Any article citing statistics is invalid when they don't understand the difference between percent and per cent. Getting 62 things right per US penny is a VERY cost effective system, probably regardless of what information we want to get right.
Unfortunately, all this says is that if we place our population under total surveillance with trackers, we can increase anticipation of crime by 8% (accuracy of 62 to ALMOST 70%). This says nothing about preventing those crimes or what type of crimes it prevents. Actually if you read the article, it only increased accuracy to 68%, so a 6% gain. Way to glorify the stats in the media. They should have said "just over 60% to almost 70%". This would have made this 6% increase look like a 10% increase.