4 ms·
> A good system scrutinises everyone equally when handing out free money. Good in what way? Cost-effective or fair? I grant you the second point. > everyone w
by vanviegen 4y ago
> A good system scrutinises everyone equally when handing out free money.
Good in what way? Cost-effective or fair? I grant you the second point.
> everyone who is poor and wants to be less grindingly poor has motivation to commit benefit fraud.
Sure. But being a small country with (what uses to be) a generous welfare system obvious leads to relatively many (fake) immigrants with fraudulent intentions. Just a numbers game. But I guess you could call it xenophobic to take that into consideration when semi-randomly selecting people for extra checking.
- EdwardDiego 4y agoI'd argue is both cost-effective and fair to be as unbiased as possible. But then it really depends on the nature of the fraud you're mentioning. Is it people lying about their qualifications for entitlement? Not declaring income?
- aquarium87 4y agoEveryone should have equal rights, if not under the law, then under God. Discrimination is discrimination. Its simply not allowed. Yet if all roads lead to an accurate picture of reality, and reality is not equitable, How is any investigation ever to be opened? A neighbor is suspicious and watches an immigrant family like a hawk and reports things to bylaw and police? It's discriminatory in nature, yet legal because a human observed a predicate. I think that is what we have to keep in the future. A human must witness the predicate for an investigation. Even that is flawed. But AI is on a whole other level.