3 ms·

I think we can be pretty certain that the city of Amsterdam will do everything it can to discover and issue fines for more illegally parked cars. They're heavil

I think we can be pretty certain that the city of Amsterdam will do everything it can to discover and issue fines for more illegally parked cars. They're heavily incentivized to do so given that it's a not insignificant source of revenue. Is there discrimination? Probably. But over time as the system gets better and more fines get issued less illegal parkers will get away with it. That's the goal right, to fine everyone illegally parking. It's not as if right now you can park a car illegally in Amsterdam and expect to get away with it. That's never been the case regardless of where you parked. As we get closer to catching everyone discrimination becomes irrelevant, because as enforcement approaches 100% it becomes less and less selective. I live in Rotterdam and I don't own a car. So my priority is to see less space given to cars and for people who park cars pay more for parking. I don't actually care about discrimination because the general trend is for parking to get more expensive, and for urban areas to become more pedestrian friendly. I want more parking enforcement, fewer cars, and more revenue from car owners. My friends who own cars are constantly complaining about parking fees and I have little to no sympathy for them. For many people in The Netherlands cars are a luxury. Most people don't need them, and if they claim to need them they usually actually don't. This is especially true in Amsterdam. All of this leads me to have very little sympathy for any discrimination argument.

avar 6y ago
It's about government transparency and the precedent that's being set. You may not care about parking enforcement (neither do I, really), but in 10 years time this won't be the last thing ML is being used for. We're replacing systems that are readily obvious to anyone (uniformed human parking attendants) with algorithmic enforcement. The government has decided that we don't need to know how it works (source code and models) or what the flaws and externalities are (anonymized data on how it's used). Thus something we're paying for whose function was pretty obvious to anyone becomes a black box. This lack of transparency will become the norm unless it's opposed, and eventually you or your group will become the disproportionate target of some overzealous algorithm.

avar 6y ago

It's about government transparency and the precedent that's being set. You may not care about parking enforcement (neither do I, really), but in 10 years time this won't be the last thing ML is being used for. We're replacing systems that are readily obvious to anyone (uniformed human parking attendants) with algorithmic enforcement. The government has decided that we don't need to know how it works (source code and models) or what the flaws and externalities are (anonymized data on how it's used). Thus something we're paying for whose function was pretty obvious to anyone becomes a black box. This lack of transparency will become the norm unless it's opposed, and eventually you or your group will become the disproportionate target of some overzealous algorithm.