Comment by Lindsey Barrett

This article will argue that the use of predictive policing algorithms at the border should not be barred outright, as the government should permit potentially beneficial uses of the technology to develop. However, use of these algorithms should be carefully limited by statute to prevent the wholesale trammeling of privacy and civil liberties. This article argues that the use of predictive policing programs should be limited, but not banned, in the border context. [...] Predictive policing cannot and should not be implemented without rigorous safeguards, but neither should its potential to improve law enforcement methods go wholly ignored.
AI Verified source (2017)
Like Share on X 8mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote clearly opposes a total ban: it says predictive policing at the border "should not be barred outright" and "should be limited, but not banned." Even though it is context-specific, that directly implies opposition to the broader statement "Ban predictive policing." · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote clearly opposes an outright ban, saying predictive policing "should not be barred outright" and should be "limited, but not banned, in the border context." · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The quote is authentic. The NYU Review of Law & Social Change page for “Reasonably Suspicious Algorithms: Predictive Policing at the United States Border” lists Lindsey Barrett as the author, and the source URL contains the first paragraph verbatim in the Abstract: “This article will argue ... However, use of these algorithms should be carefully limited by statute ...” at lines 47–48. The second passage also appears verbatim in the article/PDF: “This article argues that the use of predictive policing programs should be limited, but not banned, in the border context” appears first, and later the article states, “Predictive policing cannot and should not be implemented without rigorous safeguards, but neither should its potential to improve law enforcement methods go wholly ignored.” The user’s [...] is a faithful omission of intervening text. ([socialchangenyu.com](https://socialchangenyu.com/review/reasonably-suspicious-algorithms-predictive-policing-at-the-united-states-border/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago
AI Unverifiable The source URL (socialchangenyu.com) returned HTTP 403 Forbidden and could not be fetched. However, the quote is independently confirmed via web search results which paraphrase Barrett's article "Reasonably Suspicious Algorithms: Predictive Policing at the United States Border" (NYU Review of Law & Social Change, 2017), using language verbatim from the quote: "use of predictive policing algorithms at the border should not be barred outright, so as to permit potentially beneficial uses of the technology to develop, it should be carefully limited by statute to prevent the wholesale trammeling of privacy and civil liberties." Vote alignment is correct (against "Ban predictive policing" - Barrett explicitly argues it should be limited but not banned). Marking ai_unverifiable since the source URL blocks AI fetching. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 1mo ago
replying to Lindsey Barrett