Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#161

Post by closeparen »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #26
an_account wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not be okay with my company rating me based on ML computed metrics of my performance based on everything that I do in (and out?) of the office

How is a credit rating different from citizenship rating? Your buying patterns reveal an awful lot. Why is one ok and the other isn't?

People's lives should not be affected by how loyal they are to the state (up until the point of actual violence).

People's access to credit should be affected by how they behaved with previous loans.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#162

Post by apatters »

ubernostrum wrote: post #77
apatters wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but these are privately owned communities and if you disagree with their standards you can go join some other community or start your own. A Chinese citizen can't exactly go start their own competitor to the Communist Party.

And yet... credit scores are maintained by private companies, and are inescapable in the US, as are their effects on your opportunities in life. So "It's a company, not a government" is not a useful argument to make for this kind of situation.

The credit rating industry in the US is very heavily regulated. Setting aside whether the regulation of that industry is good or not, there is really only one US credit scoring system and it's effectively controlled by the government, so this is not an example of multiple, privately controlled, competing systems at work.

The Chinese "social score" system would almost certainly be developed and administered by private companies (prototypes and precursors have been). The government would just set the rules. So in fact it would be similar to the US credit system in this way, one system, dictated by the government, private entities just handle its operation.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#163

Post by prewett »

grzm wrote: post #102
prewett wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US court sure comes close to deciding moral issues, if not actually. Abortion: some people say killing babies is wrong and should be illegal; other people say a woman has the right to kill* her baby if it hasn't been born yet. Homosexual marriage: some people say it is wrong and should be illegal; others say it is right and should be legal. So if I think homosexual marriage is wrong, the court requires that the s…

I think I see what you're saying, and I agree that laws and morality are similar. That said, I do think they can be meaningfully distinguished. Edit: I understand you make this distinction as well. The duty of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. The creation of the law is the job of the legislative branch. It seems to me that while people may agree or object to laws on moral grounds, the judicial branch…

I think we pretty much agree. Rights and morality are pretty closely related, so when the court rules on rights, it's pretty close to morality.

I think what upsets people about "legislating from the bench" is things like at least 25 states pass laws or constitutional amendments banning some form of homosexual marriage [1], which clearly reflects a substantial will-of-the-people, and the Supreme Court overrules the expressed will of the people and says it's unconstitutional. So now these people, have to live in a society that legally tolerates something they think is wrong and/or harmful to society long-term. Regardless of your view of whether the Court was "right," you can certainly see why people would be upset with this. No matter what the Court rules, someone is going to be unhappy, but given that homosexuals are 3% of the population and are driving the other 97% (which had expressed their desires through the democratic process), you can see the problem.

(I think this is why conservative Christians are voting for Trump in large numbers, despite the fact that many of them think he is not a good candidate. They are voting for a Supreme Court nominator, not a government leader. As a conservative Christian myself, I think this is foolish, but there it is.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitut...

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#164

Post by prewett »

brbsix wrote: post #106
prewett wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I think it is the far Right that are closer to anti-democracy. Witness: Trump claiming he won't accept the results of the election, that's about as undemocratic as you can get.

Where did Trump claim that he won't accept the results of the election? In the debates, he refrained from saying one way or another.[0] There's a big difference between what he said and what you're saying he said. [0]: Trump: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, okay? Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-...

I think it is very undemocratic to even suggest that that you might not accept the results. In fact, it is even slimier, because it provides maximal disruption in trust of the democratic system while allowing him to claim exactly what you are saying.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#165

Post by idra »

girzel wrote: post #105
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #51

My concern is that China will use the scoring to make moral judgments about citizens. Yes, we have credit scores and DMV scores and some of us wind up on white lists (PreCheck) or black lists (No-Fly) for air travel. But determining business risk is different from determining whether someone is a moral or immoral person, and then using that subjectivity to control the population. It's value to the regime is in that s…

The problem with this happening in China is that, given the rampant corruption, authoritarianism, lack and transparency and lack of rule of law in China, the system is pretty much guaranteed to be expressed in the worst possible way: used for population control and political repression, and gamed by those in power for their own benefit. Something really bad is happening in China. There's been talk for a few years abo…

> The problem with this happening in China is that, given the rampant corruption, authoritarianism, lack and transparency and lack of rule of law in China, the system is pretty much guaranteed to be expressed in the worst possible way: used for population control and political repression, and gamed by those in power for their own benefit.

Well said. This can be said about pretty much any "system" being introduced in China.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#166

Post by idra »

tmptmp wrote: post #68

I feel sad about the Chinese people and people living under communist/Marxist regimes. Communism/Marxism is one of the worst ideologies out there (along with intolerant religions). The western democracy is the best model the humans have invented yet. This is not to say we must not strive to improve it. But Communism/Marxism is not at all an improvement, it's an outright societal cancer. But I am seeing is the increas…

The modern Chinese regime has nothing even remotely close to neither communism or Marxism except the imagery.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#167

Post by idra »

tmptmp wrote: post #159
alextooter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are total wrong. In fact,today China is not communist/Marxist at all.China is more Capitalism than USA. The word communist/Marxist is only mentioned when holding big meetings.

>>China is more Capitalism than USA. China is not at all capitalist as there is no free market, and you may say it's not communist/marxist if it pleases you but it's a communist party controlled tyranny. * If anything, China is much, much more tyrannical and dictatorial than USA. Tyranny and brutal dictatorships is only what communism/Marxism have produced in large amounts. The communism/Marxism have produced very li…

Communism/Marxism =/= tyranny and brutal dictatorships. They aren't mutually exclusive, but one doesn't imply the other. There was Marxism and tyranny in the Soviet Union, modern China only has tyranny.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#168

Post by ctrlalt_g »

prewett wrote: post #163
grzm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I see what you're saying, and I agree that laws and morality are similar. That said, I do think they can be meaningfully distinguished. Edit: I understand you make this distinction as well. The duty of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. The creation of the law is the job of the legislative branch. It seems to me that while people may agree or object to laws on moral grounds, the judicial branch…

I think we pretty much agree. Rights and morality are pretty closely related, so when the court rules on rights, it's pretty close to morality. I think what upsets people about "legislating from the bench" is things like at least 25 states pass laws or constitutional amendments banning some form of homosexual marriage [1], which clearly reflects a substantial will-of-the-people, and the Supreme Court overrules the ex…

A lot has happened in the past decade, and it's not 3% driving the 97%, not that it ever was (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay...).

But either way, the percentage of people who believe certain morals does not matter. No matter what our individual beliefs are, we bind ourselves to the law of the land. That's what it means to have a constitution. Even if 100% of Americans wanted to take away your freedom of speech or your freedom to bear arms, we could not do it legally.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#169

Post by prewett »

ctrlalt_g wrote: post #168
prewett wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we pretty much agree. Rights and morality are pretty closely related, so when the court rules on rights, it's pretty close to morality. I think what upsets people about "legislating from the bench" is things like at least 25 states pass laws or constitutional amendments banning some form of homosexual marriage [1], which clearly reflects a substantial will-of-the-people, and the Supreme Court overrules the ex…

A lot has happened in the past decade, and it's not 3% driving the 97%, not that it ever was ( http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay... ). But either way, the percentage of people who believe certain morals does not matter. No matter what our individual beliefs are, we bind ourselves to the law of the land. That's what it means to have a constitution. Even if 100% of Americans wanted to take aw…

The 3% is the percentage of people who are homosexual, not the people that support them, but I see your point.

In this discussion I'm not taking sides, just noting that the court needs to decide quasi-moral questions. Our interpretation of the Constitution depends on our current beliefs (and might even lead to an interpretation that the original founders would have rejected). The constitution clearly says that we have a right of free speech. However, as far as I am aware, it does not state that we have a) a right to marry, b) a right to do homosexual acts, or c) a right for homosexuals to marry. In fact, I believe B and C were illegal for large periods of time (anti-sodomy laws). I suggest that the Founders probably would not have seen homosexual marriage as a right. Due to changing morals, however, the Supreme Court now views it as a right. Were the laws constitutional before but not now? Were they always unconstitutional, but nobody challenged them? As a thought experiment, if societal morals changes to believe that homosexuality is actively harmful to society, would anti-sodomy laws be constitutional? The process of interpretation of rights necessarily involves our current beliefs.

Re: China’s plan to organize its society relies on ‘big data’ to rate everyone

#170

Post by superflb »

woodruffw wrote: post #83
truffelion wrote: post #74

I feel like a crazy person every time I try to point out that North America is already there. We've just done it in a less reductionist manner, in which multiple scores are used for different purposes, because you can discriminate better with better targeted data. The IRS rates you on likelihood of fraud, border patrol rates you on your likelihood of breaking residency law, the FBI rates everyone's chances of being a…

As far as I know, none of the agencies you mentioned have individual numerical scores for 330M+ Americans and US residents. The closest thing is credit scores (which the article mentions), which are metered and tracked by private companies under a broad set of federal regulations. More to the point, your potential employers don't get access to your personal life, beyond what you divulge to them and whatever informati…

> China's proposed system opens all of that.

Don't you think it can be a big threat to national security. And why does Chinese government do that?

Post reply on HN