Cited by 90Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPolicing Practices and PerceptionsCrime, Deviance, and Social Control

Prediction, pre-emption and limits to dissent: Social media and big data uses for policing protests in the United Kingdom

Open access
Dencik, Lina, Hintz, Arne, Carey, Zoe·2018·New Media & Society

Abstract

Social media and big data uses form part of a broader shift from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’ forms of governance in which state bodies engage in analysis to predict, pre-empt and respond in real time to a range of social problems. Drawing on research with British police, we contextualize these algorithmic processes within actual police practices, focusing on protest policing. Although aspects of algorithmic decision-making have become prominent in police practice, our research shows that they are embedded within a continuous human–computer negotiation that incorporates a rooted claim to ‘professional judgement’, an integrated intelligence context and a significant level of discretion. This context, we argue, transforms conceptions of threats. We focus particularly on three challenges: the inclusion of pre-existing biases and agendas, the prominence of marketing-driven software, and the interpretation of unpredictability. Such a contextualized analysis of data uses provides important insights for the shifting terrain of possibilities for dissent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1461444817697722

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Western democracies-including the United States and Britain-have substantial surveillance capacities.

    “Although many are quick to focus on autocratic uses of surveillance, Western democracies—including the United States (64) and Britain (36)—have substantial surveillance capacities.”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [36]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dencik, L., Hintz, A., & Carey, Z.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • The New School (US)
Corresponding author
Dencik, Lina
Venue
New Media & Society
Published
2017-03-20
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
1433-1450
ISSN
  • 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7315
OpenAlex
W2599626197
Cited by
90
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
20.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New Media & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Media Democracy Fund
  • Ford Foundation
  • Open Society Foundations
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime, Deviance, and Social Control
Keywords
protest policing, social media, big data, algorithmic decision-making, predictive policing, proactive governance, police discretion, professional judgment, algorithmic bias, unpredictability, dissent, United Kingdom

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review