Comment by Sarah Chander

I can’t profess to have researched every particular high-risk use in detail, but many of them should be banned. Predictive policing is a really good example. Many people believe that if you de-bias predictive policing systems, they will no longer profile and lead to the over-policing of racialized and poor communities. I disagree. Because such systems are steeped in a broader context of racial inequality and class inequality, there is no way you can make a technical tweak or slightly improve the dataset such that discriminatory results will not ensue from the use of the system. And this leads me to believe that it should be banned. This is one of the areas where the bias debate can be a little bit obscuring.
AI Verified source (2021)
Like Share on X 8mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote explicitly discusses predictive policing and clearly argues that it "should be banned," directly matching the full statement "Ban predictive policing." · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote clearly supports banning it: “Predictive policing is a really good example” of systems that “should be banned,” and “this leads me to believe that it should be banned.” · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified: the passage appears verbatim at the cited Heinrich Böll Stiftung page in the April 29, 2021 interview “It doesn't have fundamental rights front and center”: Sarah Chander on the EU’s new AI draft regulation. The quote is shown as Sarah Chander’s answer immediately after the question at lines 70–72, so the attribution and year are correct. ([eu.boell.org](https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/29/it-doesnt-have-fundamental-rights-front-and-center-sarah-chander-european-digital-rights)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago
AI Unverifiable The original source URL (us.boell.org) and the corrected URL (eu.boell.org - same Heinrich Böll Stiftung article) both returned HTTP 403 Forbidden. However, the quote is independently confirmed via web search results which paraphrase Chander's position verbatim: she argues against de-biasing predictive policing systems because they are "steeped in a broader context of racial inequality" and that they should be banned. Vote alignment is correct (for "Ban predictive policing" - she explicitly advocates for prohibition). Updated source URL to eu.boell.org which appears to be the actual host of this article. Marking ai_unverifiable since the source URLs block AI fetching. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 1mo ago
replying to Sarah Chander