Suggested Discussion Outline

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Suggested Discussion Outline

Post by johnkarls »

.

The following outline is respectfully suggested –


*******************************
Section A: Comments About Prof. Sarah Brayne’s “Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing”

Our tradition is to devote the first portion of each monthly meeting to going through the focus book, chapter by chapter, to invite important comments that are specific to a particular chapter. After all, each participant (except, perhaps “first timers”) have taken the time to read the focus book and her/his opportunity to opine on anything in the focus book should NOT be denied.

Chapter 1: Introduction: Policing Our Digital Traces

Chapter 2: Policing by Numbers: The Public History and Private Future of Police Data

Chapter 3: Dragnet Surveillance: Our Incriminating Lives

Chapter 4: Directed Surveillance: Predictive Policing and Quantified Risk

Chapter 5: Police Pushback: When the Watcher Becomes the Watched

Chapter 6: Coding Inequality: How the Use of Big Data Reduces, Obscures, and Amplifies Inequalities

Chapter 7: Algorithmic Suspicion and Big Data Searches: The Inadequacy of Law in the Digital Age

Chapter 8: Conclusion: Big Data as Social


*******************************
Section B: U.S. Sen. Tim Scott’s “Justice Act”

This month’s Short Quiz was entitled “Prediction/Surveillance vs. Engagement.” [The Quiz and Suggested Answers are available at viewtopic.php?f=642&t=2064&sid=e53e5e2d ... a8164a0f45.]

The intro to the Short Quiz and its Suggested Answers said that their purpose –

“is to distinguish between the aspects of policing with which Prof. Sarah Brayne is dealing in our focus book (i.e., prediction/surveillance), and the aspects of policing which have captured so much publicity in the wake of the George Floyd killing on 5/25/2020 (i.e., engagement).”


B-1. Are there any problems with “Prediction/Surveillance” raised by Prof. Brayne in our focus book that should be addressed in Sen. Tim Scott’s “Justice Act”?

[NB: The Official Text and the Official Section-By-Section Analysis of Sen. Scott’s “Justice Act” are available at viewtopic.php?f=641&t=2060&sid=e53e5e2d ... a8164a0f45.]

B-2. Q&A-B-5 and Q&A-B-6 of the Short Quiz address the issue of “qualified immunity” for police officers which has been, per the N.Y. Times, the major impediment to agreement between Sen. Scott and the Democrat negotiators. Is Q&A-6 correct that this should be bridgeable because, if individual police officers are subject to a wider range of civil lawsuits, they will have to obtain insurance policies and police departments will have to raise salaries to cover the cost of the insurance policies in order to recruit/retain police officers? Should the “Justice Act” eliminate “qualified immunity” WHILE REQUIRING POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO PROVIDE EACH OFFICER WITH AN INSURANCE POLICY COVERING THE INCREASED LIABILITY (similar to other employee benefits such as health-care insurance)???

[The Quiz and Suggested Answers are available at viewtopic.php?f=642&t=2064&sid=e53e5e2d ... a8164a0f45.]

B-3. Are there any other differences between Sen. Scott and the Democrat negotiators that you have seen discussed in the media that you think should be addressed in Sen. Scott’s Justice Act?


*******************************
Section C: Addressing The Cause Of Racism (vs. a mere symptom)

C-1. During last summer’s unrest in major American cities, our 6/3/2020 meeting approved a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign to the two Presidential Candidates (Pres. Trump and former V.P. Biden).

[The text of those two e-mail campaigns is identical and is available at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1925&sid=e53e5e2d0 ... a8164a0f45.]


C-2. The first paragraph of both e-mail campaigns was –

“As you may be aware, Jonathan Kozol has, for more than half a century, written award-winning best-selling books about inner-city education and how it has long-since produced and perpetuated a Permanent 30% Under-Caste (in other words, 100 million Americans) that the U.S. government continually reports is illiterate as defined by the ability to read the warning label on a can of rat poison.”


C-3. Both e-mail campaigns, after establishing our bona fides, continued with –

The Group has concluded that there is NO EXCUSE for a self-respecting nation to continue to tolerate ignoring a Permanent 30% Under-Caste when “Identical Twin Studies” (the Gold Standard for determining what is genetic and what is environmental) --

consistently show when inner-city children are orphaned before their first birthdays where one twin was adopted by a suburban family and the other twin was adopted by another inner-city family -- that by adulthood, the identical twins adopted by suburban families generate Measured IQ’s equal to average suburban Measured IQ’s, while their identical twins adopted by inner-city families generate Measured IQ’s equal to average inner-city Measured IQ’s.

However, the prevailing SINGLE-DIGIT inner-city high-school graduation rates are NOT surprising when our inner-city children KNOW BY AGE 5 that they are NOT eligible for their dreams.

And that their only realistic career objectives are pimp or pusher, or girl friend of a pimp or pusher graduating to whore -- which, of course, do not require much education.

The Group has concluded that the nation faces a SOCIOLOGY problem, NOT an education problem -- one that requires de facto surrogate parents.

And that the best way to solve the challenge of our half-century-plus Permanent 30% Under-Caste is for the U.S. government --

1. To establish “magnet schools” that push the percentage of inner-city children to the maximum that will be tolerated by affluent parents, BUT ARE SO OUTSTANDING IN TERMS OF FACULTY, PROGRAMS, FACILITIES, ETC., ETC., that affluent parents will still want their children to attend.

2. To require that admission of an affluent student, AND THE AFFLUENT STUDENT’S CONTINUED ENROLLMENT, be conditioned on the affluent student and her/his family’s tutoring/mentoring a less-affluent student.

It is noted that the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere because nobody is forced to attend Magnet Schools.

More information is contained in The Group’s E-mails that were requested by the New York Times Editorial-Page Editor and that are available at viewtopic.php?f=587&t=1919&sid=57a23c4c ... 36a3ef1ca0.

Racism in America (vs. band aids for symptoms such as police brutality) can NOT be solved until America addresses effectively its Permanent 30% Under-Caste by establishing Federal Magnet Schools in which every child in America’s Permanent 30% Under-Caste is enrolled so that, with the passing generations, the stain of segregation is finally erased.


*******************************
Section D: Quo Vadis, America???

D-1. Are we still agreed that the root cause of racism in America is its refusal to provide a decent education for its Permanent 30% Under-Caste???

D-2. And that politicians harping on alleged “police brutality” is a despicable way for politicians to whip into line the African-American vote by focusing on a mere symptom whose proposed solutions do not cost anything contrasted with the HEAVY LIFTING of providing a decent education for the Permanent 30% Under-Caste???

Post Reply

Return to “Discussion Outline – “Predict & Surveil: Data, Discretion & the Future of Policing” by Prof. Sarah Brayne – June 9”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests