5 ms·

Eh, I'm not sure I agree. I was contracted by The Government of Canada to help them with a recommendation engine that was built to help people. The problem? So

Eh, I'm not sure I agree. I was contracted by The Government of Canada to help them with a recommendation engine that was built to help people. The problem? Some criminals had reverse engineered the algorithm and were using it for really, really horrible ends. What would you have had me do? Not reverse engineer the criminal's reverse engineering? Did I help GC make a "predictive policing" app because they could now alert the RCMP to these bastards? It's a balance. We need privacy, but we also need security. My take on it is that we should start with good faith and only surveil where it makes sense (embassies, airports, etc) unless there is some sort of signal (in the ML sense) of bad faith. From that point on it should go through the crown's lawyers (like it does in Canada), but ultimately we need to stop murderers, human traffickers, and other people that make the world worse. I agree that some ML systems are weapons, but I don't think they all are. Some are benign. Some start off off as benign then get turned into dual use, like the one I worked on. But not all weapons are necessarily bad. We need a government that can actually protect us. There is real evil in the world.

motohagiography 6y ago
I'm saying the tech is a weapon you use to target something, ideally for good reasons, but it's still a weapon and it's the targeting decision that needs accountability. Knowing what I do about tech, I don't think privacy and security are a trade off or zero sum. I do think privacy and surveillance are a trade off, and surveillance is what you have when you don't have security or trustworthy systems. I agree there is actual evil in the world, and it's particularly where you don't expect it. The law isn't designed to fight evil. As a society, a better cultural understanding of evil would do more to improve our ability to deal with it than blunt technical weapons to surveil it.
- 3pt14159 6y ago
  I agree that the law isn't designed to fight evil, but many laws are designed to fight evil. It's a subtle distinction, but one worth pointing out. Surveillance is part of sense-making for law enforcement and even though I don't think that security and privacy are always at odds, and there are definitely cases where they are not zero-sum, when dealing with persons of interest in criminal investigations it tends to be the case that degrading a suspects privacy improves societies security. But it should be done right. Warrants, probable cause, etc.

motohagiography 6y ago

I'm saying the tech is a weapon you use to target something, ideally for good reasons, but it's still a weapon and it's the targeting decision that needs accountability. Knowing what I do about tech, I don't think privacy and security are a trade off or zero sum. I do think privacy and surveillance are a trade off, and surveillance is what you have when you don't have security or trustworthy systems. I agree there is actual evil in the world, and it's particularly where you don't expect it. The law isn't designed to fight evil. As a society, a better cultural understanding of evil would do more to improve our ability to deal with it than blunt technical weapons to surveil it.

3pt14159 6y ago
I agree that the law isn't designed to fight evil, but many laws are designed to fight evil. It's a subtle distinction, but one worth pointing out. Surveillance is part of sense-making for law enforcement and even though I don't think that security and privacy are always at odds, and there are definitely cases where they are not zero-sum, when dealing with persons of interest in criminal investigations it tends to be the case that degrading a suspects privacy improves societies security. But it should be done right. Warrants, probable cause, etc.