2 ms·
Well we can look at this from the opposite side, it eliminates more people far faster giving the authorities fewer people to check. Now this is fine provided th
by Shivetya 7y ago
Well we can look at this from the opposite side, it eliminates more people far faster giving the authorities fewer people to check. Now this is fine provided there are sufficient rules governing that second step.
That is where the process currently fails. There are no published checks and balances.
Look, we don't have to like this one bit but we are kidding ourselves to think it can be stopped. Even the actions of San Francisco can be overridden at the state or federal level when push comes to shove if not a shift in electorate. so the task ahead is to regulate strictly how it is used and what can happen from beginning to end of life of the data. the first rule being, it can never establish guilt on its own.
- sfink 7y agoThere will be some percentage of false positives. If you're feeding the system with a biased, handpicked population, you will get false positive matches from that population and not from other populations. If you are on the shit list, your odds of being accused when you're actually innocent are far, far higher than those of someone not on the shit list. If the shit list is predominately black, then innocent blacks will be sent to jail more often than innocent whites. It's profiling.