Why Public Crime Maps Stink
In this post, I’d like to talk about the limitations of public crime maps and quasi-public-proprietary crime maps. Don’t get me wrong, we at SpotCrime are fans of crime maps. They are an effective tool to represent crime data and get information to the public. But, crime maps are just one of many options of delivering useful crime data to the public.
Maps in general will always have some type of dimensional limitations. No matter how you adjust the parameters of time and distance with data on a map, it will still be just an incremental snapshot of the data set.
With crime data, if you take a too small snapshot and an area can appear to have no crime. Take a too large of a snapshot and amount of crime data could crowd the map, show too much crime, and render the map unreadable. Heat maps are sometimes employed to show density of data on a map, but these too have their own adjustable variances that can influence what is being projected.
Ultimately, the same limitations of a pushpin map used in the 20’s still exists for a crime map rendered on a web page used today.
Again, not to diminish the value of crime maps entirely - there is a huge benefit in geocoding crime data and getting it ready for public consumption to be put on the map - not to mention the immeasurable value of the data for internal police use by crime analysts.
But once on a map, there are many other useful methods to catapult the data into the public increasing the reach and effectiveness of the information - enter the power of the Internet.
We’d like to argue that once an agency has decided to reveal the data to the public, the real value of the data is the ability of the data to be shared, not to be silo'ed in one proprietary map that stifles the full power of the Internet and social media.
Some would argue that the Facebook platform is still very limited in design, but the true power and value behind Facebook to the marketplace is the ability to share information amongst an incredibly diverse network of people. We can share with everyone what we ate for breakfast today, why can’t we share what crime incidents happened around us?
The public, researchers, and law enforcement would have an enormous multitude of benefits if the data were standardized and unrestricted. Unfortunately, there are no incentives for a private crime mapping company to do this because the idea of making data available to share is in direct opposition of the strategic objectives deployed by commercial crime mapping providers.
We know of no crime mapping company - including SpotCrime - who provides easy, aggregate, unrestricted access to data. While the technical complexity of providing an unrestricted spreadsheet to the public is incredibly small, no commercial crime mapping company provides this. Why? Because, simply, there’s more value in restricting the data than allowing it to be shared. Although an unrestricted spreadsheet has significant public interest and value, it seems to have no commercial value.
We only see crime data delivered openly when a public agency - not commercial company - elects to use this method. Private crime mapping companies have an incentive to balkanize the data they are contracted to publicize (typically funded by taxpayers) and limit entities from sharing this data (the same entities who are paying taxes). They may come across as open, however, they typically add a lengthy terms of service agreement to their maps and websites - ostensibly asking each citizen to agree to a contract before viewing public crime data. These terms of service agreements have no public value. They not only inhibit the press from republishing the data, but also serve to restrict public sharing of crime data.
So what is the solution to the conflict between the monetary interests of a private enterprise and the public need for having unrestricted access to public data?
The responsibility is on the public to ask questions as well as police agencies to put the public’s interest ahead of their vendors. Allow public crime data to be shared openly - interacted with, discussed, and shared - creating a multiplier effect with public data. The number of good citizens receiving the information magnifies and the positive effect of informing the public is achieved.
When your police agency announces a crime mapping partnership, please ask what the restrictions are on sharing the data? If there are lengthy terms of use is on the website, ask them to explain the purpose of the lengthy agreement, why you being forced to agree to this, why is it subject to change without notice demanding you to read the terms each time you visit the site? And why can’t your local new source have the same equal and fair access to the same data?
Many of the criticisms stated here can be applied to SpotCrime as well. However, to our knowledge, we are the only company who has released a massive amount of historical data to the public at no cost, and with no restrictions. We have the shortest terms of use. Here it is: “Be nice with our data and our website.” And we don’t encourage any agency to only share with us.
We feel open crime data is vital information for the public, and we’d like to be a part of the solution, and not part of the friction.
Colin Drane
Founder
SpotCrime.com
Maps in general will always have some type of dimensional limitations. No matter how you adjust the parameters of time and distance with data on a map, it will still be just an incremental snapshot of the data set.
With crime data, if you take a too small snapshot and an area can appear to have no crime. Take a too large of a snapshot and amount of crime data could crowd the map, show too much crime, and render the map unreadable. Heat maps are sometimes employed to show density of data on a map, but these too have their own adjustable variances that can influence what is being projected.
Ultimately, the same limitations of a pushpin map used in the 20’s still exists for a crime map rendered on a web page used today.
Again, not to diminish the value of crime maps entirely - there is a huge benefit in geocoding crime data and getting it ready for public consumption to be put on the map - not to mention the immeasurable value of the data for internal police use by crime analysts.
But once on a map, there are many other useful methods to catapult the data into the public increasing the reach and effectiveness of the information - enter the power of the Internet.
We’d like to argue that once an agency has decided to reveal the data to the public, the real value of the data is the ability of the data to be shared, not to be silo'ed in one proprietary map that stifles the full power of the Internet and social media.
Some would argue that the Facebook platform is still very limited in design, but the true power and value behind Facebook to the marketplace is the ability to share information amongst an incredibly diverse network of people. We can share with everyone what we ate for breakfast today, why can’t we share what crime incidents happened around us?
The public, researchers, and law enforcement would have an enormous multitude of benefits if the data were standardized and unrestricted. Unfortunately, there are no incentives for a private crime mapping company to do this because the idea of making data available to share is in direct opposition of the strategic objectives deployed by commercial crime mapping providers.
We know of no crime mapping company - including SpotCrime - who provides easy, aggregate, unrestricted access to data. While the technical complexity of providing an unrestricted spreadsheet to the public is incredibly small, no commercial crime mapping company provides this. Why? Because, simply, there’s more value in restricting the data than allowing it to be shared. Although an unrestricted spreadsheet has significant public interest and value, it seems to have no commercial value.
$
Considering the difficult budget situation that almost every agency is experiencing, we’d like to think that finding innovative, low cost, unrestricted methods of providing data to the public will help amplify the reach of the data while lowering the cost to the agency to deliver the information. We only see crime data delivered openly when a public agency - not commercial company - elects to use this method. Private crime mapping companies have an incentive to balkanize the data they are contracted to publicize (typically funded by taxpayers) and limit entities from sharing this data (the same entities who are paying taxes). They may come across as open, however, they typically add a lengthy terms of service agreement to their maps and websites - ostensibly asking each citizen to agree to a contract before viewing public crime data. These terms of service agreements have no public value. They not only inhibit the press from republishing the data, but also serve to restrict public sharing of crime data.
So what is the solution to the conflict between the monetary interests of a private enterprise and the public need for having unrestricted access to public data?
The responsibility is on the public to ask questions as well as police agencies to put the public’s interest ahead of their vendors. Allow public crime data to be shared openly - interacted with, discussed, and shared - creating a multiplier effect with public data. The number of good citizens receiving the information magnifies and the positive effect of informing the public is achieved.
When your police agency announces a crime mapping partnership, please ask what the restrictions are on sharing the data? If there are lengthy terms of use is on the website, ask them to explain the purpose of the lengthy agreement, why you being forced to agree to this, why is it subject to change without notice demanding you to read the terms each time you visit the site? And why can’t your local new source have the same equal and fair access to the same data?
Many of the criticisms stated here can be applied to SpotCrime as well. However, to our knowledge, we are the only company who has released a massive amount of historical data to the public at no cost, and with no restrictions. We have the shortest terms of use. Here it is: “Be nice with our data and our website.” And we don’t encourage any agency to only share with us.
We feel open crime data is vital information for the public, and we’d like to be a part of the solution, and not part of the friction.
Colin Drane
Founder
SpotCrime.com
Comments