2 ms·
I am willing to concede that it perhaps cannot be deployed ethically, but for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. It may be that being able to find anyone put o
by dllthomas 7y ago
I am willing to concede that it perhaps cannot be deployed ethically, but for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. It may be that being able to find anyone put on a list is too big a concentration of power, even in light of the benefits. That's every bit as much a problem if the system is 100% accurate.
If "find the people on this list, with near 100% accuracy" is something we're willing to accept, I think it's possible to build a system around this technology that doesn't deserve additional objection (outside detailed analysis of cost effectiveness or whatnot).
That outputting "there's a 20% chance they're on the list" might be used to deliberately harass those who aren't on the list is an argument that you didn't make in your first comment. Certainly safeguards against such behavior would be a necessary component of appropriate use of the technology - but it doesn't seem technically or socially implausible. There's a wide margin between a system that outputs "we think this person is sketchy" and a system that outputs "we think this person might be that specific person."
- darkpuma 7y agoThe root of the problem is that you simply cannot expect your average police officer to have a working intuitive knowledge of bayes theorem.
- dllthomas 7y agoIdeally, procedures are not designed by "your average police officer." All of this said, I agree that there's reason to be skeptical and keep close watch to ensure rights aren't being trampled. That's the case without this tech as well.