Bump bump bump bump bump everybody. This is a special, unexpected, live stream or talk about one topic. One topic only today it's the topic about defending the police, which, of course, is provocative, thought some people want. Fewer police presence were less of it. Some people were more of it, so the countries being torn apart, and I would like to suggest that this is not a question of left or right, even though we ve made it that way. The question of defending the police should be a technology and systems question. In other words, we should be thinking in terms of a puzzle to solve another left problem, more right problem and the puzzle is this: how do you get more bang for your buck, a very basic corporate business decision,

How do you take this thing? We ve been doing policing. How do you get as much benefit as Uganda, the lowest cost, and I would say that just thinking of it that way would make a big difference, and so I would like to say we should think of it more as re imagining the police not defending them. Do funding is sort of those were fighting, we're We don't need that, but I would suggest that we already have in place everything we need or very close to it, to Be able to do something that really radically re imagines the police, so I'm gonna tell you are some things that already exist so that you say to me scouts

Scott. We will never be able to develop these things you're already behind the times everything I talk about already exists. We just have to think about it in this way and it's gonna be older to move us forward. It looks like this. He ever currently source with the current budget. The current way of doing things, but at the same time there's a little satellite around them of private companies who are doing functions. They have in some cases wider. Location- but there are also really really good for police and I'll talk about a few these in a moment, if you do this model, where you lead private companies to develop new technologies, there would make policing way more effective cost effective. So I guess the job done at a much lower cost. Would you like to see these kinds of things experimented with inside the police

worse, in other words, inside a government like entity? Where would you like to see private entity doing the development and taking the risk is a rhetorical question? The last thing we want is a government entity or something like the police force, doing technology innovation. Right? You don't wanna there, you want it where it is private industry. Now there are few developments that really make the aid of changing or re imagining how police work is done very practical. So when Left says: hey, let's defined the police and make money available for social services. I say that is completely doable. It is

completely doable without losing a thing in policing and because of this new technology that I'll talk about the moment, you can actually get far better police results than talking about multiples of better I'm not talking about a ten percent improvement Are you better a five times improvement? Sort of situation? Here are some examples. Let's take dna, If you are a serial rapist, it is past that the police already have several. Records of you with your dna because you might be living at each of these sex crimes places. But it would be very common for the police to have three separate dna samples for its recent RO crimes and not know who you are

because no your dna doesn't automatically make you find a approximately fifty percent of sex crimes. You can take the dna and actually find person, eighty five percent of the time, it's just a data recording- is a dead end clarifying the person, but the newer Today technologies. We won't get into specific companies a little talk generically there. The newer dna they could take. The dna from this aspect and they could find their family members and if you find somebody's family members. There enough people who have dna in different places, etc that are accessible. If you can find their family members, you can pretty much five. This aspect, most every time, because you just gotta uncle Bob and you say: hey Bob,

you know anybody in your family, whom I live in this neighbourhood and uncle Bob also yeah, that's that's my nephew Jason and then you go check Jason and you ve got suspect, so imagine the that level of improvement to go from about fifteen percent of your cases or sold. Violent argue about violent rapes. Fifteen percent, one five is how many they can identify. An external company can get them all can get them all now. Nothing's represent rights who nice guys aching get them all. You should translate that into your head to your baby, ninety percent or something, but to go from one five percent to ninety percent. How expensive would there be

And here's the keeper- not very it's, not very expensive. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands of rape, kids, in other words the sample. That's been taken from the crime that have not been tested, hundreds of thousands of them now most of them will be tested and will go through the system, but they will not result in any kind of a match. They could go to External company say for this reasonable. All right now can you saw of all of our worst cases, so you can take. For example, all of the records have multiple crimes associated with the same dna. You can say this company luck, we ve got five dna samples from five different rapes, and we don't know who this is how many drugs the Emily crimes. Do you prevent if you take a serial rapist off the streets?

Maybe a lot you can end up solving or not solving by preventing ten rapes by getting you one cereal rapist. Likewise, I suppose, if, as some other kind of crime, the least Ebay. So imagine how much is being left your sort of on the table of free money, because this is a completely being used at the moment. This is one example. Imagine having facial recognition widely reliable for the place, imagined the police have a suspect, give RO somehow and they can identify. You have. The problem with african american faces are harder to identify Apparently that is not common to all of the different facial technologies.

There are some that are actually good, distinguishing african american faces, and some are not so if you're, some stories about facial recognition has problems with black citizens. That's true, but it's not true of all the technologies, at least not as true and then certainly there's something about the process that could be done better, and we talked about this separate periscope that if you have a match, you think you have a match and you go to the. Specks house to find out. If your facial recognition got the right person, you should at least bring the picture with you, so you hold it up and when the person answers the door, you can say: ok, we we didn't get to match this time. It's obvious, I'm looking at you and looking at the picture is not you sorry to bother you so there's something can be done differently in the system,

likely technology even more bulletproof. Likewise, police are already reusing drones. You can imagine private drone companies being able to take the risk away from the place and adjust tries. Stuff works or doesn't work, and then the police can watch it. They can decide to do more of it or less amount and if you will just brainstorming here now She will. If private drone companies made a bunch of deals, drones on rooftops just staged in various places around the city, I'm just making this up doesn't exist and imagine if there was a crime and the police force had to deal with. The german company may said, look we ve got a crime in this neighborhood. Can you get us some ice on it drove takes off and takes pictures and they get the best look at.

I think that they can. If the drone has a good camera, then you get your facial recognition. So some of these are being done in some fashion, but why you'll find is you're gonna save yourself will Scott you ve just described a perfectly good system, so this already working Isn't this already working for? Why wouldn't it be the police know about these technologies? In most cases they know about them? Why are they use it? You somewhere so we're not, but what it wise and it just like widespread just this is the way you do it, and the reason is bureaucracy. The reasoning the left and the right. The battle over your turf, the nobody wants to be to lose their jobs on the old system is not working. How do you ever get everything dollar that bureaucracy is less but as

as these technologies prove themselves with the police entities the do use and there are being tested summer. As are tested, it will be impossible to ignore them, because if you have one city that is solving all of its sex, crimes? Recycled? Other spoke out once only the said. We don't have any backlog, we solve them all just give us a dna. We will solve it. You too have is how to Chicago just to use an example How did they not do this Some other city was a Baltimore, tries it out, they just works and that they do not do something that so obviously good and works saves money now. The idea is that each of these stake? Knowledge is so much more effective than what the police are doing already, that it should take the resources they need way down. Would the police be in favour of this will say the individual police officer not

would you about bureaucracy that talking about left or right or the mayor Nobody else. Would the individual police officer be happier if these technologies were more widely deployed? Yes, they be happier on a number of levels, number one. If your police officer, do you like to solve crimes? Of course do what one is better. If your police officer them actually doing good work in solving groans and making new community a better place, you probably get a raise let's all good, but I would argue that also there's a secondary benefits, which is really big, is really big.

If you're, a police officer, although these entities, which he would then be working closely with- become a career path, because wouldn't it be good to have a year experience police officer working on your drone start up. We are working on any of your other startups. They have policing technology involved So this is the basic idea. You noticed that some themes and pulling together one is that ABC testing is always the way to go. If you can, if something can be tested and to do it large- you don't want to roll it out Everywhere- would be really expensive. Will then test in small. This is the perfect situation for testing is small. Now the other thing this working here. The other big theme is changing. The system

Of course it is a change in the system and started moving all of the functions of police with only police organization and budget. You can move something it out to private corporations and de risk it, in other words, the private corporation, can take all of the risks that a police entity could not- and I am not talking about life and death risks year. Nobody should be taking those I'm talking about just something that might be embarrassing if it didn't work, something that, if, if you please put their budget into it and then failed, while thou be bad for the police, bad for everybody, so you take that risk any just moving into places where people like risks.

The venture capitalist entrepreneurs they like risk so lose it where they like. It won't hurt the rest of the people until its proven and looking at the comments, Scott does not talk about the real problem, which is the wickedness in the hearts of people. Well, that might be a different periscope. Somebody else's gonna have to do that. But I do make the following claim that there are a lot of things that look like the problems of the left and problems of the right, and that did not agree. This is not one of them, This is a problem that is artificially been put into the world of politics, because everything is but has nothing to do with attacks. There's nobody in the world who wouldn't like better police, notably a police effectiveness with less violence and were lower cost, there is anybody who doesn't want that, and so, if you take it up

the political realm employers in the economic realm, the entrepreneur who are relatively here, the realm where ideas actually work can be tested. Well, then, you ve got a solution that works for everybody and, of course, language, guesses and trouble, because it is one I just described a case of defending the police. Kind of yeah because the ultimate result will be the police would be far more effective. There is also another impact on top of this, imagine you're a criminal. Some of you might be criminal souci to imagine imagine you are criminal and in today's world, if you did a violent rape, you could get identified point one. Five percent not point one. Five, fifteen percent. That's not much of a disincentive. Is it

a lot of people who were inclined to crime, as they see there's only a fifty percent chance of even by being identified, we you might be new, might be willing to. The crime. Suppose you had a ninety percent. She s a getting caught. Would you do the cry? Some people well and they'll be caught will be caught, but they won't do a second crime because they get going the first. So that's why I d, I thought I put them out there for comment and love to see your feedback. So give me your comments and your government.