14 ms·

Why the need to bring it under control? Control from what? It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. The law shouldn't focus on

by juancn 4y ago

Why the need to bring it under control? Control from what? It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. The law shouldn't focus on the AI, for example: >The regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2021, was designed to ban some AI applications like social scoring Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI? No, so the issue is not the tool. They fear the amplification factor of such tech, but the amplification factor works for the good and for the bad, so you need to focus just on the bad, not on the tech. Otherwise you end up impairing the good too.

batmansmk 4y ago
> Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn’t matter. Ban shooting people, not the guns, the tool doesn’t matter. :) sorry to be facetious but I find you idealist in your view. Modern form of AI has regulatory issues: some can’t be audited easily, some can’t be deterministic, some can’t be fair, some use biased data, some can’t be proven to work accurately enough for critical missions. We already regulate the way we make various decision by law. For instance, we regulate how public market are assigned: price needs to make for 30% of the decision, social impact 20% etc. If the tool cannot demonstrate it considers it with those weights, it shall be banned. You cannot expect judges to understand this complexity. It needs to be codified prior to the issue.
varispeed 4y ago
The ban is also meaningless. E.g. government ban Ponzi schemes, while themselves running pension schemes very much having most of the attributes of a Ponzi scheme. Which means if government bans apps designed for social scoring, it's probably just so that government has monopoly over scoring people behaviour.
- nebalee 4y ago
  The proposal bans the use of AI-based social scoring by the governments (public authorities) or on their behalf.
rescripting 4y ago
Isn't this the same argument as "ban murder, not guns"? Murder is illegal, yes, but fatalities are lower in places with gun control than places without.
- whiddershins 4y ago
  If it is, it is good for precisely the same reasons.
- aftbit 4y ago
  Yes, which is also a valid argument. Tools have no alignment. The people using them do. Thus, one should regulate the people, not the tools.
  - mirchibajji 4y ago
    This is a case of people actively building and deciding to use a tool with plausible deniability built-in. How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? It is much more reasonable to require that people use a tool that shows its work.
    - everforward 4y ago
      > How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? This happens with or without AI. It's not too hard to make an algorithm that discriminates against people without doing so explicitly. You can use certain bits of data as proxies for whatever characteristic you want to discriminate against (e.g. ZIP code, household income, marital status, etc). Due to the myriad of ways to arrive at a discriminatory conclusion, it's easier to regulate results than tools. One potential solution to your question is to make the laws carry strict liability (I'm assuming the EU has something along those lines). Plausible deniability no longer exists because intent doesn't matter. The company is liable if someone can demonstrate discrimination, regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental. That ends up pushing towards something similar to what you want. It encourages a tool that can show its work to fend off lawsuits without being directly tied to the tool itself. The other alternative is extensive testing to make sure discrimination doesn't happen, but I think that will still be worrying to companies due to the inability to prove a negative.
bobthepanda 4y ago
Control may be the wrong thing here. Every technology, at some point, will inevitably bring questions of legal liability and culpability, and AI has a large tendency to do so because of how applicable it is. It’s not the worst idea to try and get ahead of the problem by defining a legal framework. Examples of how a free-for-all has resulted in legal questions; * police and the judiciary in the US have come under fire several times for using proprietary AI to determine things like sentencing or traffic stops * there is currently a class action lawsuit in Washington state about whether or not price recommendations by a third party’s algorithm constitutes collusion on price-fixing if enough corporate landlords use it
- HPsquared 4y ago
  I don't get it. For the first example, the system is only a tool used and the responsibility is still with whoever does the sentencing/traffic stops etc. In the second case, how is this different from e.g. Kelley Blue Book for car prices?
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Separating this into two responses. --- The problem with the first case is that we do not have existing case law about AIs, and we also have no laws on the books that clarify what to do in AI cases, so this is making the lawsuits and investigations very messy and time-consuming, since judges have to waffle about to figure out what the correct, legal thing to do is. Pretty much all Western law systems judge the severity of action using intent, or mens rea; it doesn't absolve you of crime if you didn't mean to do it, but your penalties will generally be lesser. The people using the algorithm can wash their hands of intent by saying "we signed a contract with a third party for their algorithm and didn't reasonably expect biased outcomes." Then you make the third party a defendant, and then the third party claims "trade secrets" because we have no laws about what is and isn't protected trade secrets with AI, etc. and that becomes a whole legal case on its own that takes even more time for the legal system. --- The difference in the second case is that the corporate landlords in question are automatically pegging their rates to the algorithm's recommendation and not giving property managers discretion. The algorithm's customers combined also control over half of supply of apartments in the Seattle area. --- But the point of legal clarity, is to reduce the amount of questions, which both 1) heads off potential issues and 2) makes the issues that come into the legal system faster and clearer to process. It also potentially actually makes things easier for companies who make AIs too, since legal defense spending isn't exactly cheap.
paulcole 4y ago
[flagged]
- Aeolos 4y ago
  As a consumer, the USB-C mandate is amazing and I wish it had been given as soon as USB-C became available.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    Neat! I guess you’ll be advocating for whatever the next advancement in USB ports is becoming mandated as soon as it’s available, too?
    - Aeolos 4y ago
      Anything that reduces e-waste, yes.
      - paulcole 4y ago
        Really, a brand new plug becomes available today, the EU mandates its usage and you think that reduces e-waste?
        Kbelicius 4y ago
        Yes. What makes you think that it has no effect on, or even increases, e-waste?
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      Sure, why not?
    - lillecarl 4y ago
      We won't need backwards incompatible advancements in this space for awhile, you seem grumpy that the EU is doing good for consumers rather than mega corporations.
matchagaucho 4y ago
Generating deepfakes of politicians before elections are just another example of the many applications of AI, but not necessarily the fault of the tool. [1] California laws prohibiting deepfakes https://www.dwt.com/insights/2019/10/california-deepfakes-law https://www.dwt.com/insights/2019/10/california-deepfakes-la...
camdenlock 4y ago
> Why the need to bring it under control? So that EU bureaucrats can feel a sense of purpose in their lives.
ketzu 4y ago
> Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI? Yes, as long as that is based on clear reasons why the decision was reached. (Unless this was a quip meant to mean "matrix muls with pen and paper are not AI!", personally I'd say they are, the same way bubble sort is bubble sort on paper and in code.) [1] on the topic "why": > For example, it is often not possible to find out why an AI system has made a decision or prediction and taken a particular action. As far as I know, there are some rules around that (especially social scoring), but the regulation was/is targeted to lay out rules minimizing the applications in similar risky areas that do not have those same rules yet. [1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory...
hackerlight 4y ago
> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. This seems backwards and contrary to lessons learned in the past. Once the thing exists, prohibition is infeasible and expensive. Supply will find a way to reaech demand regardless of your multi-billion dollar efforts to prevent that. It's better to stop $NEFARIOUS_THING being invented in the first place, if possible, and if any regulations that achieve this don't have too many unintended side effects.
- zpeti 4y ago
  If you could see the future that works, but I just don’t see how you know what will be used for nefarious purposes in the future. In fact most technology does both negative and positive things. It’s not obvious banning it completely will be a net positive. Especially with AI. There’s a lot of potentially great uses. Like detecting cancer on CT scans.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    I'm not advocating for or against any particular regulation. Whatever gets implemented should be well thought out, because it's easier to destroy upside potential than it is to prevent downside potential. I am aware of this. All that I'm speaking out against is the mindset of the post I was replying to, where the onus is solely on the user of the tool rather than on the context (laws, situation, people) that leads to the invention of the tool itself. I believe this to be a misunderstanding/misattribution of causality, as well as contrary to learned experience.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
hourago 4y ago
> Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. Automated human classification without recourse nor transparency is what the EU is against. "You cannot get a loan because the AI says so" is not acceptable. > Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI? Yes. As a judge can check what information was used and what algorithm applied to get to a conclusion. And it may declare that use of data or algorithm illegal. > They fear the amplification factor of such tech, but the amplification factor works for the good and for the bad Maybe just go slower. Something like an Hippocratic oath can be a good principle to follow for high impact technologies. To do some good may not justify the harm.
- concordDance 4y ago
  > "You cannot get a loan because the AI says so" is not acceptable. To me this makes it seem like acces to loans is a right,in which case the EU should make a lender of last resort that can loan to people who would otherwise get rejected.
  - barrkel 4y ago
    How do you leap from banning black box AI decisions to thinking it means everything is allowed?
    - edgineer 4y ago
      Perhaps the assumption is that humans functioning as black box loan deniers is also a problem.
    - px43 4y ago
      Haven't loan decisions always been black box? Sometimes they'll attribute decisions to credit scores, but those scoring systems have always been proprietary, and they won't even tell you what data your scoring is based on.
      - gopher_space 4y ago
anigbrowl 4y ago
What an absurd argument. Social scoring doesn't get computer by hand on paper because it isn't efficient to do so. Introduce automation and it suddenly becomes practical. Same with mass surveillance and a bunch of other stuff, eg scams: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35033971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35033971 the amplification factor works for the good and for the bad, so you need to focus just on the bad That's just hand-waving. You have no plan for dealing with bad things, but you are worried about the loss of good things. This is not so different from saying you want to cash in on opportunity, the wholly predictable downsides of the opportunity are just someone else's problem. Guess what, nobody wants that problem so it just festers in proportion to the enthusiasm with which people chase the upside.
- GuB-42 4y ago
  You absolutely don't need a computer to do social scoring. Computers let you take more parameters into account, and do more complex calculations, but you can do basic social scoring by hand, we have been doing that since civilization existed, in a more or less formal way. Traditionally through ancestry (and by extension, race). And the way we prevent abuse is with anti-discrimination laws, and AI won't change the deals here. If, for example one notices that a company doesn't hire black people even though there are plenty of them applying with suitable qualifications. Regulators could step in and ask what's wrong, and I doubt "that's my AI" will be a satisfactory answer, but neither is "that's Bob".
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    And the way we prevent abuse is with anti-discrimination laws Have you not noticed how heavily those are contested in many jurisdictions. If you discover some way to draft legislation on morality such that it's effective, consistent, and widely accepted in a disparate population, I look forward to hearing about it. I can't wait to read about the solution to spam, scams, and discrimination deployed at industrial scale. In the meantime, it's wise to take the amplifying aspect of technology into account and consider its potential for abuse as well as for good.
antibasilisk 4y ago
>It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem No. It's the AI. Humans are not psychologically capable of interfacing with something whose goal is to appear convincingly human, that can be hugely scaled and that is very unpredictable. We are currently dealing with a huge number of people who are distraught and grieving because a company changed their product because they developed relationships with a sexy chatbot. This isn't going to stop, and it is not worth the potential benefits, because we have clear examples of harm already.
tommyage 4y ago
People posting such articles (from sites highly neglectable) without their informed take is ruining this community as well. We shouldn't raise any questions but leave participations to themselves.
nektro 4y ago
> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. this is exactly what people against gun control say
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  a) The use of guns cannot be regulated effectively without physically removing guns from a society. b) One of the first and foremost items on gun-regulation todo-lists is to get rid of the kind of guns with the specific use-case of making killing people as easy as possible, aka. miltary weapons, automated weapons, easily concealed weapons, etc. So the regulations against guns are already targeting use-cases. c) Physically controlling guns is a proven method, its effectiveness is supported by decades of evidence in countries implementing it.
  - Veen 4y ago
    > The use of guns cannot be regulated effectively without physically removing guns from a society. Isn't that like saying theft cannot be regulated effectively without removing the things people want to steal from society? The goal is not perfect gun control, but reducing access to guns and thereby reducing the crime and harm that stems from gun ownership. So it being illegal to own X doesn't mean no one will own and use X, but that fewer people will and law enforcement will be able act against those who do.
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  The difference is that a gun is a tool with a single use-case.
  - randyrand 4y ago
    there are a lot of use cases for shooting something. war, policing, defense, hunting, animal control, shooting down flying objects, remotely activating something from afar, immobilizing a car.
    - 4y ago
nivenkos 4y ago
But credit scores and fraud risk analysis are "social scoring". And what's wrong with social scoring in general?

by juancn 4y ago

batmansmk 4y ago

> Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn’t matter. Ban shooting people, not the guns, the tool doesn’t matter. :) sorry to be facetious but I find you idealist in your view. Modern form of AI has regulatory issues: some can’t be audited easily, some can’t be deterministic, some can’t be fair, some use biased data, some can’t be proven to work accurately enough for critical missions. We already regulate the way we make various decision by law. For instance, we regulate how public market are assigned: price needs to make for 30% of the decision, social impact 20% etc. If the tool cannot demonstrate it considers it with those weights, it shall be banned. You cannot expect judges to understand this complexity. It needs to be codified prior to the issue.

varispeed 4y ago

The ban is also meaningless. E.g. government ban Ponzi schemes, while themselves running pension schemes very much having most of the attributes of a Ponzi scheme. Which means if government bans apps designed for social scoring, it's probably just so that government has monopoly over scoring people behaviour.

nebalee 4y ago
The proposal bans the use of AI-based social scoring by the governments (public authorities) or on their behalf.

rescripting 4y ago

Isn't this the same argument as "ban murder, not guns"? Murder is illegal, yes, but fatalities are lower in places with gun control than places without.

whiddershins 4y ago
If it is, it is good for precisely the same reasons.
aftbit 4y ago
Yes, which is also a valid argument. Tools have no alignment. The people using them do. Thus, one should regulate the people, not the tools.
- mirchibajji 4y ago
  This is a case of people actively building and deciding to use a tool with plausible deniability built-in. How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? It is much more reasonable to require that people use a tool that shows its work.
  - everforward 4y ago
    > How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? This happens with or without AI. It's not too hard to make an algorithm that discriminates against people without doing so explicitly. You can use certain bits of data as proxies for whatever characteristic you want to discriminate against (e.g. ZIP code, household income, marital status, etc). Due to the myriad of ways to arrive at a discriminatory conclusion, it's easier to regulate results than tools. One potential solution to your question is to make the laws carry strict liability (I'm assuming the EU has something along those lines). Plausible deniability no longer exists because intent doesn't matter. The company is liable if someone can demonstrate discrimination, regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental. That ends up pushing towards something similar to what you want. It encourages a tool that can show its work to fend off lawsuits without being directly tied to the tool itself. The other alternative is extensive testing to make sure discrimination doesn't happen, but I think that will still be worrying to companies due to the inability to prove a negative.

bobthepanda 4y ago

Control may be the wrong thing here. Every technology, at some point, will inevitably bring questions of legal liability and culpability, and AI has a large tendency to do so because of how applicable it is. It’s not the worst idea to try and get ahead of the problem by defining a legal framework. Examples of how a free-for-all has resulted in legal questions; * police and the judiciary in the US have come under fire several times for using proprietary AI to determine things like sentencing or traffic stops * there is currently a class action lawsuit in Washington state about whether or not price recommendations by a third party’s algorithm constitutes collusion on price-fixing if enough corporate landlords use it

HPsquared 4y ago
I don't get it. For the first example, the system is only a tool used and the responsibility is still with whoever does the sentencing/traffic stops etc. In the second case, how is this different from e.g. Kelley Blue Book for car prices?
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Separating this into two responses. --- The problem with the first case is that we do not have existing case law about AIs, and we also have no laws on the books that clarify what to do in AI cases, so this is making the lawsuits and investigations very messy and time-consuming, since judges have to waffle about to figure out what the correct, legal thing to do is. Pretty much all Western law systems judge the severity of action using intent, or mens rea; it doesn't absolve you of crime if you didn't mean to do it, but your penalties will generally be lesser. The people using the algorithm can wash their hands of intent by saying "we signed a contract with a third party for their algorithm and didn't reasonably expect biased outcomes." Then you make the third party a defendant, and then the third party claims "trade secrets" because we have no laws about what is and isn't protected trade secrets with AI, etc. and that becomes a whole legal case on its own that takes even more time for the legal system. --- The difference in the second case is that the corporate landlords in question are automatically pegging their rates to the algorithm's recommendation and not giving property managers discretion. The algorithm's customers combined also control over half of supply of apartments in the Seattle area. --- But the point of legal clarity, is to reduce the amount of questions, which both 1) heads off potential issues and 2) makes the issues that come into the legal system faster and clearer to process. It also potentially actually makes things easier for companies who make AIs too, since legal defense spending isn't exactly cheap.

paulcole 4y ago

[flagged]

Aeolos 4y ago
As a consumer, the USB-C mandate is amazing and I wish it had been given as soon as USB-C became available.
- paulcole 4y ago
  Neat! I guess you’ll be advocating for whatever the next advancement in USB ports is becoming mandated as soon as it’s available, too?
  - Aeolos 4y ago
    Anything that reduces e-waste, yes.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      Really, a brand new plug becomes available today, the EU mandates its usage and you think that reduces e-waste?
      - Kbelicius 4y ago
        Yes. What makes you think that it has no effect on, or even increases, e-waste?
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Sure, why not?
  - lillecarl 4y ago
    We won't need backwards incompatible advancements in this space for awhile, you seem grumpy that the EU is doing good for consumers rather than mega corporations.

matchagaucho 4y ago

Generating deepfakes of politicians before elections are just another example of the many applications of AI, but not necessarily the fault of the tool. [1] California laws prohibiting deepfakes https://www.dwt.com/insights/2019/10/california-deepfakes-law https://www.dwt.com/insights/2019/10/california-deepfakes-la...

camdenlock 4y ago

> Why the need to bring it under control? So that EU bureaucrats can feel a sense of purpose in their lives.

ketzu 4y ago

> Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI? Yes, as long as that is based on clear reasons why the decision was reached. (Unless this was a quip meant to mean "matrix muls with pen and paper are not AI!", personally I'd say they are, the same way bubble sort is bubble sort on paper and in code.) [1] on the topic "why": > For example, it is often not possible to find out why an AI system has made a decision or prediction and taken a particular action. As far as I know, there are some rules around that (especially social scoring), but the regulation was/is targeted to lay out rules minimizing the applications in similar risky areas that do not have those same rules yet. [1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory...

hackerlight 4y ago

> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. This seems backwards and contrary to lessons learned in the past. Once the thing exists, prohibition is infeasible and expensive. Supply will find a way to reaech demand regardless of your multi-billion dollar efforts to prevent that. It's better to stop $NEFARIOUS_THING being invented in the first place, if possible, and if any regulations that achieve this don't have too many unintended side effects.

zpeti 4y ago
If you could see the future that works, but I just don’t see how you know what will be used for nefarious purposes in the future. In fact most technology does both negative and positive things. It’s not obvious banning it completely will be a net positive. Especially with AI. There’s a lot of potentially great uses. Like detecting cancer on CT scans.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  I'm not advocating for or against any particular regulation. Whatever gets implemented should be well thought out, because it's easier to destroy upside potential than it is to prevent downside potential. I am aware of this. All that I'm speaking out against is the mindset of the post I was replying to, where the onus is solely on the user of the tool rather than on the context (laws, situation, people) that leads to the invention of the tool itself. I believe this to be a misunderstanding/misattribution of causality, as well as contrary to learned experience.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

hourago 4y ago

> Ban social scoring, not the AI, the tool doesn't matter. Automated human classification without recourse nor transparency is what the EU is against. "You cannot get a loan because the AI says so" is not acceptable. > Would it be good if it was computed by hand on paper instead of through AI? Yes. As a judge can check what information was used and what algorithm applied to get to a conclusion. And it may declare that use of data or algorithm illegal. > They fear the amplification factor of such tech, but the amplification factor works for the good and for the bad Maybe just go slower. Something like an Hippocratic oath can be a good principle to follow for high impact technologies. To do some good may not justify the harm.

concordDance 4y ago
> "You cannot get a loan because the AI says so" is not acceptable. To me this makes it seem like acces to loans is a right,in which case the EU should make a lender of last resort that can loan to people who would otherwise get rejected.
- barrkel 4y ago
  How do you leap from banning black box AI decisions to thinking it means everything is allowed?
  - edgineer 4y ago
    Perhaps the assumption is that humans functioning as black box loan deniers is also a problem.
  - px43 4y ago
    Haven't loan decisions always been black box? Sometimes they'll attribute decisions to credit scores, but those scoring systems have always been proprietary, and they won't even tell you what data your scoring is based on.
    - gopher_space 4y ago

anigbrowl 4y ago

What an absurd argument. Social scoring doesn't get computer by hand on paper because it isn't efficient to do so. Introduce automation and it suddenly becomes practical. Same with mass surveillance and a bunch of other stuff, eg scams: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35033971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35033971 the amplification factor works for the good and for the bad, so you need to focus just on the bad That's just hand-waving. You have no plan for dealing with bad things, but you are worried about the loss of good things. This is not so different from saying you want to cash in on opportunity, the wholly predictable downsides of the opportunity are just someone else's problem. Guess what, nobody wants that problem so it just festers in proportion to the enthusiasm with which people chase the upside.

GuB-42 4y ago
You absolutely don't need a computer to do social scoring. Computers let you take more parameters into account, and do more complex calculations, but you can do basic social scoring by hand, we have been doing that since civilization existed, in a more or less formal way. Traditionally through ancestry (and by extension, race). And the way we prevent abuse is with anti-discrimination laws, and AI won't change the deals here. If, for example one notices that a company doesn't hire black people even though there are plenty of them applying with suitable qualifications. Regulators could step in and ask what's wrong, and I doubt "that's my AI" will be a satisfactory answer, but neither is "that's Bob".
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  And the way we prevent abuse is with anti-discrimination laws Have you not noticed how heavily those are contested in many jurisdictions. If you discover some way to draft legislation on morality such that it's effective, consistent, and widely accepted in a disparate population, I look forward to hearing about it. I can't wait to read about the solution to spam, scams, and discrimination deployed at industrial scale. In the meantime, it's wise to take the amplifying aspect of technology into account and consider its potential for abuse as well as for good.

antibasilisk 4y ago

>It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem No. It's the AI. Humans are not psychologically capable of interfacing with something whose goal is to appear convincingly human, that can be hugely scaled and that is very unpredictable. We are currently dealing with a huge number of people who are distraught and grieving because a company changed their product because they developed relationships with a sexy chatbot. This isn't going to stop, and it is not worth the potential benefits, because we have clear examples of harm already.

tommyage 4y ago

People posting such articles (from sites highly neglectable) without their informed take is ruining this community as well. We shouldn't raise any questions but leave participations to themselves.

nektro 4y ago

> It's not the AI that's the issue, it's the use of it that's the problem. this is exactly what people against gun control say

usrbinbash 4y ago
a) The use of guns cannot be regulated effectively without physically removing guns from a society. b) One of the first and foremost items on gun-regulation todo-lists is to get rid of the kind of guns with the specific use-case of making killing people as easy as possible, aka. miltary weapons, automated weapons, easily concealed weapons, etc. So the regulations against guns are already targeting use-cases. c) Physically controlling guns is a proven method, its effectiveness is supported by decades of evidence in countries implementing it.
- Veen 4y ago
  > The use of guns cannot be regulated effectively without physically removing guns from a society. Isn't that like saying theft cannot be regulated effectively without removing the things people want to steal from society? The goal is not perfect gun control, but reducing access to guns and thereby reducing the crime and harm that stems from gun ownership. So it being illegal to own X doesn't mean no one will own and use X, but that fewer people will and law enforcement will be able act against those who do.
TremendousJudge 4y ago
The difference is that a gun is a tool with a single use-case.
- randyrand 4y ago
  there are a lot of use cases for shooting something. war, policing, defense, hunting, animal control, shooting down flying objects, remotely activating something from afar, immobilizing a car.
  - 4y ago

nivenkos 4y ago

But credit scores and fraud risk analysis are "social scoring". And what's wrong with social scoring in general?