XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.politics.democrats.d, sac.general   
   XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh   
   From: democrat-fools@nytimes.com   
      
   Democrats, too stupid to program computers.   
      
   LANSING — Brian Russell never committed unemployment insurance   
   fraud, or even attempted to do so.   
      
   And he had no idea an automated state of Michigan system had   
   accused him of doing anything wrong until 2016, when officials   
   seized his nearly $11,000 tax refund check.   
      
   The state finally cleared Russell in 2018, but the false fraud   
   debacle — which has hurt tens of thousands of innocent Michigan   
   residents — undermined his ability to provide for his two kids   
   and led to a bankruptcy filling.   
      
   "It's devastating," Russell, a 43-year-old maintenance   
   electrician from Zeeland, told the Free Press. "You would think   
   if they were going to put something that huge in place, they   
   would have someone — or even a team of people — overlooking it   
   and making sure there were no problems."   
      
   Experts say the MIDAS (Michigan Integrated Data Automated   
   System) false fraud fiasco, while unique to Michigan in terms of   
   the details, is only one of the most glaring national examples   
   of how the use of artificial intelligence by governments is   
   harming citizens. Those most likely to be harmed by such   
   systems, they say, are the economically disadvantaged.   
      
   "We're seeing more and more of these kinds of atrocities," said   
   Rashida Richardson, director of policy research at the AI Now   
   Institute, a nonprofit connected with New York University that   
   researches the social implications of artificial intelligence.   
      
   Other examples of "intelligent" government computer systems   
   running amok, in Michigan and elsewhere, include:   
      
   In another Michigan case, the Department of Health and Human   
   Services used an automated system to disqualify those with   
   outstanding felony warrants from receiving state food   
   assistance. Between the end of 2012 and the start of 2015, the   
   system produced false matches that improperly disqualified more   
   than 19,000 residents from food assistance. A 2013 federal class-   
   action lawsuit led to an out-of-court settlement and   
   reinstatement of those improperly disqualified.   
   In Idaho, introduction of an automated system to determine the   
   dollar value of disability services available to Medicaid   
   recipients resulted in large cuts for many recipients. A court   
   later found that the system was unlawfully arbitrary, unfair and   
   lacked due process. There have been similar cases related to   
   disability benefits in Arkansas and Oregon.   
   In Houston, where a system of algorithms was used to evaluate   
   the performance of teachers, teachers were able to overturn the   
   system on due process grounds. They successfully argued that   
   because the vendor considered the evaluation system a trade   
   secret, they were denied the right to use the data to understand   
   or improve their performance.   
   In the District of Columbia, an automated system used to assess   
   the risk for violence of youth in the juvenile justice system   
   was found to be racially discriminatory as it was used in   
   connection with one young defendant deemed "high risk" and in   
   need of detention. The system is still in use.   
   Other concerns relate to the use of facial recognition   
   technology, which is extensively used by police in Detroit, and   
   "predictive policing," which the Michigan State Police has shown   
   interest in.   
      
   The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups are   
   pointing to disasters like MIDAS to push for laws that limit,   
   regulate and increase transparency in the ways governments   
   collect and use data for computerized decision-making.   
      
   More: Michigan residents falsely accused of jobless fraud can   
   sue, Supreme Court says   
      
   More: State names jobless advocate to lead Unemployment   
   Insurance Agency   
      
   Richardson said governments can be expected to continue to   
   expand the range of applications as technology advances and the   
   marketing of systems by software vendors expands.   
      
   The "creepiest example" of a new system Richardson is aware of   
   is soon to be implemented in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,   
   where officials have been using a "family screening tool" and   
   predictive analytics to try to head off child abuse. Starting in   
   January, the county is planning to assign each child and family   
   a "risk score" at birth, according to a county fact sheet and   
   news media reports.   
      
   Jim Hendler, a computer science professor and director of the   
   Institute for Data Exploration and Applications at Rensselaer   
   Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, said many concerns   
   about government use of artificial intelligence are well-founded   
   and others may be overblown.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)