The executive summary does a far better job at articulating the situation, its problems, its negative implications, and proposed mitigations than most of us will be able to manage in an HN comment.
Note that the report suggestions are not to ban predictive approaches. I think the report recommendations are reasonable under the assumption of competence and good faith among all parties. If you don't think that the limitations the report suggests are sufficient, I think that's a reasonable sign that you're not assuming good faith and competence - which is fair, but does totally shift the argument.
If you're just assuming that the police will abuse this regardless of safe guards (that's fair), you can just make that argument up front, and cut through all the shit, and then you can get down to arguing over real conflict points.
The executive summary does a far better job at articulating the situation, its problems, its negative implications, and proposed mitigations than most of us will be able to manage in an HN comment.
Note that the report suggestions are not to ban predictive approaches. I think the report recommendations are reasonable under the assumption of competence and good faith among all parties. If you don't think that the limitations the report suggests are sufficient, I think that's a reasonable sign that you're not assuming good faith and competence - which is fair, but does totally shift the argument.
If you're just assuming that the police will abuse this regardless of safe guards (that's fair), you can just make that argument up front, and cut through all the shit, and then you can get down to arguing over real conflict points.