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".
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".
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?
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.