Proposed Topic:
Negotiating Consent and Control: Exploring the Dynamics of Predictive Policing and
Surveillance Rationalities in Marginalized Communities
Research Gap:
While extensive research exists on the impact of police surveillance on marginalized
communities, there is a notable gap in understanding the role of community consent as an
active factor in legitimizing such practices.
Most existing studies focus on the state's rationale for implementing surveillance, often
emphasizing security and control, without adequately addressing the perspectives of those
being surveilled. There is limited exploration of how socio-economic, cultural, and political
contexts influence a community’s willingness to consent to surveillance measures,
particularly in environments where state power is pervasive. Additionally, research has yet to
fully engage with the interplay between agency, trust, and the normalization of surveillance,
which can perpetuate structural inequalities.
The integration of predictive policing adds another layer to this complexity. While predictive
policing employs data analytics to forecast criminal activity, it has been criticized for
reinforcing existing social prejudices by relying on biased data sets and historical trends.
This bias disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, further entrenching systemic
inequalities. Moreover, predictive algorithms often fall short of providing explanations for
specific occurrences, casting doubt on their accuracy and legitimacy.
The question of how communities perceive the use of such algorithms, especially when their
outputs are opaque and potentially flawed, remains underexplored. Furthermore, the ethical
implications of combining community consent with predictive technologies—technologies
that may misrepresent reality—have not been adequately addressed.
The gap thus lies not only in understanding the consent provided by surveilled communities
but also in critically examining how predictive policing technologies shape and reinforce the
dynamics of surveillance and social control. Addressing these gaps is essential for creating a
more nuanced, ethical, and inclusive framework for analyzing the interplay between consent,
predictive algorithms, and the rationalities of security governance.
Methodology:
This study adopts a qualitative research design to comprehensively explore the dynamics of
police surveillance, predictive policing, and community consent, focusing on the rationalities
driving both the state and the surveilled community.
A case study approach will be employed, concentrating on communities residing in
lower-income slum areas within the Delhi and NCR region. These neighbourhoods often face
heightened police scrutiny and are frequently subjected to surveillance measures and
predictive policing initiatives due to their perceived association with higher crime rates.
By focusing on these socio-economically marginalized areas, the study aims to uncover the
complex dynamics between surveillance practices, the issue of algorithmic bias in predictive
policing technologies, and the lived realities of the residents, including their rationalities and
motivations for consenting to or resisting such measures.
Data collection will involve multiple methods to ensure a nuanced understanding of the issue.
Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with community members to capture their
perceptions, motivations, and rationality behind consenting to surveillance, while expert
interviews with retired officials, legal consultants, and academics specializing in predictive
policing will provide the insight into the state’s rationale for implementing such measures.
A specific emphasis will be placed on understanding how predictive policing tools, such as
algorithms and data analytics, are integrated into these practices and their perceived
effectiveness by both the state and the community.
Ethnographic methods, including participant observation, will document everyday
interactions between the community and these technologies, enabling a deeper understanding
of how consent is negotiated and performed in real-life contexts influenced by predictive
policing.
Additionally, a critical document analysis of government policies, legal frameworks, and
surveillance-related reports will be conducted to provide a structural perspective on how the
state constructs its logic of rationality, particularly in the context of AI-driven predictive
policing. This will include an examination of algorithmic design, biases in data sets, and their
implications for reinforcing or challenging social prejudices.
The study will also incorporate a review of publicly available datasets, predictive policing
tools, and algorithmic models to assess their accuracy, transparency, and impact on
community trust. Critical Discourse analysis will be employed to scrutinize the language and
narratives used in policy documents and public communications about predictive policing
and AI surveillance, focusing on how these narratives align with or diverge from the lived
realities of the surveilled community.
By integrating these methods, the study seeks to provide a comprehensive and context-
sensitive understanding of the interplay between consent, surveillance, predictive policing,
and the rationalities underlying security governance. It will critically examine how emerging
technologies shape perceptions of security, exacerbate or mitigate inequalities, and redefine
the relationship between the state and its citizens.
Primary References :
1. Predictive Policing and Crime Prevention: The Role of AI
2. Predictive Policing: Panache and Perils
3. REPORT: Status of Policing in India Report 2023 Surveillance and the Question of
Privacy Pg. 29-31
4. The ‘uberization of policing’? How police negotiate and operationalise predictive policing
technology
5. STUDENT LAW REVIEW 2024 Pg. 296
