,
keep an eye out.

Question: is there an algorithm
targeting corporate crime?

[man] They sit there,
they just wait,
they just watch.

They have unmarked
cars on the block.

And they post up on the sides
somewhere they can't be seen,

or they will have officers
on foot in plain clothes

to watch what we're doing,
like walk around the area,

see what's going on and that.

They know who you chill around,
they know who you're around,

they know what you do
'cause they're watching,

do you know what I'm saying?

You can't really escape it.

I'm doing an anti-gang
project in a local
area here in East London.

I have clients who are saying,
"I have never been
involved in a gang."

But the real issue is the
subjectivity to get people

on the criminal intelligence
system, the criminal system.

And then how that then goes
into the Matrix,

to then associate people
in certain gangs,
which are questionable.

So that the thing is who's
checking the data entry?

Who's checking those officers
who commit those data entries?

[man] I don't see myself
as a gang member.

I'm not a gang member.

I'm not a gang member,
do you know what I'm saying?

I'm just a part
of a circle that...

I'm just a part of a tight
circle which always

gets shined a dark light on,
do you know what I mean?

And always will by them.

[man] If you tell them,
"I'm not in a gang,"

they'll ask you,
"What community are you from?"

"Oh, I'm from the [inaudible]."

"Okay, those are
Body Snatchers over there.

Those are Four Corner Hustlers.
You a Four."

How can you tell me what
I am because of my address,
because of where I stay?

That's probably where
I can only afford to live.
That makes no sense.

I just honestly believe
they got a job to do,
and they want to do it.

If they gotta breed crime,
if they gotta make criminals,

if they gotta sit here and
convince you that you're
a criminal

and provoke you to do it,
they'll do it.

Actually, I had a friend
killed a couple months--
couple weeks prior to that.

Only part I can say is,
they labeled it a gang murder.

Now, I guess that's how
I got affiliated,

'cause me and a person that was
murdered was so close.

But other than that,
I actually don't know.

But like I said,
I ain't did nothing
that the next kid did.

[woman] They haven't told us
what the algorithm is

that they're using
to identify people.

They haven't told us
what that data is.

And there's no way
to get off the list,

that we're aware of,
once you're on it.

So, that's scary
to a lot of people.

It's frightening to not know
how the list is created,

or to be able to get off
of it on the back end.

And they can say that,
you know, we're using math,

we're using science
as a way to do it.

Math and science
aren't always right.

There's been reporting
on these algorithms

that are used in
sentencing after trials,

where people are given
a number to predict
whether or not

they're gonna be more likely
to engage in crime
in the future.

And that
impacts their sentences.

There's been recent reporting
showing that those algorithms

aren't accurate, and that they
have a disparate impact
on the basis of race.

So, that's a danger
of these algorithms

and one of the reasons that we
want the police department

to be open about the factors
that they're using,

and the algorithms
that they're using in this case,

because it should be
put to the test.

[man] So, a police department
first uploads their data.

This is actually open data
from Philadelphia.

It's about 800,000 records.

And a very important point
in this software

is telling the system how
important each type of crime
is to prevent.

So, the harm created from
a homicide is equivalent

to $8.6 million in comparison
to, let's say, the robbery,

where it's like $67,000.

So, the system needs
to know that so it can know

how to balance the use
of resources, right?

Is it more important to prevent
a very frequent low-level crime,

or a very infrequent
high-level crime?

And how to balance those things.

And this is what
basically defines that.

So, that's all in the
administrative interface,

and then the officer
just logs in

and then sees this map of,
in this case,

the entire city, and officers
in Philadelphia are assigned

to particular patrol
service areas. which are
the black boundaries here.

So, they look at the map
and zoom in on the beat
that they're in,

and they see the boxes,
and then the color of the box
represents what is the focus.

And the tactics is
the recommendation from
the algorithm, the model?

From the software, yes.

Which means that
in some years,

the machine learning tools
will learn which kind of tactics

work with which
kind of situation.

[man] Exactly, yes, yes.

All data is biased,
but police department data,

incident data, has the
potential to be biased
in a number of different ways.

And we cannot
eliminate that bias,

but we can potentially
offset it to some extent

by incorporating other data.

We have a number of different
components to the software.

One is a planning component

that someone can use
at the police station.

The second component of the
software is a mobile version
of the software

that can be in a car
or other vehicle,
and the police officer

is able to see
as the car moves around,

are they inside one of these
priority mission patrol areas.

It's actually using
the GPS from the tablet

to track our location,
and as we enter boxes

it's going to update the display
with information about them.

So we actually are just driving
through a box right now,
which is about robberies.

And if this was
our final destination,
we would start patrolling

for about ten to 15 minutes
in this area.

It's still relatively
unlikely for any crime

to happen in that
location at that time.

It's just that this is
the highest-risk location

amongst all the choices
that we have available,

and so it's the best place
for the officer
to spend that free time.

While we are positioning an
officer in a particular place,

which means that they're
going to be paying attention

to that place, that should
not give them the authority

to assume that anyone
in that place is a criminal

unless they see something that's
actually criminal in nature.

We have generally
been very cautious about

incorporating any kind
of person-centric data
into our models.

We believe there's a number
of substantial problems
with this,

whether it's privacy concern

or just the accuracy
of the actual modeling.

We're not using surveillance
data in HunchLab,

but I think it's a key question
that our societies
need to be asking,

and under what circumstances
is it reasonable

to take advantage of
that kind of data?

[man] Big data, we the users,
and our privacy.

Well, who could have
imagined years ago

that Google can
algorithmically calculate
what I will do tomorrow?

Simultaneously,
we activate things
that were silent until now.

Everything that once was
quiet starts communicating

with the world and sending
our data to the internet.

My toothbrush, my TV set,
the chip under my skin,

my fitness tracker,
the toys of our children.

[man] I was not aware of these
kind of "technologies,"

quote unquote, being
implemented by the police,
et cetera.

It's not particularly
surprising, because the
technological developments

in terms of policing,
be it domestic or globally,

is developing all the time.

And it's something that
we're all privy to,

we can all see it
on our TV screens,

especially when it
comes to foreign policy

and conflicts that the
West are conducting abroad.

How do I feel about it?

I'm really concerned,
because I work with

a lot of young people
and young adults and children

who are, or have been,
or will be, unfortunately,

in the short term,
most likely be involved
in the criminal justice system,

because they come from
troubled backgrounds,

or they're working class
and they're black people.

So, if you can use some kind
of predictive technology

and software to predict,

according to what these
people do in the future,

it's not gonna predict
anything particularly
positive for them.

But if you want to make money,
software to have algorithms

to give to the police, it's...

it's indicative of how
our society

is progressing away from
human solidarity

and a human approach,
to just squeezing people

as hard as you can
in any and every which way.

[man 1]
That's one camera over there.

[man 2] Yeah.

[man 1] Then there's
one camera over there.

There's one camera over there.

-You see her?
-Yeah.

And then there's another
camera just back there,
you see?

-Yeah.
-Over there.

And so three murders in
the last year in the park.

So, what the fuck
are these cameras doing?

Yeah, if they're not
being used to solve murders,

then obviously they've got
some kind of different purpose.

Why are they here?

They hit a tick box,
they say to people,
"Oh, we're doing something."

Yeah. And if you look
at these cameras,

they're not the kind of
ordinary CCTV cameras.

-They're sophisticated.
-Definitely.

[man 2] There's some kind of box
attached to it.

When you think about,
three murders happening here

right as kids play...
it's crazy, man.

This is where my son has played
the last 11 years of his life.

And that's why more incidents
happen here than in do in,
like, gated parks.

that you can't get in.

If you think about
how small this park is
and how many cameras there are,

they've got full coverage of it.

And so, you know, where these
gang murders are happening,

it's weird that they're
not able to prevent them

with all the intelligence
they have.

Stingray, triangulation,
all this kind of stuff,

I'm not surprised
that it's on this scale,

and I think there's actually,
we probably don't know

most of the kind of surveillance
abilities they have.

I think it's interesting
that maybe some of the way

that they experiment on gangs
and the black communities

is also sort of being
used in political protests

and political organization
as a way of sort of pioneering
it and developing it.

I mean, of course,
it's just reflective of the way

in which police mainly
target black males

when it comes to crime and
how they're disproportionately

stopped and searched,
how they're hard-stopped.

[man] I could tell you
about a time where I was

in my auntie's square,
just walking.

I was literally just
going to see my auntie.

I was walking,
and then I heard them.

You know the slider doors
on the van?

I heard the slider door open.

I wasn't really paying
attention to what
was behind me,

but I heard that open
and I heard footsteps.

As soon as I turned around,
boom, I'm being tackled
to the floor

and getting my face kicked
in by four different officers,

one female, three males,
do you know what I'm saying?

Obviously, they rushed me,
they jumped me.

I couldn't... I'm so excited,

So I couldn't even see faces.
I just started swinging.

I punched a couple of them.

At the station,
they said if I admit
to hitting a police officer

they're gonna drop
every other charge.

And the other charges was,

I matched the description
of a robber.

Young... [indistinct]

hooded, blah, blah.

This is Tottenham, breh.
This is Tottenham.

What else are you gonna see

besides young [indistinct]
in hoods?

Hoods make us feel comfortable.
This is how we dress.

This is just the culture,
do you know what I'm saying?

There's a million
other people... why me?

And I resisted arrest.
I resisted arrest,

so they say they're gonna
drop all the other charges

if I admit to
hitting a police officer.

This is what they do.
They're all about setups, man.

They were on the
block watching me,
do you know what I'm saying?

They saw me walking down,
they did what they did.

And you know what? Police are
the biggest gang in the world,

so they got a cheek.

[Logan] We, in London, and
the other parts of this
country, are a police service.

So, you've got to
know what that means.

That means accountability
and transparency

in all of your
processes and practices.

Now I challenged that
when I was in the Met,

when I was chair of the
Black Police Association.

I also gave evidence
to various inquiries

that said the police service
was institutionally racist

because of the way in which
they conduct themselves.

Now the Matrix, for me,
is another form
of institutional racism.

It is racial profiling.
It is unaccountable.

And, as far as I'm concerned,
there has to be a way in which
you can get off this system,

whether it's the Matrix,
the DNA database, you know.

You've got to have a process
where people believe

that the police service
can be held to account.

[man] Matrix, strategic
subject list, no-fly list,

selectee list,
terrorist watch list.

Once on the list,
always on the list,

because the computer says so.

Because, due to the algorithm,
nobody is directly responsible.

Because there is no
regulated procedure against
the errors of the machine.

Because, let's be honest,
nobody cares about

what consequences the decisions
of a program have

for the life of
Robert McDaniel, or Smurf.

[Guay] Our main character
actually gets unjustly profiled

by the crime prediction system
in the game,

and very early on the player
wants to wipe that prediction

on his person,
because it's unjust.

He doesn't feel it's justified.

It thinks it's arbitrary

that some code decided
that he's a criminal

because
of this and that reason.

So we're kind of
twisting the perspective

from the being the vigilante,

now you're potentially
the unjustly profiled

by the algorithm.

[sirens]

Codes don't have a conscience,
and people who write code,

they don't always
know exactly what's
gonna happen afterwards.

There's a part of it
that is beyond the moment
where it's being engineered.

And so, since code
doesn't have a conscience,

and the programmer
doesn't always realize
all the repercussions

of what he's programming,
and he doesn't know

the extent of the data
it's gonna be treating
in the decades afterwards,

there is a point where,
who's responsible, really,
for the code's decision?

[Ferguson]
If the Roberts of the world
are walking down the street

and police know who's on the
Heat List,

they might get stopped easier,
might get searched more often,

they might really feel like
they were living in a true
police state.

And from the police perspective,
they're like,

"No, we're just targeting
the worst of the worst.

This person happens
to be on it."

The negative way of
looking at that

is probably closer to
the perspective of the young man

whose door is knocked on
by a detective who is there

to essentially inform him
that there is
a new surveillance

with his name,
and in fact they'll
give him a letter,

a custom notification letter
with his name on it,
with his prior record,

and with the future consequences
should he mess up.

A very directed,
very personal message of,

"We are watching you,
we are surveilling you,

"we are giving you a chance
to avoid violence

"or to be caught up
and be arrested.

And you need to choose wisely."

[McDaniel] If I was to commit a
crime or a murder right now,

they'd parade themselves.

Medals, honors.
"Oh, we was right,
look, our test."

Like, that's what I think
they're looking for.

They got a grant,
they made up a theory,

they started a program,
and now they want results.

For whoever gave their
money to fund this,

they have to give results,
'cause if you don't give
results, he'll end it.

It's wrong.
It's wrong to be profiled.

It is wrong to be saying that
you something that you're not.

It's wrong for somebody
to tell you you're a killer.

Like... I don't know.

[Gorner] The police say,
"Hey, it's just another tool
on our belts,

"it's something innovative,
it's something that we figure

can revolutionize
law enforcement."

But the flip side to that

is just from when I was
doing the story in 2013,

is that a lot of the names
on that list are
young African-Americans.

So in the African-American
community,

there were some rumblings that,

"Oh, well, this list
is just another example
of racial profiling."

[Hill] We don't have
the personal capacity

to keep in touch
with millions of people,

thousands of people.

Social media does.

And it's a double-edged sword

of, how do we try
to navigate that?

And I think the state and the
police are fully aware of this.

I think, ultimately,
they're gonna be
one step ahead.

They're gonna know exactly
how to batten down,

or how to limit,
for example,

thousands of people
attending a demonstration.

"Oh, let's just
cut off all their invites.

"Let's just not let it be
imprinted on social media.

"Let's affect the algorithm
to who is sending
what messages,

who is posting what," right?
There's no...

For us, we use it
with the intention of,

"We don't care."
They're gonna know anyway,

so we organize openly.

But, practically, I think
it's a really worrying thing,

because we have no way to
monitor what they're doing,

and we have no idea
of the scope in which

the powers they have,
and the technology they have

in terms of mass surveillance
and databases.

[man] What we started with
was a man found in an alleyway
shot, no witnesses.

So that's all the information
we had to start with.

What we were able to do
is find the crime,

go back in time,
see what happened.

These three cars right here,
are all involved in this murder.

We do what's known as
"wide area surveillance."

So we watch major cities
at a time.

We take a very high-resolution
image of a whole city

every second, process it to
make it look like Google Earth,

and it allows us to go
back in time and see

what happened within a city
up to about real time.

Well, because we capture
a major part of the city

at enough resolution,
we can look at a location

where a crime occurred,

that we didn't know it
was going to occur,

see what happened and follow
the vehicles and the people

to and from the crime scene.

It is a very powerful tool.

This may sound like
science-fiction,

but it's pretty
straightforward.

So, what we're gonna do is,
I'll just show you here,

this is a city, we're flying
at about 13... 12,000 feet.

And we're able to zoom in
anywhere within that area.

And what we'll do is
we'll see when a female
police officer leaves her house.

She is right here.

This car here is a lookout car
watching her.

And then there's three other
vehicles right up here.

So, here she actually
leaves her house right here.

And immediately following,
the blue car takes off

and tries to catch up to her.

She slows down and then rounds
the corner, and then guns it.

She gets around this
corner before the blue car
gets around that corner.

And then she gets around
this corner, and the blue car
actually gets lost.

Unfortunately, these other
three vehicles up here saw her,

and they're actually able
to catch up to her.

So, here she is, she's slowed
down by another vehicle.

And she gets caught behind this.

You get a vehicle that just
backs out in front of her here.

We couldn't tell if he was
directly involved or not.

But, unfortunately, that gave
these other guys time
to catch up to her.

And they catch up
to her right here.

And she is shot six times
in the head and shoulders.

And she's actually gonna
run right into that
parked car there.

And that is where she is found
by the police in a few minutes.

And then what we do
is we follow those vehicles
as they flee the scene.

And here you can see they're
passing people on the right
and on the left.

Now we're actually able to
follow two of those vehicles
to final end points.

So within a few minutes
after the murder,

we actually have
two locations identified.

Then what we do,
is we come in

and we'll actually go
into Google Earth

to actually
identify the houses,

and feed that information
into law enforcement.

And we'll actually get
the front door picture

of the house that he went into.

We'll take that image
and send it forward
to the police officers,

so they know which door
to knock on.

[man] At some point I have
stopped thinking about

who might know and who might
store what about me,

why, and since when.

Probably because it doesn't
make a difference anyway.

It's like with Hollywood,
computer games, and television.

Everything is inextricably
interwoven with reality.

Reality being just the
medium of the basic code.

Zero, one, like, don't like,
buy, don't buy,

guilty, not guilty.

Just to remind you,
code has no conscience.

You know what was fun?

Like I told you,
I lost a best friend.

When I say a best friend,
a brother.

I watched them sweep
his murder under the rug

like it didn't mean shit.

But it got put through
a $2 million...

test that said I was a killer.

[cell phone rings]

[groans]

My friend was 18
when he got killed.

He got a son right now
that I still look after.

That little boy actually
think I'm his dad.

And I don't know.

It's wrong.
It's just...

it's too much.

[man] If policing is going
to use software to predict

what these people
do in the future,

it's assuming that certain
people with a certain history

are going to do certain things.

And that's just not
necessarily the case,

because humans can change
according to what support

and what personal decisions
they make
according to that support.

But, again, it's a metaphor
for that, but it's also...
it's what policing is.

Policing is not preventative.

It's not just
in any kind of way.

And so it's just there
as a punishing mechanism.

As a criminalizing mechanism,
and as a punishing mechanism.

[Smurf]
You know what's funny, yeah?

There's a funny thing, man...

A little story that's quite
disgusting, actually.

Because you see how they're
restricting so many things

that we're able to do
and not able to do.

Music is one of them.
Music is one of them.

'Cause I've got a cousin
who knows people

who did a crime
where someone got murdered,

and he made a music video.

And in his lyrics,

he was mentioning stuff
about the crime.

Even though he didn't
commit the crime,

he mentioned something about it.
And do you know what?

He got sent to prison
for six years just for
the lyrics in the video.

And he got banned from rapping.
Do you know what I'm saying?

Because, obviously, music is our
way of expressing ourselves.

That's the only way that we know
how to express ourselves
and communicate, really.

Do you know what I'm saying?
Just to express yourself.

And that's... that's...
I think that's disgusting.

They're leaving us
with no other option.

I've been told they started off
a couple months ago with
400, but now skip to 1,500.

That's a big number.

You just made 1,100 more
criminals right there.

So, now, who is that good for?

Is it good for the streets
or is it good for the police?

You got more criminals
to lock up.
You got more cases to solve.

You got-- see what I'm saying?
You got more product.

[sirens]
[radio chatter]

You want to build a system,
build a system that helps me
get up out of this.

Help me go to school, help me
go off and start a business.

That's what I say, like,
even with this pre-crime stuff,

I try to just stay focused,
work, stay out of harm's way,

stay away from anything
that's negative.

And just try to prosper,
try to be better
than I was yesterday.

I could have let it
turn me into thug.

I could have said things,
just went off

and let people's images
change me.

But to me, personally,
that's not me.

I'm not gonna let you
change me because you got

a theory about me, or that's
just your personal view.

At the end of the day,
I can always prove you wrong.

[Caluris] We're on our third
version right now.

The system, we've been in place
now for about three years,

so we've done
regression studies to look at

the different variables
we put in

and be able to test it out
over past data sets

to make sure that those factors
that we're weighing
are effective.

However, I don't think
we're ever gonna reach

a final conclusion with
the program or the initiative,

'cause we're continually
looking to re-evaluate it

and be able to add
in additional data

and additional variables
that could play

an additional significant role
towards positive outcomes.

[distant police sirens]

[Gorner] That's just an example
of the efforts that our city

is trying to make
to fight the violence,

just trying to come
up with creative ideas

in fighting it,
and are there potential
civil rights violations there?

Well, there's always
that concern.

Um, especially, like I said
with this history,

with the deeply rooted
distrust between the police
and minority communities.

See, my story might
not mean shit to nobody,
because it wasn't you.

But what about when
they got your son,

when they got your daughter,
your child... when it's you?

Now it's a problem.

Now everybody want to make
it seem like okay, let's kill.

It don't affect nobody until
it come knocking on your door.

[Ferguson] So right now I think
people are willingly
giving up this information.

Not just what you're
giving up on the internet,

but as we move into a world
of the internet of things.

Your smart house will
reveal when you've left
for the day,

when you take your shower,
what temperature your bath is.

And your television
can listen to you,

your car will be able to monitor
where you're going

if you have like
an OnStar system
that tells you where to go.

Your cell phone knows all those
things and what you're doing

and the conversations
going on.

Like, we're just giving up
this data to private companies

in a way where we're not
really thinking about
the consequences.

We're not thinking about
what these data trails mean.

And for law enforcement,
you could see just how valuable
that information would be.

Why do you have to drink
cold coffee in a hot car

surveilling some guy,
when you could just
use the internet of things

to track them
all the way through, right?

This is the new world.
And right now,
the policy makers

and even the lawyers,
haven't really thought
through the consequences.

They haven't figured out
how does the Fourth Amendment
adapt?

How do privacy laws adapt?

How do laws that we have
about telephone technology

apply in a world
where suddenly your watch

is talking to the world
and giving them your heartbeat,

and the rest of it, right?

We just haven't
figured that out yet.

And it's important, I think,
to ask these questions now.

I think we're at the
very beginning of a very
big conversation

about what we should do
with this new data.

[man] Robert still has
a score of 215.

Smurf has left Tottenham.

The internet is
ever-learning and evolving.

Observes, surveys,
collects, saves.

"Above the city,"
as a friend wrote to me,

"the sky is the color
of a television

tuned to a dead channel."

Time to say farewell
and go back home.

Back to my smartphone,
my IP address, my emails,

my bookmarks, my Twitter
account, my Facebook timeline.

Welcome to the Matrix.

[rock music]