I am both proud and embarrassed to admit, I am a full blown data nerd. I am that person who loves to track just about everything on an app so I can look at the data and understand how fast (or slowly) I am running, how much I am spending by category and how much data my daughters use and who is at fault for causing data overage charges. I am sure it comes as no surprise that data analysis regularly manifests itself in the work place; I pride myself on running the firm in a lean and efficient way. When making decisions, I frequently evaluate options based on productivity, profitability, ROI, etc. Ask me, how many unique visitors we had on our website or what percent of the fee dollar we spend on office space and I will happily oblige. Without question, the thing I like most about of data is using historic trends to help predict future performance.
Even I recognize, however, that data has it limits when predicting future human behavior. For example, I cannot expect one of my daughters to behave a certain way, based on her older sister’s behavior. That theory has crashed and burned several times. Advertisers routinely incorrectly predict what I may want from the store based on what I bought.
Using predicative algorithms has also grown in popularity in court rooms across the country.
Courts have begun to rely on algorithms to help predict the likelihood of recidivism, when determining sentences and setting parole. Presumably, courts give heighted sentences to individuals who are likely to reoffend based on the predicative analysis. This term, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will weigh in on the constitutionality of using data to help determine criminal sanctions.
In State v. Loomis, Eric Loomis is challenging a 2013 sentence that was influenced by COMPAS analysis (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions). Mr. Loomis plead guilty to operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent and attempting to flee police; he was sentenced to six years in prison and five years of supervision. In handing down the sentence, circuit judge, Scott Horne, told Mr. Loomis, “[t]he risk assessment tools that have been utilized suggest that you’re extremely high risk to reoffend.” Northpointe, the maker of COMPAS will not reveal how the algorithms score defendants, citing the proprietary nature of the tool, but one question inquires, “[d]id a parent figure who raised you ever have a drug or alcohol problem?” Some legal scholars suggest that these tools inherently discriminate against indigent people and other groups, while some prosecutors argue that using data in this way helps to make more informed decisions. I am not a criminal lawyer, but I will nonetheless be interested to learn if the Wisconsin Supreme Court determines that a defendant’s due process rights are violated when a circuit court uses predictive data when sentencing defendants.
Are you one of the 145,000,000 Americans whose confidential information was stolen? For some practical tips in light of the Equifax Data Breach, check out Ron Lieber’s article in The New York Times. ... See MoreSee Less
For weeks, we have been asking Equifax dozens of questions about credit freezes, credit locks and the trouble readers have been having with its various systems. The company has responded — to some of them.
Should states be allowed to charge out-of-state companies sales tax for online purchases? The United States Supreme Court may grant Cert. (i.e. agree to hear the case) in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. What do you think? ... See MoreSee Less
South Dakota's Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law that would require out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on in-state purchases — a defeat the state expected and welcomed in a case that eventually could have national implications for e-commerce.