5 ms·

Anybody notice that all of the word choices in the headline make this sound particularly dark and ominous? Wouldn't a more accurate headline be something like

Anybody notice that all of the word choices in the headline make this sound particularly dark and ominous? Wouldn't a more accurate headline be something like "Here is the math behind how France's fraud detection system works"?

pyrale 3y ago
As it should be. This system targets these people and not other types of fraud which are a larger source of fraud in terms of lost money. This correlates strongly with political discourse, in terms of who is accused of being "problematic".
- logicalmonster 3y ago
  > This system targets these people Let's keep in mind that this algorithm isn't in and of itself punishing people. It's just the starting point for a human-led investigation. Isn't that a proper application of technology? My bigger concern is that any human-led investigation is fair and reasonable and doesn't go hog-wild trying to punish people for minor misunderstandings of the rules and policies that are in place. (Somebody in this thread said that the rules just for how housing allowances can be used are like 80 pages long, so it's probably the case that it's pretty much impossible for any random citizen to know all of these rules) > other types of fraud which are a larger source of fraud in terms of lost money Surely you're not suggesting that welfare fraud shouldn't be investigated so long as say Military-Industrial-Complex fraud or Big-Pharma fraud is even greater?
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > Surely you're not suggesting that welfare fraud shouldn't be investigated so long as say Military-Industrial-Complex fraud or Big-Pharma fraud is even greater? No, I'm talking about other types of fraud effecting the social system funds. Some of them by individuals, some of them by companies. > Isn't that a proper application of technology? It's hard to apply technology properly when you don't start with good intents.
    - logicalmonster 3y ago
      Maybe we can just agree to disagree, but I'm not seeing how looking into the possibility of welfare fraud, so long as it's done in a fair and reasonable manner, isn't a good intention.
advisedwang 3y ago
But it's not a fraud detection system. It's a "poor/disabled/divorced/etc" detector. Even if it is true that statistically more disabled people have recieved benefit overpayments, subjecting disabled people to more investigation is not OK. and the training data is all overpayments, even if it is not fraud
- logicalmonster 3y ago
  > subjecting disabled people to more investigation is not OK We all feel sympathy for poor disabled people who have a harder lot in life than most. But investigating a poor disabled person for fraud is only really a problem if the investigation is malicious, biased, unfair, disrupts their life, presumes their guilt, etc. How are these investigations actually run? Are they run fairly or not? That's what I'm really curious about. So personally, I think you're conflating 2 different things. Simply a basic check for fraud in and of itself is a separate thing from a malicious investigation that's run horribly. PS: Let's not forget that many poor people pay various kinds of taxes. Being a wise steward of their tax dollars and trying to fight fraud is not in and of itself anti-poor disabled people.

pyrale 3y ago

As it should be. This system targets these people and not other types of fraud which are a larger source of fraud in terms of lost money. This correlates strongly with political discourse, in terms of who is accused of being "problematic".

logicalmonster 3y ago
> This system targets these people Let's keep in mind that this algorithm isn't in and of itself punishing people. It's just the starting point for a human-led investigation. Isn't that a proper application of technology? My bigger concern is that any human-led investigation is fair and reasonable and doesn't go hog-wild trying to punish people for minor misunderstandings of the rules and policies that are in place. (Somebody in this thread said that the rules just for how housing allowances can be used are like 80 pages long, so it's probably the case that it's pretty much impossible for any random citizen to know all of these rules) > other types of fraud which are a larger source of fraud in terms of lost money Surely you're not suggesting that welfare fraud shouldn't be investigated so long as say Military-Industrial-Complex fraud or Big-Pharma fraud is even greater?
- pyrale 3y ago
  > Surely you're not suggesting that welfare fraud shouldn't be investigated so long as say Military-Industrial-Complex fraud or Big-Pharma fraud is even greater? No, I'm talking about other types of fraud effecting the social system funds. Some of them by individuals, some of them by companies. > Isn't that a proper application of technology? It's hard to apply technology properly when you don't start with good intents.
  - logicalmonster 3y ago
    Maybe we can just agree to disagree, but I'm not seeing how looking into the possibility of welfare fraud, so long as it's done in a fair and reasonable manner, isn't a good intention.

advisedwang 3y ago

But it's not a fraud detection system. It's a "poor/disabled/divorced/etc" detector. Even if it is true that statistically more disabled people have recieved benefit overpayments, subjecting disabled people to more investigation is not OK. and the training data is all overpayments, even if it is not fraud

logicalmonster 3y ago
> subjecting disabled people to more investigation is not OK We all feel sympathy for poor disabled people who have a harder lot in life than most. But investigating a poor disabled person for fraud is only really a problem if the investigation is malicious, biased, unfair, disrupts their life, presumes their guilt, etc. How are these investigations actually run? Are they run fairly or not? That's what I'm really curious about. So personally, I think you're conflating 2 different things. Simply a basic check for fraud in and of itself is a separate thing from a malicious investigation that's run horribly. PS: Let's not forget that many poor people pay various kinds of taxes. Being a wise steward of their tax dollars and trying to fight fraud is not in and of itself anti-poor disabled people.