4 ms·

I don't agree with you. This should be a simple A/B test in my opinion. Inspect every single monetary transaction. Measure the results. Do not inspect every

by vecinu 13y ago

I don't agree with you. This should be a simple A/B test in my opinion. Inspect every single monetary transaction. Measure the results. Do not inspect every monetary transaction. Measure the results. Has money laundering and crime increase or decreased? If it has increased, inspect every monetary transaction, assuming all other variables stay constant.

btilly 13y ago
The statistics behind A/B testing only works if things are uncorrelated and independent. If criminals do know know whether they are A or B, then the existence of the A group can deter crime in the B group. Given the increased scrutiny on A, you're likely to catch more crimes there. That doesn't mean that B doesn't have uncaught crimes though. Thus your test is fundamentally messed up both coming and going.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> assuming all other variables stay constant. This is where you fail. Let's suppose that monitoring all monetary transactions actually does reduce crime. But the apparatus for doing so legitimizes similar actions by oppressive governments, which use it to suppress democracy activists rather than terrorists, and in so doing use the tools we built which they would not have had the funds or local knowledge to build themselves. And if you don't care about those people, imagine what happens if our own government should ever turn malicious, or fall under foreign control, and have this ability to prevent our citizens from funding a resistance. Then there is the danger of all this data falling into the wrong hands. Requiring it to be collected creates a secret which in the aggregate amounts to a national security threat. If you know who is paying whom for what and in what amount, you can commit industrial espionage on a massive scale. You know where strategic weaknesses are because you know which company doesn't purchase reinforcing materials for its products, you know how much capital an important defense contractor has in reserve before it goes into financial straits that impair its ability to operate effectively, you know who isn't insured against specific risks and could be bankrupted if they were contrived to occur, etc. This is effectively the same trouble as mandating lawful intercept backdoors. The damage you cause by creating immensely powerful surveillance tools that inevitably fall into the wrong hands by far outweighs the cost of requiring law enforcement to use the more traditional methods of catching criminals.
- genwin 13y ago
  Good thoughts. Our own government couldn't be trusted with this today. The US has a recent history of thwarting and toppling democracy, ignoring our Constitution while supporting oppressive governments.
bdcravens 13y ago
There's a number of interests outside that potentially usurp efficacy of crime reduction. The cost of 100% monitoring, or moral/ethical interests (I deserve some degree of privacy)

by vecinu 13y ago

btilly 13y ago

The statistics behind A/B testing only works if things are uncorrelated and independent. If criminals do know know whether they are A or B, then the existence of the A group can deter crime in the B group. Given the increased scrutiny on A, you're likely to catch more crimes there. That doesn't mean that B doesn't have uncaught crimes though. Thus your test is fundamentally messed up both coming and going.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

> assuming all other variables stay constant. This is where you fail. Let's suppose that monitoring all monetary transactions actually does reduce crime. But the apparatus for doing so legitimizes similar actions by oppressive governments, which use it to suppress democracy activists rather than terrorists, and in so doing use the tools we built which they would not have had the funds or local knowledge to build themselves. And if you don't care about those people, imagine what happens if our own government should ever turn malicious, or fall under foreign control, and have this ability to prevent our citizens from funding a resistance. Then there is the danger of all this data falling into the wrong hands. Requiring it to be collected creates a secret which in the aggregate amounts to a national security threat. If you know who is paying whom for what and in what amount, you can commit industrial espionage on a massive scale. You know where strategic weaknesses are because you know which company doesn't purchase reinforcing materials for its products, you know how much capital an important defense contractor has in reserve before it goes into financial straits that impair its ability to operate effectively, you know who isn't insured against specific risks and could be bankrupted if they were contrived to occur, etc. This is effectively the same trouble as mandating lawful intercept backdoors. The damage you cause by creating immensely powerful surveillance tools that inevitably fall into the wrong hands by far outweighs the cost of requiring law enforcement to use the more traditional methods of catching criminals.

genwin 13y ago
Good thoughts. Our own government couldn't be trusted with this today. The US has a recent history of thwarting and toppling democracy, ignoring our Constitution while supporting oppressive governments.

bdcravens 13y ago

There's a number of interests outside that potentially usurp efficacy of crime reduction. The cost of 100% monitoring, or moral/ethical interests (I deserve some degree of privacy)