Damien Sardjoe was 14 when the Amsterdam police put him on the city’s Top 600 criminals list, which sets people thought to be at risk of committing “high-impact crimes” such as robbery, assault and murder on a regime of care and punishment.
That was when his life began to fall apart.
Sardjoe had previously been arrested for two street robberies — one of which was violent. His inclusion on the list meant police would raid his home whenever a crime happened in his area, while officers routinely stopped him on the street asking for identification, he said.
Illustration: Yusha
“I felt very spied on,” said Sardjoe, now a 20-year-old youth worker. “I didn’t feel comfortable walking on the street.”
Sardjoe’s older brother was placed on another automated list — the Top 400 children at risk of criminal behavior — before he had ever committed a crime, and then went on to become involved in stealing scooters, he added.
The “top criminal” tag felt “almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Sardjoe said.
Amid warnings from rights groups that artificial intelligence (AI) technologies reinforce prejudice in policing, the debate over systems such as the Top 600 list kicked up a notch this month, when members of the European Parliament voted for a report proposing strict regulation of predictive policing.
Officials said the nonbinding report, which also calls for outlawing the use of mass biometric surveillance, should become the European Parliament’s position for coming negotiations on a new AI law.
“We want to make sure certain types of AI, like facial recognition or predictive policing, cannot be used easily because they affect fundamental human rights,” said Bulgarian member Petar Vitanov, who wrote the report.
The use of automated risk modeling and profiling systems to predict future criminal activity has already been banned in cities such as Santa Cruz, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, amid accusations that they reinforce racist policing patterns.
“They treat everyone as suspects to some extent,” said Sarah Chander, senior policy adviser at the European Digital Rights network.
“But [they] will be disproportionately used against racialized people ... who are perceived to be potential migrants, terrorists, poor and working-class people, in poor, working-class areas,” she said.
The Dutch police declined to comment on the Top 600 and 400 schemes, referring inquiries to Amsterdam’s city council, which in turn said they were the responsibility of the police.
Europe’s law enforcement and criminal justice authorities are increasingly using technologies such as predictive policing to profile people and assess their likelihood to commit crimes, according to Fair Trials, a partly EU-funded civil rights group.
One much-criticized Dutch project, which ran from January 2019 to October last year, aimed to counter crimes such as shoplifting in the southeastern city of Roermond.
The Sensing Project used remote sensors in and around the city to detect the make, color and route of vehicles carrying people suspected of what police call “mobile banditry.”
Merel Koning, senior policy officer at human rights group Amnesty International, said the system mainly targeted people from east European countries and specifically Roma, referring to members of Europe’s largest ethnic minority.
The focus was not in line with internal police crime figures for previous years, Amnesty said.
Dutch police spokeswoman Mireille Beentjes said the project’s scope went beyond pickpockets and was not predictive as the data used “always [had] a human check.”
“We know these kinds of criminals often come from eastern Europe,” she said in an e-mail. “However, an eastern European license by itself was never enough to draw our special attention. More features were needed for that.”
The program ended because the police did not have enough capacity to follow up project data, the Dutch police said.
In Denmark, the POL-INTEL project, based on the Gotham system designed by US data analytics firm Palantir and operational since 2017, uses a mapping system to build a “heat map” identifying areas with higher crime rates.
The data appears to include citizenship information, such as whether a person in the system is “a non-Western Dane,” said Matt Mahmoudi, an affiliated lecturer and researcher on digital society at the University of Cambridge.
“We want an indication of why citizenship data — or non-Western data — matters in being able to produce a heat map,” he said.
Magnus Andresen, a senior Danish National Police officer, confirmed that POL-INTEL contains nationality and citizenship data, but would not comment on why.
The police do not have any statistics on the system’s effectiveness in combating terrorism or crime, Andresen said.
He added it is being used to support most of the force’s operational decisions, such as stop and searches, through the use of a “finder function,” which quickly locates data on people, places, objects and events.
Courtney Bowman, Palantir’s director of privacy, said decisions on the data gathered by the Gotham system — which has also been used by the European police agency Europol and the Hesse state police in Germany — were “always determinations made by customers.”
“The software is designed to enable human-driven analysis for a posteriori investigations [based on prior evidence] and not to provide algorithmic-based predictive policing capabilities,” he said.
Pushback against institutions and companies linked to “predictive policing” has gone so far that digital experts say even the US firm that pioneered the technology, formerly called PredPol — short for predictive policing — now distances itself from the term.
The company’s system uses algorithms to analyze police records and identify crime-ridden areas to proactively determine when and where officers patrol.
“However, what we do isn’t ‘predictive,’ what we do is create location-based risk assessments based on historical crime patterns. This is why we changed our name from PredPol to Geolitica earlier this year,” CEO Brian MacDonald said.
“Any of these approaches using open, auditable data and algorithms to identify crime hot spots will always be better than relying on officer ‘intuition,’” he added in e-mailed comments.
Police use of AI is still “extremely controversial,” said Tom McNeil, assistant police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands Police in England, which is working with about eight types of automated modeling system.
He called for more oversight in the way the technology is used by authorities, adding that he personally favors a ban on the use of live facial recognition surveillance, as proposed in the European Commission’s proposed artificial intelligence act.
“We need a [British] law to clarify what should and shouldn’t be allowed, including red lines over when you shouldn’t be allowed to use facial recognition or [predictive] analytics,” McNeil said.
In Amsterdam, Sardjoe has been off the Top 600 list for three years and works in a program encouraging others to shun crime.
“There was a moment in my life where I thought: ‘They already think I’m a criminal, so I might as well do criminal stuff’ — because they don’t expect anything better,” he said.
“Right now, I’m helping boys or kids who are going through what I went through because all I needed then was a person who understood that [experience],” he added.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS