4.2 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE Being a relatively new technology, people are often not fully aware of how AI really works and what it can and cannot do. This allows for worry, fear and concern to breed and, under the wrong circumstances, these feelings can hinder the integration and application of the technology. Arguably, nowhere is this more critical than when it comes to the use of AI in the public sector and, law enforcement in particular. Effective policing is very much predicated upon the trust of the community. Public safety can be jeopardized when communities lose trust in law enforcement. In this regard, social acceptance of the use of AI by the public is of paramount importance as law enforcement increasingly integrates AI. It is essential that law enforcement remains conscious of the need for this, as well as the importance of communication and information-sharing with key stakeholders and the general public. A survey, conducted in 2018 by the Center for Higher Studies of France’s Ministry of Interior, the University Jean-Moulin Lyon 3, the French National Police College and the French National Gendarmerie College, examined social acceptance by evaluating public trust toward the use of predictive policing by homeland security actors.24 Of all AI applications being explored by law enforcement, predictive policing is regularly presented as the source of greatest concern. The project entailed a public survey of more than 2,000 individuals about public knowledge and opinion about predictive policing – both before and after they have received an explanation about the topic. Results showed that after a 150-words explanation, citizens were 28% more confident about law enforcement agencies using predictive policing – rising from 59% to 87%. More specifically, this included an increase in the number of respondents agreeing that predictive policing can be useful for preventing crimes after receiving the explanation, along with an increase in the number of respondents disagreeing that predictive policing is a threat for civil liberties. Furthermore, 59% of respondents indicated that they would even accept an identity-check based solely on predictive policing software. While these results are indicative of the power of an explanation and better understanding, even if limited, the results should, however, be interpreted carefully. The social acceptance of predictive policing in this case may not necessarily be fully motivated by a newly acquired rational and objective under24 Piotrowicz, C. (2018). Predictive Policing: European Law Enforcement Research Bulletin, (4 SCE), 107-111. Retrieved from https://bulletin. cepol.europa.eu/index.php/bulletin/article/view/374
38
