Almost Watchbird: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579
China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
41–50 of 185 posts
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#42We’re on our way there too in the US: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17054740/palantir-predict...
Companies which name themselves after dystopic objects or ideals with a 'nod and wink' always creep the living hell out of me. There's never a good answer when they inevitably ask, "well what did you think was going to happen?" http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri
the palantiri weren't dystopic objects. they were positive items used for communication until some of them were captured.
I think the name of the company is highly apt.
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#43Once the algorithms realise that everyone commits at least a few crimes a day they will become 100% infallible by issuing arrest warrants for anyone with a pulse.
I never read Brave New World, but I've heard that was a theme. Everyone used illegal drugs, but there was no enforcement. Instead, if they wanted to bring you in, they just charged you with illegal drug use --because everyone knows that everyone uses illegal drugs.
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#44This will be rolled out further and further, first the rest of China, then other parts of Asia, eventually Europe and the Americas. Strongly resist the rollout of this technology, along with the social credit rating systems. This is like the last chapter of humanity before we stagnate for hundreds of years.
In the US at least, there are probably enough people with a significant number of firearms that it would take a war to make this work. I’m not usually fond of anti-government fanatics, but I have to admit that in extremes they can be useful.
A less militarized society could reach the same point. "Sending in the special cops with guns" === "sending in the tanks and bombers."
In both cases the government withholds superior strength for itself, regardless of the baseline. The question of "are people willing to risk their life" and "is the government willing to kill in large numbers" seem unchanged.
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not "criminals" if they never committed a crime, they are people being detained based on probabilities.
Has it had an effect on crime rates? If so, this is interesting. It means crime is predictable based on the inputs the system is measuring. It also means the Chinese AI effort is more fruitful than I expected it to be. If this is reducing crime, then we have a discussion of trade-offs. That is interesting, and potentially nuanced. If it's the latter, however, this is not interesting and there is no reasonable discuss…
>* Has it had an effect on crime rates? If so, this is interesting*
I don't think so. You could also likely randomly detain people, and the fear you would cause may also reduce crime rates. That doesn't make it right.
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#46We’re on our way there too in the US: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17054740/palantir-predict...
If someone is taking fly training of commercial jet without wanting to learn how to land the plane, I absolutely want the government to find out why.
Same for someone who want to purchase large quality of fertilizer for no real needs.
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#47We’re on our way there too in the US: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17054740/palantir-predict...
I know there are a lot of clamoring here about ‘oh we are becoming this too and that too’. And it’s a natural reaction: we feel like we cannot change anything about China and how it governs its people, so we try to stigmatize our own government. But the truth of the matter is US government is nowhere near the heavy handed ness of China, and we can deal with China to some degree. We can hold China to its actions. After reading about the uigher concentration camps in China, I feel like it’s time to take a stand. It’s time to stop supporting such a bad regime. Time to voice my concerns about China to my government, and vote with my wallet. No more Chinese products if I can. No more trips to Shanghai. I don’t want to help the government terrorize my friends in China anymore.
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#48Don't we all already do this to some extent? Our intelligence agencies (at least try to) predict terrorist activity and put a stop to it be before anything happens.
Yes but so you can try and target your scare resource against those more likely to commit illegal acts not round up all insert ethnic group of your choice.
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#49This will be rolled out further and further, first the rest of China, then other parts of Asia, eventually Europe and the Americas. Strongly resist the rollout of this technology, along with the social credit rating systems. This is like the last chapter of humanity before we stagnate for hundreds of years.
I'm confident in Europe's ability to resist this trend, their privacy legislation is looking positive.
You're thinking about their regulations about what private companies can do with data.
What the government can do is something very different. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/opinion/europe-is-spying-...
Re: China using big data to detain people before crime is committed
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US at least, there are probably enough people with a significant number of firearms that it would take a war to make this work. I’m not usually fond of anti-government fanatics, but I have to admit that in extremes they can be useful.
A less militarized society could reach the same point. "Sending in the special cops with guns" === "sending in the tanks and bombers." In both cases the government withholds superior strength for itself, regardless of the baseline. The question of "are people willing to risk their life" and "is the government willing to kill in large numbers" seem unchanged.
Sure, but that assumes a government willing to literally go to war with its populace, and why I explicitly said a war would be required. I have no illusions about how that war would end of course... tanks and B-52’s reliably best handguns and rifles. The difference between a country drowning in guns and one without them is that in the latter case it’s just that much easier, a “lower barrier to entry” if you will.