3 ms·

I don't understand what's so bad about this as a program.

• omouse 8y ago
  Here are a few quotes that are, hopefully, explanatory of why it's bad: > One Ontario social worker, who participates in a Situation Table and spoke to Motherboard on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, expressed worry about the high number of minors being evaluated for intervention, and having their information added to the RTD, because of “how often [interventions] are done without consent.” And: > According to Israel, there is a risk that if authorities don’t refine the data in the RTD over time to determine if a specific risk factor actually leads to increased crime or harm, flawed predictions could influence policing decisions. Finally: > “We can’t have processes that are based on using exceptions to privacy law, with no transparency or accountability as to how [Hubs] are interpreting those exceptions,” she said. “Privacy is a human right. It can’t be eroded just to make someone’s job easier.” So it boils down to: - no consent - flawed data that influences predictive algorithms (which are not transparent and not audited) - privacy is a human right, this tracking program violates that right (at least as it is currently implemented) If you live in a democracy, you can expect certain rights (and of course the responsibilities that come with those rights). If you're a taxpayer, you can also expect certain things of your government. Essentially this boils down to "Canada is a democracy, not an authoritarian regime that monitors and tracks people".
  • staticautomatic 8y ago
    No need to patronize. I read the article. Obviously it has problems that need to be addressed. I just don't find the program as a whole to be conceptually objectionable.