Profiling on Fast-Growing Crime-Fighting Technologies
Profiling On Fast-Growing Crime-Fighting Technologies
Kenny Ozuna Cedano
11-0880
Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo (INTEC)
Faculty of Sciences and Humanities
Rhetoric and Composition (AHH-202)
Santo Domingo, National District, Dominican Republic
April 19th, 2013
Profiling On Fast-Growing Crime-Fighting Technologies
Even though crime-fighting technologies give a broad advantage in police investigations, many citizens have arrived at the point of asking themselves whether its use will sooner or later cause the loss of constitutional rights. When these types of technologies are used to reduce crimes, they often received the support of the citizens because it made them feel safe and secure, but at the same time these technologies raise a host of ethical, legal and other issues including privacy, equality, security and liability concerns. Furthermore, it is true that these technologies have given citizens safety and have reduced crime. However, over the years the incorrect employment of these behavioral and internet technologies have led to inappropriate and damaging profiling of citizens.
One important point of view upheld by the opposing side is that behavioral technologies have helped us fight crime over the years; however, it has also shown that more and more people are being profiled by these technologies. Now, since profiling is a behavioral and investigative tool that is intended to help investigators to accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown subjects, the Mosaic-2000 can be used as the perfect example to explain how these type behavioral technologies lead to negative profiling. For instance, the Mosaic-2000 described by the journalist Francis X. Clines (1999), in The New York Times, is “A computer program designed to identify students who might be prone to commit violent acts”; or how Kelly Patricia puts it “Rooting out the bad seeds,” (O’Meara, 2000), which means that they will hand-pick the violent students as if they
Kenny Ozuna Cedano
11-0880
Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo (INTEC)
Faculty of Sciences and Humanities
Rhetoric and Composition (AHH-202)
Santo Domingo, National District, Dominican Republic
April 19th, 2013
Profiling On Fast-Growing Crime-Fighting Technologies
Even though crime-fighting technologies give a broad advantage in police investigations, many citizens have arrived at the point of asking themselves whether its use will sooner or later cause the loss of constitutional rights. When these types of technologies are used to reduce crimes, they often received the support of the citizens because it made them feel safe and secure, but at the same time these technologies raise a host of ethical, legal and other issues including privacy, equality, security and liability concerns. Furthermore, it is true that these technologies have given citizens safety and have reduced crime. However, over the years the incorrect employment of these behavioral and internet technologies have led to inappropriate and damaging profiling of citizens.
One important point of view upheld by the opposing side is that behavioral technologies have helped us fight crime over the years; however, it has also shown that more and more people are being profiled by these technologies. Now, since profiling is a behavioral and investigative tool that is intended to help investigators to accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown subjects, the Mosaic-2000 can be used as the perfect example to explain how these type behavioral technologies lead to negative profiling. For instance, the Mosaic-2000 described by the journalist Francis X. Clines (1999), in The New York Times, is “A computer program designed to identify students who might be prone to commit violent acts”; or how Kelly Patricia puts it “Rooting out the bad seeds,” (O’Meara, 2000), which means that they will hand-pick the violent students as if they