Technological approaches to policing, which began with the use of databases, are becoming more popular. Two driving forces are the ability to integrate many data sources and the allure of using high technology. It appears as though “most crimes have a specific spatial logic,” which was originally demonstrated by maps and stick pins. These maps promised an opportunity to analyze and prevent crime.

Geographic information systems (GIS), which link information to specific places, are an example of crime mapping. The paper describes systems in St. Louis, New York, Chicago, New Zealand, and Great Britain. Systems are used, for example, to deploy resources and to preempt crime by identifying potential hot spots. There are ethical issues, however, related to identifying sensitive places: areas can be stigmatized, insurance rates can be affected, the issue of scale, privacy, and so forth. A more basic issue is the validity and purpose of the social science model used in the identification.

The implementation of an effective mapping program will require sensitive design, detailed system specification, flexible leadership, and attention to local stakeholders. Responsible innovation requires attention to privacy and to avoiding a “data divide,” where only a privileged few have access to the data. Specific approaches to managing pertinent data, not all of which have been developed, include gathering only essential data and ensuring that it is anonymous.

The paper brings up important issues, but I would have appreciated more specific examples. Some typographical errors exist, but the paper is generally readable.