3 ms·

> Your connections or other posts (e.g. about how some emergency means you're suddenly short of cash) could contribute to an elevated score. This sounds more l

> Your connections or other posts (e.g. about how some emergency means you're suddenly short of cash) could contribute to an elevated score. This sounds more like a way to send desperate people into a death spiral by raising interest rates or denying credit availability right at the worst possible moment than any kind of system that would prevent crime. > The proposal doesn't go into much detail about how they imagine it will work, but it sounds like they're just saying that a statistical model (based on a larger set of data) would be more useful than a set of rules based on a tiny set of inputs. This seems entirely reasonable. It's implying they want to invade everyone's privacy to set up a hallucinatory black box that destroys lives at random under the guise of... I'm not even sure what this is supposed to do. It's not going to yield anything that would be useful in a prosecution so it's more like opaque government-facilitated denial of service without due process. Far from reasonable, it's total crap.

rrnechmech 2y ago
This is really awful. Guilty by algo until proven that you can -pay- your way out
rahimnathwani 2y ago
> opaque government-facilitated denial of service without due process That's not what the report is about. Banks and financial institutions are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Suspicious Transaction Report (STRs). Filing such a report doesn't stop a transaction from happening. The report suggests that banks think they could improve the usefulness of these reports and reduce the number of false positives, if they had more freedom to choose the criteria.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Banks and financial institutions are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Suspicious Transaction Report (STRs). Filing such a report doesn't stop a transaction from happening. It kind of does though, because banks are also not allowed to do business with criminals, so if they suspect you of being engaged in criminal activity -- even if they have no real proof -- guess what they do. Worse than that, they're prohibited from telling you about the SARs, so you have no way to dispute them if they're inaccurate. It's a Kafkaesque absurdity that should simply be abolished rather than attempting to polish the turd with AI pixie dust. > The report suggests that banks think they could improve the usefulness of these reports and reduce the number of false positives, if they had more freedom to choose the criteria. Which is bollocks, but the government keeps pressuring them to do something because the system doesn't work (because banks shouldn't be doing it to begin with), so they're proposing to invade everyone's privacy because they want to do it anyway and this is a convenient excuse.

rrnechmech 2y ago

This is really awful. Guilty by algo until proven that you can -pay- your way out

rahimnathwani 2y ago

> opaque government-facilitated denial of service without due process That's not what the report is about. Banks and financial institutions are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Suspicious Transaction Report (STRs). Filing such a report doesn't stop a transaction from happening. The report suggests that banks think they could improve the usefulness of these reports and reduce the number of false positives, if they had more freedom to choose the criteria.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Banks and financial institutions are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Suspicious Transaction Report (STRs). Filing such a report doesn't stop a transaction from happening. It kind of does though, because banks are also not allowed to do business with criminals, so if they suspect you of being engaged in criminal activity -- even if they have no real proof -- guess what they do. Worse than that, they're prohibited from telling you about the SARs, so you have no way to dispute them if they're inaccurate. It's a Kafkaesque absurdity that should simply be abolished rather than attempting to polish the turd with AI pixie dust. > The report suggests that banks think they could improve the usefulness of these reports and reduce the number of false positives, if they had more freedom to choose the criteria. Which is bollocks, but the government keeps pressuring them to do something because the system doesn't work (because banks shouldn't be doing it to begin with), so they're proposing to invade everyone's privacy because they want to do it anyway and this is a convenient excuse.