3 ms·
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 be
by 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.