fbpx
Connect with us

The Conversation

DOJ funding pipeline subsidizes questionable big data surveillance technologies

Published

on

DOJ funding pipeline subsidizes questionable big data surveillance technologies

Predictive policing aimed to identify hot spots and ‘chronic' offenders but missed the mark.
Patrick T. Fallon for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, American University

Predictive policing has been shown to be an ineffective and biased policing tool. Yet, the Department of Justice has been funding the crime surveillance and analysis technology for years and continues to do so despite criticism from researchers, privacy advocates and members of .

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., joined by five Democratic senators, called on Merrick Garland to halt funding for predictive policing technologies in a letter issued Jan. 29, 2024. Predictive policing involves analyzing crime data in an attempt to identify where and when crimes are likely to occur and who is likely to commit them.

The request came months after the Department of Justice failed to answer basic questions about how predictive policing funds were being used and who was being harmed by arguably racially discriminatory algorithms that have never been proven to work as intended. The Department of Justice did not have answers to who was using the technology, how it was being evaluated and which communities were affected.

While focused on predictive policing, the senators' demand raises what I, a law professor who studies big data surveillance, see as a bigger issue: What is the Department of Justice's role in funding new surveillance technologies? The answer is surprising and reveals an entire ecosystem of how technology companies, departments and academics benefit from the flow of federal dollars.

Advertisement

The money pipeline

The National Institute of Justice, the DOJ's research, and evaluation arm, regularly provides seed money for grants and pilot projects to test out ideas like predictive policing. It was a National Institute of Justice grant that funded the first predictive policing conference in 2009 that launched the idea that past crime data could be run through an algorithm to predict future criminal risk. The institute has given US$10 million dollars to predictive policing projects since 2009.

Because there was grant money available to test out new theories, academics and startup companies could afford to invest in new ideas. Predictive policing was just an academic theory until there was cash to start testing it in various police departments. Suddenly, companies launched with the financial security that federal grants could pay their early bills.

National Institute of Justice-funded research often turns into for-profit companies. Police departments also benefit from getting money to buy the new technology without to dip into their local budgets. This dynamic is one of the hidden drivers of police technology.

How predictive policing works – and the harm it can cause.

Once a new technology gets big enough, another DOJ entity, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, funds projects with direct financial grants. The funded police departments to test one of the biggest place-based predictive policing technologies – PredPol – in its early years. The bureau has also funded the purchase of other predictive technologies.

Advertisement

The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded one of the most infamous person-based predictive policing pilots in Los Angeles, operation LASER, which targeted “chronic offenders.” Both experiments – PredPol and LASER – failed to work as intended. The Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General identified the negative impact of the programs on the community – and the fact that the predictive theories did not work to reduce crime in any significant way.

As these DOJ entities' practices indicate, federal money not only seeds but feeds the growth of new policing technologies. Since 2005, the Bureau of Justice Assistance has given over $7.6 billion of federal money to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies for a host of projects. Some of that money has gone directly to new surveillance technologies. A quick skim through the public grants shows approximately $3 million directed to facial recognition, $8 million for ShotSpotter and $13 million to build and grow real-time crime centers. ShotSpotter (now rebranded as SoundThinking) is the leading brand of gunshot detection technology. Real-time crime centers combine security camera feeds and other data to provide surveillance for a city.

The questions not asked

None of this is necessarily nefarious. The Department of Justice is in the business of prosecution, so it is not surprising for it to fund prosecution tools. The National Institute of Justice exists as a research body inside the Office of Justice Programs, so its role in helping to promote data-driven policing strategies is not inherently problematic. The Bureau of Justice Assistance exists to assist local law enforcement through financial grants. The DOJ is feeding police surveillance power because it law enforcement interests.

The problem, as indicated by Sen. Wyden's letter, is that in subsidizing experimental surveillance technologies, the Department of Justice did not do basic risk assessment or racial justice evaluations before investing money in a new technological solution. As someone who has studied predictive policing for over a decade, I can say that the questions asked by the senators were not asked in the pilot projects.

Advertisement

Basic questions of who would be affected, whether there could be a racially discriminatory impact, how it would change policing and whether it worked were not raised in any serious way. Worse, the focus was on deploying something new, not double-checking whether it worked. If you are going to seed and feed a potentially dangerous technology, you also have an obligation to weed it out once it turns out to be harming people.

Only now, after activists have protested, after scholars have critiqued and after the original predictive policing companies have shut down or been bought by bigger companies, is the DOJ starting to ask the hard questions. In January 2024, the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security asked for public comment to be included in a report on law enforcement agencies' use of facial recognition technology, other technologies using biometric information and predictive algorithms.

Arising from a mandate under executive order 14074 on advancing effective, accountable policing and criminal justice practices to enhance public trust and public safety, the DOJ Office of Legal Policy is going to evaluate how predictive policing affects civil rights and civil liberties. I believe that this is a good step – although a decade too late.

Lessons not learned?

The bigger problem is that the same process is again today with other technologies. As one example, real-time crime centers are being built across America. Thousands of security cameras stream to a single command center that is linked to automated license plate readers, gunshot detection sensors and 911 calls. The centers also use video analytics technology to identify and track people and objects across a city. And they tap into data about past crime.

Advertisement
A wall of monitors shows aerial and street views of a city
Real-time crime centers like this one in Albuquerque, N.M., enable police surveillance of entire .
AP Photo/Susan Montoya Bryan

Millions of federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act are going to cities with the specific designation to address crime, and some of those dollars have been diverted to build real-time crime centers. They're also being funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Real-time crime centers can do predictive analytics akin to predictive policing simply as a byproduct of all the data they collect in the ordinary course of a day. The centers can also scan entire cities with powerful computer vision-enabled cameras and react in real time. The capabilities of these advanced technologies make the civil liberties and racial justice fears around predictive policing pale in comparison.

So while the American public waits for answers about a technology, predictive policing, that had its heyday 10 years ago, the DOJ is seeding and feeding a far more invasive surveillance system with few questions asked. Perhaps things will go differently this time. Maybe the DOJ/DHS report on predictive algorithms will look inward at the department's own culpability in seeding the surveillance problems of tomorrow.The Conversation

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Professor of Law, American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

The Conversation

Vaccines tell a success story that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump forget – here are some key reminders

Published

on

theconversation.com – Mark R. O'Brian, Professor and Chair of Biochemistry, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, at Buffalo – 2024-07-26 07:11:29
Many fatal childhood illnesses can be prevented with vaccination.
Halfpoint Images/Moment via Getty Images

Mark R. O'Brian, University at Buffalo

Vaccinations have provided significant protection for the public against infectious diseases. However, there was a modest decrease in support in 2023 nationwide for vaccine requirements for to attend .

In addition, the presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a leading critic of childhood vaccination, has given him a prominent platform in which to amplify his views. This includes an extensive interview on the “Joe Rogan Experience,” a podcast with over 14 million subscribers. Notably, former President Donald Trump has said he is opposed to mandatory school COVID-19 vaccinations, and in a phone call Trump apparently wasn't aware was being recorded, he appeared to endorse Kennedy's views toward vaccines.

I am a biochemist and molecular biologist studying the roles microbes play in health and disease. I also teach medical students and am interested in how the public understands science.

Advertisement

Here are some facts about vaccines that skeptics like Kennedy get wrong:

Vaccines are effective and safe

Public health data from 1974 to the present conclude that vaccines have saved at least 154 million lives worldwide over the past 50 years. Vaccines are also constantly monitored for safety in the U.S.

Nevertheless, the false claim that vaccines cause autism persists despite study after study of large populations throughout the world showing no causal link between them.

Claims about the dangers of vaccines often come from misrepresenting scientific research papers. Kennedy cites a 2005 report allegedly showing massive brain inflammation in monkeys in response to vaccination, when in fact the authors of that study state that there were no serious medical complications. A separate 2003 study that Kennedy claimed showed a 1,135% increase in autism in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children actually found no consistent significant association between vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Advertisement

Kennedy also claims that a 2002 vaccine study included a control group of children 6 months of age and younger who were fed mercury-contaminated tuna sandwiches. This claim is false.

Gloved hands of clinician placing bandaid on child's arm, a syringe and vaccine vial beside them
Vaccines are continuously monitored for safety before and long after they're available to the general public.
Elena Zaretskaya/Moment via Getty Images

Aluminum adjuvants help boost immunity

Kennedy is co-counsel with a firm that is suing the pharmaceutical company Merck based in part on the unfounded assertion that the aluminum in one of its vaccines causes neurological disease. Aluminum is added to many vaccines as an adjuvant to strengthen the body's immune response to the vaccine, thereby enhancing the body's defense against the targeted microbe.

The law firm's claim is based on a 2020 report showing that brain tissue from some with Alzheimer's disease, autism and multiple sclerosis have elevated levels of aluminum. The authors of that study do not assert that vaccines are the source of the aluminum, and vaccines are unlikely to be the culprit.

Notably, the brain samples analyzed in that study were from 47- to 105-year-old patients. Most people are exposed to aluminum primarily through their diets, and aluminum is eliminated from the body within days. Therefore, aluminum exposure from childhood vaccines is not expected to persist in those patients.

Vaccines undergo the same approval process as other drugs

Clinical trials for vaccines and other drugs are blinded, randomized and placebo-controlled studies. For a vaccine trial, this means that participants are randomly divided into one group that receives the vaccine and a second group that receives a placebo saline solution. The researchers carrying out the study, and sometimes the participants, do not know who has received the vaccine or the placebo until the study has finished. This eliminates bias.

Advertisement

Results are published in the public domain. For example, vaccine trial data for COVID-19, human papilloma virus and rotavirus is available for anyone to access.

Vaccine manufacturers are liable for injury or death

Kennedy's against Merck contradicts his insistence that vaccine manufacturers are fully immune from litigation.

His claim is based on an incorrect interpretation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP. VICP is a no-fault federal program created to reduce frivolous lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, which threaten to cause vaccine shortages and a resurgence of vaccine-preventable disease.

A person injury from a vaccine can petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims through the VICP for monetary compensation. If the VICP petition is denied, the claimant can then sue the vaccine manufacturer.

Advertisement
Gloved hand picking up vaccine vial among a tray of vaccine vials
Drug manufacturers are liable for any vaccine-related death or injury.
Andreas Ren Photography Germany/Image Source via Getty Images

The majority of cases resolved under the VICP end in a negotiated settlement between parties without establishing that a vaccine was the cause of the claimed injury. Kennedy and his law firm have incorrectly used the payouts under the VICP to assert that vaccines are unsafe.

The VICP gets the vaccine manufacturer off the hook only if it has complied with all requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and exercised due care. It does not protect the vaccine maker from claims of fraud or withholding information regarding the safety or efficacy of the vaccine during its development or after approval.

Good nutrition and sanitation are not substitutes for vaccination

Kennedy asserts that populations with adequate nutrition do not need vaccines to avoid infectious diseases. While it is clear that improvements in nutrition, sanitation, treatment, food safety and public health measures have played important roles in reducing deaths and severe complications from infectious diseases, these factors do not eliminate the need for vaccines.

After World War II, the U.S. was a wealthy nation with substantial health-related . Yet, Americans reported an average of 1 million cases per year of now-preventable infectious diseases.

Vaccines introduced or expanded in the 1950s and 1960s against diseases like diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, polio, mumps, rubella and Haemophilus influenza type B have resulted in the near or complete eradication of those diseases.

Advertisement

It's easy to forget why many infectious diseases are rarely encountered today. The of vaccines does not always tell its own story. It must be retold again and again to counter misinformation.The Conversation

Mark R. O'Brian, Professor and Chair of Biochemistry, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Vaccines tell a success story that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump forget – here are some key reminders appeared first on theconversation.com

Advertisement
Continue Reading

The Conversation

Tagging seals with sensors helps scientists track ocean currents and a changing climate

Published

on

theconversation.com – Lilian (Lily) Dove, Postdoctoral Fellow of Oceanography, Brown – 2024-07-25 07:08:14

Tagging seals with sensors helps scientists track ocean currents and a changing climate

Lilian Dove, Brown University

A surprising technique has helped scientists observe how Earth's oceans are changing, and it's not using specialized robots or artificial intelligence. It's tagging seals.

Several species of seals around and on Antarctica and regularly dive more than 100 meters in search of their next meal. These seals are experts at swimming through the vigorous ocean currents that make up the Southern Ocean. Their tolerance for deep waters and ability to navigate rough currents make these adventurous creatures the perfect research assistants to oceanographers like my colleagues and me study the Southern Ocean.

Advertisement

Seal sensors

Researchers have been attaching tags to the foreheads of seals for the past two decades to collect data in remote and inaccessible regions. A researcher tags the seal during mating season, when the marine mammal to shore to rest, and the tag remains attached to the seal for a year.

A researcher glues the tag to the seal's head – tagging seals does not affect their behavior. The tag detaches after the seal molts and sheds its fur for a new coat each year.

The tag collects data while the seal dives and transmits its location and the scientific data back to researchers via satellite when the seal surfaces for .

First proposed in 2003, seal tagging has grown into an international collaboration with rigorous sensor accuracy standards and broad data sharing. Advances in satellite technology now allow scientists to have near-instant access to the data collected by a seal.

Advertisement

New scientific discoveries aided by seals

The tags attached to seals typically carry pressure, temperature and salinity sensors, all properties used to assess the ocean's rising temperatures and changing currents. The sensors also often contain chlorophyll fluorometers, which can data about the water's phytoplankton concentration.

Phytoplankton are tiny organisms that form the base of the oceanic food web. Their presence often means that animals such as fish and seals are around.

The seal sensors can also tell researchers about the effects of climate change around Antarctica. Approximately 150 tons of ice melts from Antarctica every year, contributing to global sea-level rise. This melting is driven by warm water carried to the ice shelves by oceanic currents.

With the data collected by seals, oceanographers have described some of the physical pathways this warm water travels to reach ice shelves and how currents transport the resulting melted ice away from glaciers.

Advertisement

Seals regularly dive under sea ice and near glacier ice shelves. These regions are challenging, and can even be dangerous, to sample with traditional oceanographic methods.

Across the open Southern Ocean, away from the Antarctic coast, seal data has also shed light on another pathway causing ocean warming. Excess heat from the atmosphere moves from the ocean surface, which is in contact with the atmosphere, down to the interior ocean in highly localized regions. In these , heat moves into the deep ocean, where it can't be dissipated out through the atmosphere.

The ocean stores most of the heat energy put into the atmosphere from human activity. So, understanding how this heat moves around helps researchers monitor oceans around the globe.

Seal behavior shaped by ocean physics

The seal data also provides marine biologists with information about the seals themselves. Scientists can determine where seals look for food. Some regions, called fronts, are hot spots for elephant seals to hunt for food.

Advertisement

In fronts, the ocean's circulation creates turbulence and mixes water in a way that brings nutrients up to the ocean's surface, where phytoplankton can use them. As a result, fronts can have phytoplankton blooms, which attract fish and seals.

Scientists use the tag data to see how seals are adapting to a changing climate and warming ocean. In the short term, seals may benefit from more ice melt around the Antarctic continent, as they tend to find more food in coastal areas with holes in the ice. Rising subsurface ocean temperatures, however, may change where their prey is and ultimately threaten seals' ability to thrive.

Seals have helped scientists understand and observe some of the most remote regions on Earth. On a changing planet, seal tag data will continue to provide observations of their ocean , which has vital implications for the rest of Earth's climate system.The Conversation

Lilian Dove, Postdoctoral Fellow of Oceanography, Brown University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Read More

The post Tagging seals with sensors helps scientists track ocean currents and a changing climate appeared first on .com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Cheesemaking is a complex science – a food chemist explains the process from milk to mozzarella

Published

on

theconversation.com – John A. Lucey, Professor of Food Science, of Wisconsin-Madison – 2024-07-24 07:18:57
Storing cheese wheels to let them age intensifies the flavor.
AP Photo/Antonio Calanni

John A. Lucey, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Cheese is a relatively simple food. It's made with milk, enzymes – these are proteins that can chop up other proteins – bacterial cultures and salt. Lots of complex chemistry goes into the cheesemaking process, which can determine whether the cheese turns out soft and gooey like mozzarella or hard and fragrant like Parmesan.

In fact, humans have been making cheese for about 10,000 years. Roman soldiers were given cheese as part of their rations. It is a nutritious food that provides protein, calcium and other minerals. Its long shelf allows it to be transported, traded and shipped long distances.

I am a food scientist at the University of Wisconsin who has studied cheese chemistry for the past 35 years.

Advertisement

In the U.S., cheese is predominantly made with cow's milk. But you can also find cheese made with milk from other animals like sheep, goats and even buffalo and yak.

Unlike with yogurt, another fermented dairy product, cheesemakers whey – which is water – to make cheese. Milk is about 90% water, whereas a cheese like cheddar is less than about 38% water.

Removing water from milk to make cheese results in a harder, firmer product with a longer shelf life, since milk is very perishable and spoils quickly. Before the invention of refrigeration, milk would quickly sour. Making cheese was a way to preserve the nutrients in milk so you could eat it weeks or months in the future.

How is cheese made?

All cheesemakers first pump milk into a cheese vat and add a special enzyme called rennet. This enzyme destabilizes the proteins in the milk – the proteins then aggregate together and make a gel. The cheesemaker is essentially turning milk from a liquid into a gel.

Advertisement

After anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, depending on the type of cheese, the cheesemaker cuts this gel, typically into cubes. Cutting the gel helps some of the whey, or water, separate from the cheese curd, which is made of aggregated milk and looks like a yogurt gel. Cutting the gel into cubes lets some water escape from the newly cut surfaces through small pores, or openings, in the gel.

The cheesemaker's goal is to remove as much whey and moisture from the curd as they need to for their specific recipe. To do so, the cheesemaker might stir or heat up the curd, which helps release whey and moisture. Depending on the type of cheese made, the cheesemaker will drain the whey and water from the vat, leaving behind the cheese curds.

A man in a white lab coat, hairnet and gloves pulls a device through a large tub of white liquid.
Wisconsin Master Cheesemaker Gary Grossen cuts a vat of cheese with a cheese harp during a cheesemaking short course at the Center for Dairy Research in Madison, Wis. Cutting helps release whey during the cheesemaking .
UW Center for Dairy Research

For a harder cheese like cheddar, the cheesemaker adds salt directly to the curds while they're still in the vat. Salting the curds expels more whey and moisture. The cheesemaker then packs the curds together in forms or hoops – these are containers that shape the curds into a block or wheel and hold them there – and places them under pressure. The pressure squeezes the curds in these hoops, and they knit together to form a solid block of cheese.

Cheesemakers salt other cheeses, like mozzarella, by placing them in a salt solution called a brine. The cheese block or wheel floats in a brine tank for hours, days or even weeks. During that time, the cheese absorbs some of the salt, which adds flavor and protects against unwanted bacterial or pathogen growth.

A graphic showing the many steps between a farmer harvesting milk from cows and the cheese reaching the consumer.
The cheese production process.
UW Center for Dairy Research

Cheese is a living, fermented food

While the cheesemaker is completing all these steps, several important bacterial processes are occurring. The cheesemaker adds cheese cultures, which are bacteria they choose that produce specific flavors, at the beginning of the process. Adding them to the milk while it is still liquid gives the bacteria time to ferment the lactose in the milk.

Historically, cheesemakers used raw milk, and the bacteria in the raw milk soured the cheese. Now, cheesemakers use pasteurization, a mild heat treatment that destroys any pathogens present in the raw milk. But using this treatment means the cheesemakers need to add back in some bacteria called starters – these “start” the fermentation process.

Advertisement

Pasteurization provides a more controlled process for the cheesemaker, as they can select specific bacteria to add, rather than whatever is present in the raw milk.
Essentially, these bacteria eat (ferment) the sugar – the lactose – and in doing so produce lactic acid, as well as other desirable flavor compounds in the cheese like diacetyl, which smells like hot buttered popcorn.

In some types of cheese, these cultures stay active in the cheese long after it leaves the cheese vat. Many cheesemakers age their cheeses for weeks, months or even years to give the fermentation process more time to develop the desired flavors. Aged cheeses include Parmesan, aged cheddars and Gouda.

A person in a white coat holds a wheel of cheese.
A Wisconsin cheesemaker inspects a wheel of Parmesan in the aging room. Aging is an important step in the production of many cheeses, as it allows for flavor .
The Dairy Farmers of Wisconsin

In essence, cheesemaking is a milk concentration process. Cheesemakers want their final product to have the milk proteins, fat and nutrients, without as much of the water. For example, the main milk protein that is captured in the cheesemaking process is casein. Milk might contain about 2.5% casein content, but a finished cheese like cheddar may contain about 25% casein (protein). So cheese contains lots of nutrients protein, calcium and fat.

Infinite possibilities with cheese

There are hundreds of different varieties of cow's milk cheese made across the globe, and they all start with milk. All of these different varieties are produced by adjusting the cheesemaking process.

For some cheeses, like Limburger, the cheesemaker rubs a smear – a solution containing various types of bacteria – on the cheese's surface during the aging process. For others, like Camembert, the cheesemaker places the cheese in an (e.g., a cave) that encourages mold growth.

Advertisement

Others like bandaged cheddar are wrapped with bandages or covered with ash. Adding a bandage or ash onto the cheese's surface helps protect it from excessive mold growth, and it reduces the amount of moisture lost to evaporation. This creates a harder cheese with stronger flavors.

A man in a white apron and hat stands in a room full of shelves stacked with cheese.
Wisconsin Master Cheesemaker Joe Widmer in his brick cheese aging room. Brick cheese is a smear-ripened cheese – it is produced by applying a salt solution to the exterior of the cheese as it ages.
Dairy Farmers of Wisconsin

Over the past 60 years, cheesemakers have figured out how to select the right bacterial cultures to make cheese with specific flavors and textures. The possibilities are endless, and there's no limit to the cheesemaker's imagination.The Conversation

John A. Lucey, Professor of Food Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

Advertisement

The post Cheesemaking is a complex science – a food chemist explains the process from milk to mozzarella appeared first on .com

Continue Reading

Trending