CASE STUDY
Please use the following answer the next question:
A local police department in the United States procured an Al system to monitor and analyze social media feeds, online marketplaces and other sources of public information to detect evidence of illegal activities (e.g., sale of drugs or stolen goods). The Al system works by surveilling the public sites in order to identify individuals that are likely to have committed a crime. It cross-references the individuals against data maintained by law enforcement and then assigns a percentage score of the likelihood of criminal activity based on certain factors like previous criminal history, location, time, race and gender.
The police department retained a third-party consultant assist in the procurement process, specifically to evaluate two finalists. Each of the vendors provided information about their system's accuracy rates, the diversity of their training data and how their system works. The consultant determined that the first vendor’s system has a higher accuracy rate and based on this information, recommended this vendor to the police department.
The police department chose the first vendor and implemented its Al system. As part of the implementation, the department and consultant created a usage policy for the system, which includes training police officers on how the system works and how to incorporate it into their investigation process.
The police department has now been using the Al system for a year. An internal review has found that every time the system scored a likelihood of criminal activity at or above 90%, the police investigation subsequently confirmed that the individual had, in fact, committed a crime. Based on these results, the police department wants to forego investigations for cases where the Al system gives a score of at least 90% and proceed directly with an arrest.
When notifying an accused perpetrator, what additional information should a police officer provide about the use of the Al system?
New Caledonia 