4 ms·

It does sound like you should have been investigated though. Like, this sounds like the (or a) system working. What would the alternatives be? Don't investig

by taybin 26d ago

It does sound like you should have been investigated though. Like, this sounds like the (or a) system working. What would the alternatives be? Don't investigate for money laundering? Or have so much info that they can eliminate you as interesting without even having a visit?

iamnothere 26d ago
Wait for actual evidence of a crime (or even an anonymous tip) instead of going on a fishing expedition targeting anyone with an unusual lifestyle or weird spending habits? I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
- RHSeeger 26d ago
  > I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. I use this type of point all the time, and every time to blank stares. Me> The Flock surveillance network is bad - it is an invasion of privacy and gives way too much power to people that should not have that power. It _can_ be used to solve crimes, and does. But so could not allowing anyone out of their house without a permit. But that, too, would be stupid and harm society Them> _blank stare_ But.. it saved a child once.
  - pocksuppet 25d ago
    There is no evidence that Flock has ever saved a child once.
- madaxe_again 25d ago
  I’m not sure that informants are the way to go either. More often than not in history, this has just been used as a tool to mess with the lives of people you do not like.
RHSeeger 26d ago
False positives are never a _should_ thing, they're a "best we can do, and worth the cost" thing (or not). It's entirely reasonable to push for a better system, one with fewer false positives (and false negatives).
- taybin 26d ago
  I think finding better systems with fewer false negatives and fewer false positives is very difficult and might even be impossible for many things. It might be my lack of imagination, but I often think about the measures taken to prevent child abuse. As I see it, you’re either going to get kids left in abusive situations or you’re going to have kids unjustly removed. Both are terrible. I’m not going to argue where the action bias should be. We live in an imperfect world. I think preventing other crimes is similar. There will always be injustice on some side of the issue. And I’m not trying to argue that that means the status quo is great! But I don’t think we will eventually hone in a perfect system. Maybe just circle around some imaginary point, refining rules and processes until the whole thing breaks down.
  - RHSeeger 26d ago
    Even if we can't find ways to improve, we should continue to try.
madaxe_again 26d ago
The actual money launderers don’t leave honking great big digital footprints everywhere, and so aren’t found by these systems.

by taybin 26d ago

iamnothere 26d ago

Wait for actual evidence of a crime (or even an anonymous tip) instead of going on a fishing expedition targeting anyone with an unusual lifestyle or weird spending habits? I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

RHSeeger 26d ago
> I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. I use this type of point all the time, and every time to blank stares. Me> The Flock surveillance network is bad - it is an invasion of privacy and gives way too much power to people that should not have that power. It _can_ be used to solve crimes, and does. But so could not allowing anyone out of their house without a permit. But that, too, would be stupid and harm society Them> _blank stare_ But.. it saved a child once.
- pocksuppet 25d ago
  There is no evidence that Flock has ever saved a child once.
madaxe_again 25d ago
I’m not sure that informants are the way to go either. More often than not in history, this has just been used as a tool to mess with the lives of people you do not like.

RHSeeger 26d ago

False positives are never a _should_ thing, they're a "best we can do, and worth the cost" thing (or not). It's entirely reasonable to push for a better system, one with fewer false positives (and false negatives).

taybin 26d ago
I think finding better systems with fewer false negatives and fewer false positives is very difficult and might even be impossible for many things. It might be my lack of imagination, but I often think about the measures taken to prevent child abuse. As I see it, you’re either going to get kids left in abusive situations or you’re going to have kids unjustly removed. Both are terrible. I’m not going to argue where the action bias should be. We live in an imperfect world. I think preventing other crimes is similar. There will always be injustice on some side of the issue. And I’m not trying to argue that that means the status quo is great! But I don’t think we will eventually hone in a perfect system. Maybe just circle around some imaginary point, refining rules and processes until the whole thing breaks down.
- RHSeeger 26d ago
  Even if we can't find ways to improve, we should continue to try.

madaxe_again 26d ago

The actual money launderers don’t leave honking great big digital footprints everywhere, and so aren’t found by these systems.