Marwa Fatafta: So, my name is Marwa and I work as a volunteer/activist with a Palestinian dig­i­tal rights group called 7amleh, which means cam­paign” in Arabic. And we have been doc­u­ment­ing and research­ing into human rights or dig­i­tal rights vio­la­tions that are tak­ing place in Palestine and Israel. And one of the most recent case stud­ies or work that we’re look­ing into is the use of pre­dic­tive polic­ing by Israel, which is rather a sen­si­tive issue giv­en that there isn’t a lot that we know about the sub­ject.

I promise I won’t go into politics—maybe just a lit­tle bit, to explain the con­text in which this pre­dic­tive polic­ing sys­tem has devel­oped and how it’s used and what are the human rights and dig­i­tal rights impli­ca­tions of it.

So it starts in October 2015. There was a surge in vio­lence in Israel, in the occu­pied Palestinian ter­ri­to­ries where there was a new trend of a rise of lone wolf attacks where young Palestinians, and most­ly teenagers, would go and com­mit vio­lent attacks against Israeli cit­i­zens or Israeli secu­ri­ty offi­cers, and that insti­gat­ed anoth­er cycle of vio­lence. These young peo­ple were not affil­i­at­ed with any polit­i­cal group. They were not part of an armed cell. There was no sort of polit­i­cal lead­er­ship behind them, or orga­ni­za­tion. They just took mat­ters in their own hands and spon­ta­neous­ly decid­ed that they want to do some­thing.

And as a result of this let’s say new trend of vio­lence, Israel—or the gov­ern­ment of Israel—blamed social media com­pa­nies for the incite­ment to vio­lence online. And so they blamed com­pa­nies, and name­ly Facebook, for host­ing and facil­i­tat­ing ter­ror­ism and incite­ment to vio­lence.

And so in September 2016, some Israeli offi­cials said that there’s a spe­cial agree­ment between Facebook and the gov­ern­ment to mon­i­tor and try to tack­le the online incite­ment, some­thing which Facebook actu­al­ly denied in a forum that we orga­nized at 7amleh in Ramallah in the West Bank. They said that there is no spe­cial agree­ment and that the Facebook stan­dards apply to every­body. And they deal with all kind of requests from gov­ern­ments the same way. So they have to take down con­tent if there’s enough evi­dence that they’re actu­al­ly incite­ful.

However, expe­ri­ence speaks dif­fer­ent­ly. Because right after a del­e­ga­tion from Facebook vis­it­ed Israel and met with Israeli offi­cials, a num­ber of accounts belong­ing to Palestinian jour­nal­ists and two media out­lets with mil­lions of fol­low­ers were imme­di­ate­ly sus­pend­ed. So Palestinians and activists got online and start­ed a cam­paign under the hash­tag of #FacebookCensorsPalestine, and after that Facebook apol­o­gized and said that was just a mis­take. And so the accounts were restored.

So, aside from try­ing to pres­sure social media com­pa­nies, the Israeli mil­i­tary intel­li­gence start­ed sweep­ing and min­ing social media accounts to try to look for ear­ly warn­ing signs. And so since October 2015, which is the start of the vio­lence, we have doc­u­ment­ed around 800 cas­es of young Palestinians arrest­ed sim­ply because they post­ed some­thing on Facebook. And they have been put under admin­is­tra­tive deten­tion, which means that you are detained with­out any legal process. So you don’t have a tri­al, there’s no charge, and in most cas­es these peo­ple are detained for four to six months. And when that peri­od is over, it gets renewed again.

And some of the lawyers that fol­low up on these cas­es, they said when there was a charge, the charge was incite­ment to vio­lence through social media. That some cas­es, the evi­dence was not pre­sent­ed because it was a state secret or it was an intel­li­gence secret and there­fore they can­not dis­close that evi­dence. Or, some of the detainees said that they were shown screen­shots of their Facebook posts, and they were inter­ro­gat­ed and charged with incite­ment based on that.

I mean, some of the sto­ries… There are so many exam­ples. I mean there are 800 cas­es, right? But some of the sto­ries, an exam­ple is the sto­ry of Tamara, which is a 14 year‐old Palestinian girl from East Jerusalem who was arrest­ed in the mid­dle of the night from her home because she wrote on Facebook some­thing like, Please for­give me.” And that could be direct­ed at I don’t know, her boyfriend, or her fam­i­ly, or some teenage dra­ma stuff. But accord­ing to the Israeli mil­i­tary intel­li­gence, it kind of grabbed their atten­tion because they inter­pret­ed that she is about to go and car­ry out an attack.

Another promi­nent case is the case of the Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour. She was… She’s still, actu­al­ly, under house arrest. Same sto­ry. Her home was ran­sacked by secu­ri­ty forces and she was detained from her house in the mid­dle of the night, because as a poet she post­ed a video in which she express­es her anger at the mur­der of Palestinian chil­dren. And that was enough to get her arrest­ed and again, accused of incite­ment. But obvi­ous­ly it’s a clear case of vio­la­tion of free­dom, of expres­sion online. Now she’s banned from using the Internet, she’s under house arrest, and she’s forced to wear an electronic…I don’t know what you call these…bracelet.

So as I said there are many exam­ples. But the rea­son why I men­tion these two cas­es is to high­light the fact that these arrests are not relat­ed to actu­al ter­ror­ism or vio­lent attacks, or even the plan­ning to do ter­ror­ist attacks, but they are relat­ed to cen­sor­ship and the vio­la­tion of free­dom of expres­sion and also pri­va­cy of Palestinians. And this is espe­cial­ly so if we are look­ing at what’s hap­pen­ing on the oth­er side, right. So at 7amleh we did a study or research to see what are Israelis say­ing. Is this incite­ment to vio­lence online only a phe­nom­e­non on the side of Palestinians?

So what we found is that in 2016, Israelis post­ed racist or provoca­tive posts against Arabs and Palestinians on social media every forty‐six sec­onds. And almost 60,000 Israeli Internet users wrote at least one post con­tain­ing either racism or hatred towards Arabs, and most of these were relat­ed or had some explic­it or implic­it calls for death and killings of Arabs. And none of these Internet users were charged or arrest­ed or inves­ti­gat­ed for incite­ment. Which again shows that this charge of incite­ment is rather a very broad def­i­n­i­tion, and it could include any kind of resis­tance to Israeli poli­cies.

Now, what we learned this year through inves­ti­ga­tions done by Israeli media is that behind these 800 arrests, or this mass arrest cam­paign, there’s a pre­dic­tive polic­ing sys­tem in place which does social media analy­sis and flags cer­tain peo­ple to be arrest­ed lat­er, based on an attack that may or may not [be com­mit­ted] in the future. In oth­er words these 800—or let’s say the major­i­ty of these cases—were rest­ed based on a machine hunch.

And now, how does this sys­tem exact­ly work? We don’t know the exact inner work­ings of it. It’s a work of mil­i­tary intel­li­gence, after all. But what we know is that… So, when it comes to pre­dic­tive polic­ing there are two kinds of tools. One that is location‐based, so the algo­rithm basi­cal­ly flags where and when the next crime could hap­pen so the secu­ri­ty or the police offi­cers would deploy peo­ple to try to pre­vent that crime from hap­pen­ing.

Or it could be people‐based, where there are cer­tain pro­files devel­oped. So you devel­op cer­tain pro­files of like­ly attack­ers, and again the algo­rithm mon­i­tors people’s activ­i­ties online and if there’s some­thing that’s sus­pi­cious, it flags that per­son as a like­ly attack­er. And that sys­tem is what Israel uses. So they have built a num­ber of pro­files of like­ly Palestinian attack­ers based on cer­tain data points, some of it relat­ed to age, loca­tion, and the psy­cho­log­i­cal buildup of these peo­ple. And accord­ing to media reports there were psy­chol­o­gists sit­ting [in] on inter­ro­ga­tions to basi­cal­ly drag infor­ma­tion and see how do these young peo­ple think and what could be seen as some warn­ing signs.

But also they look for cer­tain trig­ger words which are often used in the Palestinian dis­course. Things like the word the shahid,” which means mar­tyr, and this is a term that we use for any­body who dies from the con­flict; words like Al‐Quds,” which means Jerusalem; al‐Aqsa,” which is the holy Muslim site; any Quranic vers­es from the holy book; poet­ry; if you put a pic­ture of a per­son who just was killed or arrest­ed by the Israeli forces. And they par­tic­u­lar­ly look at the activ­i­ty of friends and fam­i­lies of peo­ple who just got arrest­ed, to assess whether these peo­ple would retal­i­ate.

So for exam­ple, a 23 year‐old Palestinian kid with Down syn­drome was shot dead and then two months lat­er they arrest­ed his broth­er. And dur­ing inter­ro­ga­tion, the inter­roga­tors showed him screen­shots of his Facebook and that he post­ed a pic­ture of his dead broth­er. And that was enough for them to arrest him and to ask him straight­for­ward, Are you plan­ning a retal­i­a­tion attack against Israel, because you had the pic­ture of your broth­er up online?”

So what does this all mean, this pre­dic­tive polic­ing busi­ness for Palestinians? It means that if you’re a Palestinian liv­ing in Palestine, it means that you are a sus­pect by default and you could be arrest­ed for what­ev­er thing you post­ed online. And that this is for an imag­i­nary crime that you may or may not com­mit in the future.

And this is one of the things that some ex‐veterans of… The elite unit of the Israeli army is called Unit 8200. It’s an elite sig­nal intel­li­gence unit that is part of the IDF and is often com­pared to the NSA in terms of its sur­veil­lance capa­bil­i­ties. So, some vet­er­ans or ex‐veterans at the time, they wrote a protest let­ter to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to protest against the uneth­i­cal, unlim­it­ed sur­veil­lance that is being com­mit­ted against Palestinians. And he says, and I quote, There is no dis­tinc­tion between Palestinians who are, and are not, involved in vio­lence. Information that is col­lect­ed and stored harms inno­cent peo­ple.” So again this is to stress that pre­dic­tive polic­ing rein­forces this gov­ern­men­tal­i­ty that every­one is a sus­pect and every­one there­fore should be sur­veilled and mon­i­tored.

But for us here sit­ting in the room, we have to look at this pre­dic­tive polic­ing in Israel from a dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive, or a wider per­spec­tive. Because this unique com­bi­na­tion of hav­ing this algo­rithm as a polic­ing sys­tem, and also the abil­i­ty to detain peo­ple and put them under admin­is­tra­tive deten­tion, which I assume in Western democ­ra­cies that could not be the case—you can’t just simply…at least in the­o­ry, detain some­one and not press charges and not go through the prop­er legal process.

So that com­bi­na­tion is some­how unique to Israel and maybe can­not be repli­cat­ed else­where. But that of course does not mean that such tech­nolo­gies are not being employed and grow­ing in oth­er police and secu­ri­ty depart­ments around the world.

In fact, the EU Counter‐Terrorism Coordinator (which I can nev­er pro­nounce his name) said in Israel in meet­ings with the Israeli gov­ern­ment and in some con­fer­ence that the EU is inter­est­ed in adopt­ing this pre­dic­tive polic­ing sys­tem used in Israel, specif­i­cal­ly to try and stop lone wolf for attacks in the EU. And in oth­er EU states like Denmark, the Danish police have bought a sim­i­lar pre­dic­tive polic­ing sys­tem from one of the com­pa­nies that alleged­ly is involved in the devel­op­ment of the sys­tem that we now know in Israel. And only recent­ly, like two months ago, the UK…there were some reports in The Independent that there is a del­e­ga­tion going from the UK gov­ern­ment to Israel to exact­ly coop­er­ate on pre­dic­tive polic­ing sys­tems after the recent attack on London Bridge. So again, they want to look at how to stop lone wolf attacks by mon­i­tor­ing social media and doing social media analy­sis.

So, of course that is not a sur­prise, giv­en that Israel is a leader in export­ing cyber arms, cyber­se­cu­ri­ty, sur­veil­lance tech­nolo­gies around the world. And I think the rea­son behind this promi­nence as the revolv­ing door between its army and the tech­nol­o­gy sec­tor. So, some of the lead­ing Israeli com­pa­nies that export sur­veil­lance tech­nolo­gies, or cyber arms, cyber­se­cu­ri­ty prod­ucts, they were found­ed by ex‐veterans of Unit 8200. And there is no legal bar­ri­er for these peo­ple who while work­ing in this unit to take ideas devel­oped there relat­ed to mil­i­tary intel­li­gence and then lat­er sell them as pri­vate sec­tor com­pa­nies. Which means that, in the words of an Israeli schol­ar, the Palestinian territory’s become like a cer­tain lab to test cer­tain tech­nolo­gies and fine‐tune them, and then sell them lat­er to coun­tries around the world.

And then of course the Israeli gov­ern­ment and oth­er gov­ern­ments jus­ti­fy the use of pre­dic­tive polic­ing by say­ing that it drops crime rates, or it’s effec­tive in stop­ping ter­ror­ism. But I think that these claims, just exact­ly like the sys­tems that they sup­port, they lack sta­tis­ti­cal evi­dence. So a lot of the research that was done on the effec­tive­ness of pre­dic­tive polic­ing shows no back­ing what­so­ev­er that they are indeed effec­tive. So one of the stud­ies, or actu­al­ly two, were done by the Rand Corporation in the US. They tried to look at the use of pre­dic­tive polic­ing sys­tems in cer­tain US com­mu­ni­ties, and that they found that they nei­ther reduced crime nor increased pub­lic safe­ty.

And there was anoth­er research done by the Human Rights Data Analysis Group to look at how pre­dic­tive polic­ing recy­cles exist­ing bias­es, some­thing that Maya just dis­cussed. They used algo­rithms and test­ed test in Oakland, US on drug crimes data, and they found out that the algo­rithm was telling them to go exclu­sive­ly to areas where there are only black res­i­dents and low‐income res­i­dents.

So I guess, and I’m end­ing here now, that the argu­ment whether pre­dic­tive polic­ing is effec­tive or not is not what we need to think about. I think pre­dic­tive polic­ing changes the tra­di­tion­al log­ic behind law enforce­ment, which means that if you com­mit­ted a crime or you’re plan­ning to com­mit a crime and there is hard enough sub­stan­tial evi­dence to arrest you, then you’re pros­e­cut­ed. But I think we real­ly need to stop and and think very hard about sys­tems that change this log­ic and you might get arrest­ed and pros­e­cut­ed based on a crime that you may or may not com­mit in the future. Thank you very much.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.