China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains • Hacker News Board

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#281

Post by lovich » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

allthenews wrote: post #271

sangnoir wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions You would think that, but research shows systemic biases in the justice system throughout the entire funnel: from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are. This is a sign the actions are not well-defined, and quite subjective.

>from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are None of this detracts from the fact that these laws are ultimately relatively clear in their restrictions, compared to China's social score. Theft is theft. Drug possession is drug possession. Had these "unfairly" targeted individuals followed the law, they would not be subject to its penalties. Sure, I recognize that v…

If you make enough laws that everyone is breaking some every day, and only go after what the people you want to punish, that is no different than having less laws and a secret police that have hidden criteria for punishing people.

The end result is still members of the executive branches of the government deciding who gets punished based on their whims.

Your point saying "...so long as laws are followed as written" cannot apply as long as you ignore when the government chooses not to apply those laws to everyone, even if everyone that's gets charged has violated the law

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#282

Post by Reedx » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #229

Reedx wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an upper-middle class blonde hair, blue eyed woman gets accused of a crime, a higher degree of people would at least give her the benefit of the doubt Which would make sense, no? They're playing the odds. It's exceedingly rare for any upper-middle class woman to commit a crime. So to be surprised by that is understandable. Take color and class out of it, you need only compare "man accused of crime" vs "woman acc…

> It's exceedingly rare for any upper-middle class woman to commit a crime. You're confusing "commit" and "get caught and receive significant consequences".

Certainly a lot of truth in that. But it is uncommon for women to engage in criminal behavior compared to men.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#283

Post by SubiculumCode » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

dev_throw wrote: post #8

This illustrates the difference between having laws and enforcing them. Some countries have strict laws, but little enforcement, so marginalized people can break these laws as long as they fly under the radar. With technology, it becomes trivial to implement enforcement for even draconic laws at a scale previously unfathomable. Also, they seem to be rolling it out slowly. It reminds of the metaphorical boiling frog s…

Having too many laws that are only selectively enforced nearly equals the absence of the rule of law, and invariably hurts those that are poor or otherwise not afluent more than others.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#284

Post by jonathanyc » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

allthenews wrote: post #271

sangnoir wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions You would think that, but research shows systemic biases in the justice system throughout the entire funnel: from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are. This is a sign the actions are not well-defined, and quite subjective.

>from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are None of this detracts from the fact that these laws are ultimately relatively clear in their restrictions, compared to China's social score. Theft is theft. Drug possession is drug possession. Had these "unfairly" targeted individuals followed the law, they would not be subject to its penalties. Sure, I recognize that v…

I think the Chinese “social credit” system described here is pretty horrible. But your support of the American system drastically misses the mark.

A good summary is the ACLU’s position paper on Race & the War on Drugs. https://www.aclu.org/other/race-war-drugs

You also are repeating a common misconception when you state that “If you want to stay out of the felon caste, do not break obvious laws, like those regarding drug possession.” It has been shown time and time again that black Americans are disproportionately arrested and sentenced. And your trite remark about how “If you do not agree with such laws, work to change them” is puerile. The GP was expressing their opinion; in our democracy that is a critical component of working to change the law.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#285

Post by sgift » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

eggpy wrote: post #275

mancerayder wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal background checks should be limited with regards to this criteria considered for employment.

I feel like "violent murderer and/or rapist" is something Id like to know about when considering hiring someone.

I want to know many things, but I believe that if the punishment a court ordered is over you have paid your dues to society and that should be the end of it.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#286

Post by lazerpants » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

matte_black wrote: post #244

huehehue wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each their own, but I think the whole "schlepping to the store and sifting through products and maybe you overpay or get something you don't like" is a valuable part of the human experience. That's not to say every trip is enjoyable, but I wonder what people might be missing by forgoing those trips (and automating everything they can, in general). You miss the trip there, and everything you might experience along…

Look, I find nothing heart warming about the experience of shopping for things in physical stores. I liken the rise of Amazon as something analogous to the agricultural revolution. Before agriculture, everyone had to hunt and gather food, it was a laborious process similar to shopping. Once people discovered agriculture however, and similarly Amazon, it was no longer necessary to spend so much effort in getting life'…

I think there's a big schism between cities and towns that have or used to have character and those that don't when it comes to retail. One reason NYC or SF are cool (though perhaps less so now), is that there are tons of interesting, well-curated, thoughtfully sourced shops with stuff to discover and explore.

I agree with you completely if we're talking about a Target in suburban Houston, but going to a handmade card store in NYC, or a rare books store in Charleston, or weird candy store in SF can all be fun exploratory experiences. I drop into the fancy grocery store nearby to look around and find ingredients I've never heard of, despite doing 90% of my grocery shopping online with delivery, because it's a fun way to get outside my comfort zone. The easy availability of places/stores that allow me opportunities to explore and be excited about new things is perhaps the thing I value most about living in NYC.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#287

Post by jMyles » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

allthenews wrote: post #271

sangnoir wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least here the things that can get you into that status are discrete, well-defined actions You would think that, but research shows systemic biases in the justice system throughout the entire funnel: from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are. This is a sign the actions are not well-defined, and quite subjective.

>from who gets more police attention, arrests, charges, plea deals and how heavy the sentences are None of this detracts from the fact that these laws are ultimately relatively clear in their restrictions, compared to China's social score. Theft is theft. Drug possession is drug possession. Had these "unfairly" targeted individuals followed the law, they would not be subject to its penalties. Sure, I recognize that v…

What a bunch of bigoted hogwash.

How many times must the particulars of the system be documented and disseminated before these arguments go away completely?

If you are white and wealthy, then drug possession is against the law only in vague terms on paper. It is not your practical reality. That's how the drug war has been made into the new jim crow. It's astonishingly simple, and very real.

> If you wish to stay out of the felon caste, do not break obvious laws, like those regarding drug possession.

Yeah, except that most humans don't consider the government a legitimate arbiter of their diet. I'm not going to decide not to consume cannabis because some person in Washington (or my state capital) overstepped his bounds. And yet, because I'm white and not poor, I suffer no consequences of this.

> so long as laws are followed as written

You can't be serious. The whole point is that laws aren't followed as written. If every person driving 56MPH in a 55 zone, if every person possessing cannabis, if every person violations "intellectual property" laws is suddenly subject to enforcement of those laws, they'll change real quick. But instead, only the "lower castes" are subject to enforcement, and they haven't the power to change the laws.

Just please stop spreading this nonsense. There are possibly young people reading these threads whose understanding of basic sociopolitical principles isn't developed yet, and we need to stop poisoning the well of discussion with this, "follow the law and you'll be fine" nonsense.

The world you describe is a world to work toward, but not the one that black and brown people live in today.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#288

Post by rsynnott » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

iooi wrote: post #50

rsynnott wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese social credit system has been around in some form for longer than Black Mirror. Black Mirror got the idea from THEM.

Source?

Planning of the system in its current form started in 2014: https://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/plan...

The Black Mirror episode about a system like this came out in 2016.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#289

Post by mikeash » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

davrosthedalek wrote: post #255

lxmorj wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like at that point, it'd be morally correct to lie to get into the jury...

My English might fail me here, but if you think about a 20 year sentence and find it not adequate to the crime, wouldn't you have "considered" it? I can understand why the question is asked though. The jury is there to find facts, i.e. define what has happened. The judge will then find the "correct" sentence if found guilty. The jury should not be swayed to a not guilty finding if they believe a guilty would be corre…

Virginia is unique here. Juries perform sentencing, not just finding of guilt. That’s why they asked the question.

Re: China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains

#290

Post by mikeash » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

lxmorj wrote: post #222

mikeash wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Virginia, felony larceny starts at $200, easily within coat range. I once had jury duty and was faced with the prospect of sentencing the defendant to up to 20 years in prison for the crime of receiving stolen goods valued at least $200. I got rejected from the jury, probably because I said I couldn’t possibly consider 20 years in prison for that.

I feel like at that point, it'd be morally correct to lie to get into the jury...

I was hoping that my discussion of how absurd that sentence was might influence the jurors who actually made it on.