Slashdot Mirror


White House Worried About Discrimination Through Analytics

Cludge writes "Describing concerns about the potential for big data methods to inadvertently classify people by race, religion, income or other forms of discrimination, the White House announced it will release a report next week that reviews the adequacy of existing privacy laws and regulations in the era of online data collection. The review, led by Obama's senior counselor, John Podesta, will outline concerns about whether methods used for commercial applications may be inherently vulnerable to inadvertent discrimination. 'He described a program called "Street Bump" in Boston that detected pot-holes using sensors in smartphones of citizens who had downloaded an app. The program inadvertently directed repair crews to wealthier neighborhoods, where people were more likely to carry smartphones and download the app.' 'It's easy to imagine how big data technology, if used to cross legal lines we have been careful to set, could end up reinforcing existing inequities in housing, credit, employment, health and education,' he said."

156 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Inadvertent discrimination

    1. Re:Oxymoron by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Black people are generally less intelligent than others and it's our fault.

      It could be partly our fault. A generation ago, the difference in IQ scores between protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland was almost as wide as that between blacks and whites in America. But today, that gap has completely disappeared. Social conditions have some impact.

      The IQ score gap between different races in America is why it is illegal to use any test of general intelligence for hiring or promotion. It is not enough for the inputs to the hiring/promotion process to be "race neutral", the output/result must be as well.

    2. Re:Oxymoron by jesseck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disparate impact... it's going to be with us for a while. Might as well get used to it. Black people are generally less intelligent than others and it's our fault.

      While you state that black people are generally less intelligent then others, I think these politicians thoughts are a big drive towards that... they are in effect stating that poor neighborhoods are incapable of reporting their own pothole problems. In the end, the "Street Bump" app is another avenue of personal responsibility - people took the initiative to improve their driving route, installed an app to report problems, and ran that app to ensure the problems were reported. In poorer neighborhoods, people are not taking the personal responsibility to report the problems. They can call in to report problems, and by reporting those in sufficient numbers (similar to the app) Boston's street maintenance crews could be alerted. They don't, though, because they have been conditioned over generations to believe they don't matter and it requires someone else to fix their "problems".

      In the end, the politicians are stating the poor people / black people / whatever group of people are incapable of taking responsibility (unlike those wealthy people), so the Government must hold their hand and make things easier for them. Yes, it will be with us for a while, and short of a major event nothing will change it.

    3. Re: Oxymoron by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I love about this is the focus on the fact that the poor don't have smartphones.

      From the administration perspective, if they don't have smartphones, then how the hell is the NSA going to track them? This problem needs to be solved.

    4. Re:Oxymoron by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is not enough for the inputs to the hiring/promotion process to be "race neutral", the output/result must be as well.

      Can we get the political system thrown out on this basis? There's only one black man in the US Senate - should be about twelve. Even the House is 'missing' about fifteen members.

      Racist (and misogynistic) system has to go. The result is *far* from equal.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Oxymoron by nevermindme · · Score: 1

      Could we be looking at the relationship of being Incapable of taking responsibility equal zero chance of making campaign donations ?

    6. Re:Oxymoron by qwijibo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why aren't there more asian basketball or football players?

      Some jobs need people with specific skill sets. Developing those skills is not encouraged equally among every culture.

      Under representation of blacks in the senate may suggest that being a bunch of backstabbing bullshitters while smiling and saying jesus wants them to win may not be something that's important to many blacks. Then again, I don't think any culture has a lot of respect for these parasites, so maybe it's just that political donors are a bunch of racists.

    7. Re:Oxymoron by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but democracy will be kind of racist if the voters are racist. It does seem like a problem. The question would be, what's the best thing to do about it?

    8. Re:Oxymoron by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In poorer neighborhoods, people are not taking the personal responsibility to report the problems.

      Or maybe they don't have the time and resources to do that. It's easier for an unemployed trust-funder to have his smart-phone automatically report the problem than for someone who's working 2 different shitty full-time jobs to take time to call in to report the problem. It's also important to note that the poor sometimes creates even more work and expenses. You might need to be a lot more careful in timing your commute for public transportation because you can't afford a car. You might need to spend more time or money going to the bank or grocery store because your neighborhood doesn't have those things. Being poor isn't all fairy-dust and gumdrops.

      I don't see what the problem here is. If you're going to be collecting statistics for decision-making, you should be looking for bias. If you're collecting those statistics from smartphone apps, you should be asking whether there are populations who will be over-represented or under-represented based on who owns smart phones, and who's likely to install apps. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to create policy based on those statistics.

    9. Re:Oxymoron by skids · · Score: 1

      The pothole app was probably a poor choice of example, but is much simpler to understand than insurance risk pools, so that's probably why they chose it. There are plenty of examples of digital ghettos that don't open themselves up to this "personal responsibility" bullshit argument, and the economic bias the big data introduces into the system is going to negatively impact groups of people that are not so easily defined as by race, gender or poverty. It's a real and growing problem and without constant attention to the effects of data mining, it will get much worse over time.

      Also note that when the delusional complain about the "welfare queens" possession of a cell phone is often an item on their list alongside cable TV.

    10. Re:Oxymoron by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but democracy will be kind of racist if the voters are racist. It does seem like a problem.

      True. Witness Marian Barry and Ray Nagin.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    11. Re:Oxymoron by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      its also just as easy for a stay at home mom, or an unemployeed poor person to report the same information

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    12. Re:Oxymoron by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Why is it easier for an unemployed trust-fund worker to have his smart-phone report the problem than for someone working two different shitty jobs to have their smart-phone report the problem. After all, it isn't like poor people don't have smart phones. I live in a lower income city and most other family's kids in my area had smart phones before I got one.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    13. Re:Oxymoron by ebno-10db · · Score: 1, Funny

      Social conditions have some impact.

      That's absurd apologist political correctness. The real answer is that there has been rapid genetic mutation that has lessened the IQ gap between Catholics and Protestants.

    14. Re:Oxymoron by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      How does one define "racist"? There's too much "If you don't agree with me you must be racist"...

    15. Re:Oxymoron by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      No, it's the result of the election process. Many smaller districts voting will tend to reflect the biases of those districts, not an agregate average of the total. Minorities will be protected somewhat but also kept out of the game to a degree.

    16. Re:Oxymoron by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The "stay-at-home moms" in poor families are probably busy and may even have jobs. Poor unemployed people may not have money to be driving around with smart phones.

    17. Re:Oxymoron by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      OTOH, they'll be staying at home or inside playing Xbox.

    18. Re:Oxymoron by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      A generation ago, the difference in IQ scores between protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland was almost as wide as that between blacks and whites in America. But today, that gap has completely disappeared. Social conditions have some impact.

      I take it by "social conditions", you mean that you've finally gotten rid of all the lead pipes in the plumbing in Catholic neighborhoods?

      Note that lead pipes in plumbing (fairly common once upon a time, now only found in older, poorer neighborhoods) has a fairly high correlation with violent crime, poverty, low IQ scores, that sort of thing. Now that the last of that crap is disappearing, a lot of "racial tendencies" that racists like to imagine are disappearing as well....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Oxymoron by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Some research has been done on the matter in the UK: http://www.irishtimes.com/news...

    20. Re:Oxymoron by nine-times · · Score: 1

      After all, it isn't like poor people don't have smart phones. I live in a lower income city and most other family's kids in my area had smart phones before I got one.

      Putting your anecdotal evidence aside for a minute, I don't know if it's true that poor people own smart phones at the same rate. Also, are they equally likely to have a phone with the features that make it easy for them to report these issues? Are they as likely to have the proper app installed? Are they as likely to be driving around their own low-income neighborhood?

      The thing is, I'm not pretending to know the answer to questions like these. There may even be good reasons why a city may prioritize fixing roads in areas where more wealthy people live-- maybe those areas are more heavily trafficked? But it seems to me that's not really what we're discussing here. It seems like the White House was saying, "We should be careful when collecting these kinds of statistics to make sure the statistics aren't leading to some kind of unintentional discrimination." In response, people here are acting as though that's a crazy thing to say.

      So in response to *that*, I'm arguing more of the general point that we should *always* be careful when basing decisions on statistics, because statistics can be very biased depending on how you collect an analyze them. Unfortunately, while statistics can be analyzed to say almost anything and a poorly selected sample invalidates any analysis, using numbers give the illusion of objective certainty.

    21. Re:Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why are government workers 40% black?

    22. Re:Oxymoron by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Black people are generally less intelligent than others...

      Hmm, I bet I know where you got that idea...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think people in general in this country might be a little more willing to listen to what the White House has to say about discrimination and misuse of statistics if this White House spent a little less time misusing statistics and looking for wedge issues to exploit. By now there ought to be a healthy skepticism of anything coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    24. Re: Oxymoron by kenh · · Score: 1

      Nice theory, but there are more poor whites than blacks, therefore more poor white folks exposed to lead plumbing than poor blacks.

      Just a statistical fact - while 13% of blacks are poor, 6% of whites are also classified as poor, yet whites out-number blacks almost five to one...

      It's incorrect to assume the majority of the poor are minorities.

      --
      Ken
    25. Re: Oxymoron by kenh · · Score: 1

      Please explain the difference between an unemployed person with an unemployed person living in a poor neighborhood... I'd argue each has the same amount of time to report potholes.

      Now, let's compare a working parent in an affluent neighborhood versus a less affluent working person living in a poorer neighborhood, I'd argue again they both have the same amount of free time to report potholes in their neighborhood...

      --
      Ken
    26. Re: Oxymoron by kenh · · Score: 1

      Should read "Please explain the difference between an unemployed person WITH A TRUST FUND AND an unemployed person living in a poor neighborhood... I'd argue each has the same amount of time to report potholes"

      --
      Ken
    27. Re: Oxymoron by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      And, oddly enough, more whites are criminals, stupid, and violent.

      However, looking purely at percentages, you're more likely to be poor, violent, and stupid if you're black (in the USA. other countries have other issues).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re: Oxymoron by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Nice theory, but there are more poor whites than blacks, therefore more poor white folks exposed to lead plumbing than poor blacks.

      Poor blacks and poor whites don't live the same lifestyle. Poor blacks tend to be urban. Poor whites are much more likely to be rural. When I was growing up, the blacks lived downtown, and the white trash lived in trailer parks on the outskirts of town. The trailers are likely to have far lower levels of lead plumbing and lead paint.

    29. Re:Oxymoron by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The same thing here. All the poor live in homes with lead contamination. And the government will not force landlords to take care of it. Lead poisoning makes kids dumber and violent. Simply forcing slumlords to remove lead from all homes they rent, would make a huge change, as large as we saw by going with lead free fuel.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
      http://science-beta.slashdot.o...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    30. Re:Oxymoron by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, here is a link to an article about a Nielsen study which finds that minorities, including Asians, Hispanics and Blacks are more likely to own a smartphone than whites. Additionally, minorities are found to be more likely to download apps than whites. It doesn't really go into income, but we already know there is some correlation. Frankly, I think smartphones are just another way to keep people who are bad at financial decisions down.
      What it means in context of this particular article is that the fact that the streetbump app mainly located potholes in wealthy areas had nothing to do with race or income (in fact it has a negative correlation) and far more to do with how much personal responsibility certain people as a class (on average) tend to take for their own environment.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    31. Re:Oxymoron by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      smiling and saying jesus wants them to win may not be something that's important to many blacks.

      You really don't know any blacks then. A LOT of them are VERY Christian. I'm atheist myself, and I RARELY find a black person who is also atheist. It's really strange too, because you see atheists of pretty much every ethnicity, but almost never blacks.

      Of course, that's my experience, yours may differ.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    32. Re:Oxymoron by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'm arguing more of the general point that we should *always* be careful when basing decisions on statistics, because statistics can be very biased depending on how you collect an analyze them. Unfortunately, while statistics can be analyzed to say almost anything and a poorly selected sample invalidates any analysis, using numbers give the illusion of objective certainty.

      So in response to this, you're presenting me with statistics that black people own smartphones, and drawing the conclusion that therefore rich people take more personal responsibility for their environment.

      Really, I'm not even interested in arguing that you're wrong. Your conclusion may possibly be true. I'm just surprised that your response to my post was to present such a dodgy statistical analysis.

    33. Re:Oxymoron by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Smart phones don't have to cost $100's mine cost me 69 euro prepay not the biggest or the best but it has pretty much all the functionality of its pricier rivals. I get unlimited data if i top up by 20 euro for 30 days, compared to any other broad band package its around half the cost of most plans when you add in line rental and i get to use that credit for calls and texts i already get 3000 texts a month and 3000 weekend minutes any way for that month. How does that compare with your bills?

      The one thing that is of interest is there is an app for potholes! Over winter here in Ireland potholes are a major problem, it seems they only get fixed in spring. unfortunately the pothole app isn't available here or you could bet there would be a lot of people running it. Although realistically the council would still go patching in spring regardless.

      If people know about the pothole app it will get installed where ever its available potholes damage all cars. If affluent area's are getting potholes fixed sooner that sounds more like a political choice rather than lack of data. It is a poor example of how smartphone data can be used. However it doesn't change the fact that some commercial companies can use the data to target certain markets. you generally would be wasting money targeting say double glazing to people who rent their homes but you might target over priced short term loans to that market instead.

      Daytime TV adverts are an interesting area to observe. Full of adverts for accident compensation solicitors and over 50's life cover. Pretty obvious who they are targeting.

         

    34. Re:Oxymoron by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I remember a crew of guys that I worked with once. All 3 of them hung out together, worked together, played golf together and partied together. Two were white and one of them was black. They had worked together for about 3 years or so when one day they were sitting in the break room and I was at the table with them. We were kind of swapping stories and such and laughing a lot when one of them started talking about him and his brother going fishing on the lake one day. He said they were in a cove catching a bunch of crappie (perch, for you yankees ) when (he looks around to see who was listening around us) a bunch of niggers came up and started raising all kinds of hell. He never even seemed to notice his black buddy sitting there with him listening. It dawned on me then. To him, his friend wasn't black. He was just his friend. To me and most people once people are in your inner circle they are real to you. People outside that circle aren't. Through circumstances this black guy had entered his circle and was no longer one of "them" but one of "us." Strange world isn't it?

    35. Re: Oxymoron by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Also the studies have shown that, given a black person with no criminal record, and a white person with no criminal record, the chance of the black person offending is roughly the same. But a blask person is more likely to end up with a criminal record, so recividism is the race problem (and the racism in prosecuting Blacks more aggressively). I've never seen a study that shows that Blacks offend more often (except when aggregating statistics that fail to identify confounds).

    36. Re: Oxymoron by kenh · · Score: 1

      If you can get the name of the street in the hands of the tight person in government, you really don't need GPS-derived long & lat...

      In NYC they have 311 - you can dial 311 on any phone in the city and be connected to a city worker that takes such reports (potholes, open hydrants, fallen tree, etc.) and passes it on to the proper department... Had it for years, does your average affluent suburb have a similar service?

      --
      Ken
    37. Re: Oxymoron by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Need more data. Does this hold true for newer cities vs older ones with regards to infrastructure and buildings? So far, Chicago, DC, and parts of the east coast are popping up all over my Googling of this topic. And guess where the inner city African American's live. Interesting. Very interesting!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    38. Re:Oxymoron by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      This seems bizarre to me. White and are asians are also more likely than blacks to hold a college degree - does this mean that it should also be illegal to require a degree for a job?

      I believe you have to show that a degree or test is necessary for the job.
      So it would be illegal to require a history degree for a gardening position unless you can show it is needed for the job.
      Likewise, it would presumably be illegal to require a college degree for a janitor position but I'm pretty sure that
      this rule is violated alot. I've seen plenty of open positions that require a degree that wouldn't necessarily need it.

    39. Re:Oxymoron by camg188 · · Score: 1

      define racist: The belief that one race is superior to another.

    40. Re:Oxymoron by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you look at areas where there are a majority of black residents there tend to be a majority of black politicians too. It's so bad it could be called racist - white candidates don't have much chance. Same with predominantly white areas.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Oxymoron by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      When I used to live in a poorer area, I would see people walking or biking to work on the side of the road (no sidewalks). They would be out there in all weather. Now that I live in a more affluent area, all the main roads have sidewalks or paths. If the weather is good I may see people out jogging or biking.

    42. Re:Oxymoron by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Black people are generally less intelligent than others and it's our fault.

      It could be partly our fault. A generation ago, the difference in IQ scores between protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland was almost as wide as that between blacks and whites in America. But today, that gap has completely disappeared. Social conditions have some impact.

      The IQ score gap between different races in America is why it is illegal to use any test of general intelligence for hiring or promotion. It is not enough for the inputs to the hiring/promotion process to be "race neutral", the output/result must be as well.

      Shame on you. Blacks have the same intelligence as any other human. They may not have the same education, because of discrimination, but whites have no exclusivity on intelligence whatsoever.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    43. Re:Oxymoron by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      ...so the analytics vendors become third party "contract discriminators" (not greatly different from "third party torturers!" or "data collectors?"). I have long seen discrimination as the rationale for the secrecy behind "Fair Isaac". At the end of the day...doesn't the public (an individual) have the right to know the metrics applied to him at a policy level...such metrics could essentially be considered extra-judicial accusations...should we not be guaranteed the opportunity to face policy accusations as well...or at least know the rules? I'm pretty sure this is one of the underlying principals of the civil rights movement...at some level, institutionalized racial discrimination provided a safe hiding place for the darkest of man's intentions. Naturally we are struggling to come to terms with the social implications of this "new science"...lest we forget that it is not only manipulable, but fallible. Hopefully we can get a handle on it before it becomes yet another source of public shame or worse.

    44. Re:Oxymoron by nine-times · · Score: 1

      At the end of the day...doesn't the public (an individual) have the right to know the metrics applied to him at a policy level...such metrics could essentially be considered extra-judicial accusations...should we not be guaranteed the opportunity to face policy accusations as well...or at least know the rules?

      That's an interesting point. Of course, there's an additional layer of problem, in that once people know the rules, they're going to start gaming the system. Not that I'm putting it forward as a good reason to keep the rules secret, but it's another thing to worry about.

    45. Re:Oxymoron by iMactheKnife · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as race. Oh, you vote for skin color or hair color? Your local drug store has things for that.

    46. Re: Oxymoron by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Those are nations and cultures, not races. They are all part of the human race.

    47. Re: Oxymoron by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Nice theory, but there are more poor whites than blacks, therefore more poor white folks exposed to lead plumbing than poor blacks.

      Just a statistical fact - while 13% of blacks are poor, 6% of whites are also classified as poor, yet whites out-number blacks almost five to one...

      It's incorrect to assume the majority of the poor are minorities.

      Actually, where I grew up, the blacks looked down on the poor whites and did not want to associate with them.

      Also: In decending order, lies, damned lies and statistics.
      Never trust one of those "studies" until you see their actual data. And then still don't trust it...

  2. Crossing a Line is Easy for Some by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The other side of this discussion are false positives. In any system where discrimination is allowed, power hungry climbers can throw a rival under the bus with a quick click. The system won't care if you and your family are labeled enemies of the state suddenly and put on all the blacklists that exist, your loved ones taken away without a trial and all because some person you work with wants your job.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Crossing a Line is Easy for Some by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Remember, the WWW is a system of requests, then the site usually hands you what you wanted or an error. What they're saying is that if ad data gets so good we can tell what race the user is, more targeted ads and content could be served.

    2. Re:Crossing a Line is Easy for Some by rbrander · · Score: 1

      You mean like Afghans who sold out rivals (often relatives) to the USA, to become some of the longest-serving Guantanamo captives? Yeah, that happens. Has for centuries in any regime that takes people away upon suspicion. That's what's wrong, not the information-gathering system; why you don't circumvent the protections of due process. I'm not sure what's new about this particular complaint system.

    3. Re:Crossing a Line is Easy for Some by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      More to the point, this inadvertently directed repair crews to wealthier neighborhoods. Typically, repair crews are intentionally directed to wealthier neighborhoods.

      I have damn good negotiation skills compared to the average man, but not to the professional. I'm trying to improve these in a number of ways--better study, better writing, public speaking training from lawyers. But the result of my menial advantage is obvious: I can call the city and make them do things for me for free.

      12 years a burned down house rots, 5 years the neighbors rail at the city to remove it, a neighborhood coalition is ignored. I made five phone calls to people I have no connection to, found that the house is not scheduled for demolition, instructed them to send an inspector and to instruct him to find certain aspects of the house as faults justifying its immediate demolition, and the house is demolished two months later. They even made repairs to my house and upgraded my finished brick wall to a block-and-cement wall free of charge. I'll purchase the extra 2400 square foot lot for $1000 and amend it to my yard.

      12 years, and the neighborhood is now more poor than it was back then. Homeowners moved out, houses were left to rot, some burned down, a few became rental property. I pay my $71/year in taxes, and I talk the city into removing an eyesore at likely $5000 of their own expense. The neighbors think me a hero.

      Even a Bene Gesseritt witch would heed my command, for a moment of consideration at least.

    4. Re:Crossing a Line is Easy for Some by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The other side of this discussion are false positives. In any system where discrimination is allowed, power hungry climbers can throw a rival under the bus with a quick click.

      The Obama administration trying to define "discrimination" through data is a joke of cosmic proportion. But it isn't a funny one.

  3. Pfft... by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    .. they got to be joking. Considering everyone is racing to total information awareness to gain competitive advantage (NSA, GCHQ, etc). There's no stopping this, this is all token bullshit at this point. The only way to deal with this is to make the opaque institutions more transparent. You create data wherever you go, modern technology is so embedded in everyday life that it's impossible not for someone to build any kind of profile on you. Corporations have long been buying and selling data six ways to sunday, we can already assume they (NSA and helpers) will turn the packets they are harvesting off the net from anything you've ever posted into a permanent dossier on you.

    Let's just be honest the leaders don't give a fuck, Obama is a moderate right republican. Most voters in North america are completely and totally politically illiterate.

    What the elite are worried about is political awakening... Many in the bottom billions of poor on planet earth are in abject poverty and oppression. Elites want to keep those people in their place, hence the elites desire to control the internet.

    People are waking up to the fact that the governments are all power hungry and corrupt and are not there to serve the interests of the people, but that of the global elite and the multi-billion dollar corporations.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Pfft... by Aragorn+DeLunar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's just be honest the leaders don't give a fuck, Obama is a typical statist.

      FTFY. If you're making this about (R) vs (D), you're part of the problem.

      --
      Cynicism, like dogmatism, can be an excuse for intellectual laziness. - Susan Shirk
    2. Re:Pfft... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You just need to see what the insurance industry is doing for example in Germany to be horrified.

      Not familiar with German insurance practices. Please elaborate.

    3. Re:Pfft... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "FTFY. If you're making this about (R) vs (D), you're part of the problem."

      If you're making this about your libertarian or other capitalist fantasies you are part of the problem.

      War is a racket

      http://www.amazon.com/War-Rack...

      WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      On elites

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Free markets?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      http://www.amazon.com/Empire-I...

      "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society."

    4. Re:Pfft... by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      No, look at the top comments here on /.

      There is no confusion about the universe of discourse that this move is relevant in. The debate further carries a simple, concrete example of what went wrong and why.

      I really think this is the real deal: the unicorn.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    5. Re:Pfft... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you're making this about (R) vs (D), you're part of the problem.

      It's not about state vs. other structures either. The problem is that our institutions are set up according to instincts meant to guide primate pack hierarchies, so they tend to be inherently oppressive as well as inefficient. And any attempt to change them results in monkey howls and poop-flinging from people who consider their position in them as a part of their identity.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Pfft... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's more than Libertarian beyond (R) and (D). Centrist and left-wing third parties exist, as well.

  4. White House is way ahead of its time. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    White House is looking ahead, far into the future, where all active and advertent discrimination is gone and the only problem left is inactive and inadvertent discrimination becomes the top priority. And it is acting now to forestall that possibility. But unfortunately many people will not see it as a farsighted move on the part of the administration and ridicule it. And the ridicule will come from both left and right. Finally Obama would have united America into one !. Hurrah!

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:White House is way ahead of its time. by uberdilligaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The hypocrisy is that the party currently occupying the White House has gone to extraordinary efforts to apply big data analytics to identify and exploit the very differences (race, income, ethnicity, education, etc.) that this article decries in order to maximize their political gain in elections. They go to great lengths to discriminate along the same factors that they want other organizations to be blind to. To quote from just one article describing Obama's 2012 campaign:

      "To derive individual-level predictions, algorithms trawled for patterns between these opinions and the data points the campaign had assembled for every voter—as many as one thousand variables each, drawn from voter registration records, consumer data warehouses, and past campaign contacts. ... The efficiency and scale of that process put the Democrats well ahead when it came to profiling voters."

      So, exploit the demographics (e.g. profile and discriminate) when it helps your party, but wag your finger at the rest of the world when they do it even "inadvertently".

      --
      Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
    2. Re:White House is way ahead of its time. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, exploit the demographics (e.g. profile and discriminate) when it helps your party, but wag your finger at the rest of the world when they do it even "inadvertently".

      Maybe it's more like, "Exploit demographics when determining who you can persuade and sell things to, but use the same level of analysis when analyzing demographics to hand out public benefits, in order to make sure the benefits are provided equitably."...?

      Because it seems to me that they're not saying, "We shouldn't analyze this data," but more that, "We should be careful when analyzing this data to prevent bias that would result in unjust public policy." So therefore in that line of thinking, targeting your campaign ads to likely voters would be fine. Targeting your tax cuts to the same likely voters would not be fine. Targeting your tax cuts to only benefit rich white men would be even less fine.

    3. Re:White House is way ahead of its time. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Thank you for having the courage to make such a bold, direct, and completely factual statement on slashdot. Of course the everyone who doesn't parrot "The Narrative" 100% of the time on all things crowd is going to declare you a radical extremist right wing fanatic who is spreading evil lies (I have been accused of this more times than I can count here).

      "Do as I say, not as I do, the truth is what I say it is and everyone else is a liar" -- this is why I am no longer a Democrat....

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  5. The inconvenience of facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Political correctness meets real facts.

    Barrier to progress.

  6. What's different? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Can anybody report what the major differences are between the races right now? Aside from the obvious ones like blacks would visit BET.com more often... what is going on here. Slashdot is supposed to be an all-races site, but is the tech audience actually a representative sample yet?

    1. Re:What's different? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure everybody is an IT worker unless we have a really broad definition of information. I'd rather say workers are now affected by IT, not always working in IT.

    2. Re:What's different? by nctritech · · Score: 1

      You're far more likely to be an unemployed former IT worker in your 20s now, regardless of race.

    3. Re:What's different? by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Peter Gibbons, is that you?

  7. LOL by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

    FTFA "White House announced it will release a report next week that reviews the adequacy of existing privacy laws" hahahahahahaha... So now the White House is concerned about privacy. I feel better already.

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The White House has been concerned with privacy for a long time. Its just that their concerns are not aligned with ours.

  8. How about they look at themselves? by oic0 · · Score: 2

    I worry about this every time I see any government form that asks for race. What can they possibly do with that information that wouldn't be discriminatory?

    1. Re:How about they look at themselves? by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      "Race: Human. Mostly."

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    2. Re:How about they look at themselves? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Your race:

      1) NASCAR
      2) Kentucky Derby
      3) Tour de France
      4) Boston Marathon
      5) Indianapolis 500
      6) Other/unknown

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:How about they look at themselves? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      "Race: 400 meter, preferably."

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:How about they look at themselves? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      When the census-takers came around a couple of years ago, they asked me how many people lived in my home. I told them.

      Then they started asking me questions about income, the race of everybody in the home, etc. I did not tell them.

      I said "The Constitution provides that you take an enumeration of the population. You have done so. You have no other business here. Goodbye."

      Close door.

    5. Re:How about they look at themselves? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Unless you believe correcting an occurrence of discrimination is necessarily as offensive as the discrimination itself.

      The majority of the libertarians that post here on Slashdot, would indeed find that correcting an occurrence of discrimination as offensive as discrimination itself.

      I dispute both of these statements. It isn't the "attempt" that is offensive. It is when well-intended "attempts" to fix a problem instead become a problem in themselves.

      The problem with too many NON-libertarians is that they pass legislation based on good intentions, rather than practical solutions to real problems. And these good intentions often (not always) run into The Law of Unintended Consequences. Precisely because the law was based on good intentions rather than practical reality.

      But that is, quite literally, insane. When it comes to legislation, good intentions don't matter worth a damn. What matters is the result.

      I am ALL FOR the intent of Affirmative Action. Sadly, the reality (especially in recent years) falls far, far short of the intent. And in fact in many cases has had the reverse effect of what was intended, by discriminating against non-minorities in the name of NOT discriminating against minorities. Again not always, but often enough, AA has become a textbook example of how to NOT solve a problem via government intervention. In spite of all the good intentions.

      There is no such thing as discrimination in the libertarian mind. There only a exists a failure of the recipient of discrimination to exercise personal responsibility to adequately prove to the perpetrators of the discrimination that they do not conform to the negative stereotypes of the group in question and thus don't deserve the punishment or distrust that particular group deserves by default.

      This is absolute BS, and is a great example of the typical Leftist BS propaganda about Libertarians. (I'm not claiming that you're a Leftist, only that this statement is typical cookie-cutter Leftist mischaracterization of Libertarian philosophy.)

      Here is what actually exists in the Libertarian mind: the knowledge that as a practical matter, no matter how much good intention is behind it, AA has largely been a failure (as explained in TFA).

      Contrary to popular belief, Libertarians are not completely anti-regulation. They ARE, however, against regulation that is (A) unnecessary, or (B) doesn't work.

      And it doesn't matter how many people think it's necessary, if it doesn't work.

      I leave you with an insightful quote from an otherwise pretty much forgettable President, Lyndon B. Johnson:

      "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

  9. Nationality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Years ago I was flipping through TV channels and came across a scene from a movie based on The Little Prince. He's on an asteroid that's divided up into little countries and some bureaucrat is telling him that he can't cross from one country to the next without extensive paperwork - but the asteroid is so small the only a couple steps would take him into the a neighboring country.

    And the more I thought about it, the more it seemed ridiculous to try to coerce people to live out their lives in which ever arbitrary geographical boundaries they were born into - an egregious affront to principle of individual freedom. Would it be so wrong for a person to live a few years in one country and a few in another? Is there really a fundamental need to keep everyone on the planet penned up in arbitrary geographical boundaries?

    But while many people become quite sanctimonious in defending laws against discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and perhaps even such things as religious and political views, many of these same people will nod approvingly of laws that not only allow, but actually require, discrimination on the basis of nationality.

    Certainly there is progress to made in reducing the last vestiges of racial and gender discrimination. But to ignore discrimination of the basis of nationality seems both oblivious and inconsistent.

    1. Re:Nationality by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Such controls are only fairly recent and are typically more about control than anything. Hopefully they are a fad that will pass though the welfare states of many nations make it troublesome to remove.

    2. Re:Nationality by big_e_1977 · · Score: 1

      No, such distinctions are as old as time. There will always be the in groups and the out groups. You can't even call it human nature as many animals form hierarchical groups that collectively lay claim to territory and compete with one another for resources.

    3. Re:Nationality by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Enforcement of geographical boundaries is recent. Identifying "outcasts" predates most of the Bible (Samaritans, Jews/Egyptians, etc.). Tribalism is very very old. But political boundaries are relatively new, and from the Greeks to the 1800s, movement wasn't significantly restricted. The world wars pretty much ended the era of rampant mobility.

    4. Re:Nationality by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Though, of course, available mobility then was not what it is now where almost anyone can go halfway around the world for a week's pay.

    5. Re:Nationality by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Though, of course, available mobility then was not what it is now where almost anyone can go halfway around the world for a week's pay.

      The info I found indicates the average world wage to be between $100 and $300 a week. Where can you go halfway around the world on $300?

    6. Re:Nationality by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Quite easily if you're willing to be patient and compromise.

    7. Re:Nationality by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I was actually concerned that you were going to call me on some poverty wage of 20c/day or something but $300 is far from an impossible challenge.

    8. Re:Nationality by Richy_T · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Nationality by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, good only if you live in London. In other words, no use to most here, and very few on the planet. The frequency of the sales of that nature are unknown. That was one post from last year. Previous and subsequent sales didn't seem to match that level of discount.

  10. Discrimination by prefec2 · · Score: 2

    The whole point of big data is to identify common properties of groups of people to be able to exploit them. While big data could also be used to find diseases, protect us from natural disasters, its is only utilized to such efforts when their is a financial gain or a gain in control of the population. For companies, it is only used for exploitation. Now wondering about that is hypocritical.

    1. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about health insurance companies? They could use the data to black ball people who have family histories of certain diseases.I know that people with a family history of certain cancers are routinely asked to under go "screening" which involves detailed questioning about family medical history rather than any sort of clinical testing. What are the ethics of supplying this information about your extended family? What are the privacy guarantees? Health insurance companies only make money by denying claims; they avoid what they perceive as a high risk by denying coverage or making such coverage worthless. The abuse of big data would already be much worse except for the incompetence of those looking to gain from it.

    2. Re:Discrimination by msauve · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with pricing insurance based on the risk being taken on? Why should I pay higher insurance premiums so higher risk people pay lower ones?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Discrimination by Sarten-X · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Because it's a nice civilized thing to do, to support your fellow space-rock-travelers in times of need.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:Discrimination by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So, how do you discourage risky behaviour by subsidizing it indirectly?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Discrimination by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's wrong with pricing insurance based on the risk being taken on? Why should I pay higher insurance premiums so higher risk people pay lower ones?

      I'm going to dispense with the arguments about being civilized and so forth. The real reason for doing it is to piss off people like you. Even though both my personal health and my family's history are pretty good, hence I would get lower rates under the system you suggest, it's worth the price just to increase the blood pressure (and hence health risk) of people like you.

    6. Re:Discrimination by pepty · · Score: 1

      For health insurance, screening based on genetics and family history has been illegal since 2009 under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The public has an interest in keeping health insurance pools large.

    7. Re:Discrimination by pepty · · Score: 1

      What about health insurance companies? They could use the data to black ball people who have family histories of certain diseases.I know that people with a family history of certain cancers are routinely asked to under go "screening" which involves detailed questioning about family medical history rather than any sort of clinical testing. What are the ethics of supplying this information about your extended family? What are the privacy guarantees? Health insurance companies only make money by denying claims; they avoid what they perceive as a high risk by denying coverage or making such coverage worthless. The abuse of big data would already be much worse except for the incompetence of those looking to gain from it.

      The first part (screening for health insurance based on genetics/family history) has been illegal under GINA since 2009. Ditto for screening during hiring. The second part (giving that info to third parties) is illegal under HIPAA, with some squishiness surrounding who constitutes a "third party".

    8. Re:Discrimination by pepty · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. In msauve's world his employer will fire him after results from his required genetics test/family history profile threaten to raise their group insurance premiums. After all, what's wrong with pricing insurance based on the risk being taken on?

    9. Re:Discrimination by msauve · · Score: 1

      No, you have it wrong.

      Sharing is based on equality. If there's a disease which costs $1 million to fix, and 1 million people (each with a 1 in 1 million chance of getting the disease in a particular year) want to mitigate that financial risk, they pool together and each pay $1 each per year (this ignores profit and overhead). It's a way of equitably avoiding an un-affordable situation for all.

      Now, someone with a 1 in 10 chance of getting the disease comes along. They can't be allowed in the pool paying the same $1/year, it would quickly go broke. Why should the million participants now have to pay $1.10 because of the high-risk participant who's not paying in proportion to the risk he presents?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    10. Re:Discrimination by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with pricing insurance based on the risk being taken on? Why should I pay higher insurance premiums so higher risk people pay lower ones?

      In that case, why have insurance at all? Why not simply scrap the insurance middle-man and have each person pay their own expenses out of pocket?

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    11. Re:Discrimination by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with pricing insurance based on the risk being taken on? Why should I pay higher insurance premiums so higher risk people pay lower ones?

      The problem with this is that it only works when very few people are adversely affected by such an approach. As the ability to predict risks increases, then you'll find people falling into two categories - people who realize that they don't need insurance, and people who are too expensive to insure. Then the whole industry collapses as nobody will be willing or able to buy insurance unless it comes with a big fat disclaimer that it only covers injuries due to accidents.

      In theory the ACA attempted to fix that in the US by mandating universal coverage, and prohibiting charging extra or denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or most other risk factors. In practice I don't know if the law really went far enough with this, as lots of people still choose not to be insured.

      But, I think this is a self-correcting problem. Progress gives people more and more knowledge of their health risks, which means that conventional voluntary insurance (where both parties can choose not to participate) will become less and less feasible.

    12. Re:Discrimination by tepples · · Score: 1

      Children born with congenital health problems usually can't afford to treat themselves. I hope you aren't suggesting to let Darwin take care of it.

    13. Re:Discrimination by tepples · · Score: 1

      In practice I don't know if the law really went far enough with this, as lots of people still choose not to be insured.

      I wonder how many low-income people in the United States chose not to be insured because they don't make enough to get an Obamacare subsidy but make too much to get Medicaid. Under the ACA, a Medicaid denial letter eliminates a taxpayer's individual shared responsibility obligation.

    14. Re:Discrimination by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 1

      Because it's a nice civilized thing to do, to support your fellow space-rock-travelers in times of need.

      Ahhh. Good post.

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    15. Re:Discrimination by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because then it stops being insurance through risk pooling, and instead a pre-pay care. Not that there's anything better or worse of one over the other, but it's been decided that risk pooling and income re-distribution to help the least able to live a passable (if not comfortable) life is the goal. Failing a test and being "uninsurable" isn't very fair to the person that fails, but equal spread of care is fair, even to those that need it least.

    16. Re:Discrimination by jafac · · Score: 2

      Darwin doesn't take care of it. Nature does.
      And that approach basically says we should throw up our hands at this whole civilization thing, and let nature take it's course in every human endeavor.

      The whole point of insurance is to share risk. So yes, if insurers are allowed to discriminate, then there is really no point to insurance, other than as being a middleman for the end-user's savings plan.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    17. Re:Discrimination by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Because it's a nice civilized thing to do, to support your fellow space-rock-travelers in times of need.

      Helping your fellow people is a good thing. But it is not business, it's charity. If you try to make business into charity you just destroy it.

      Destroying things that are working, before you have something better, is a really bad idea. It's like quitting your job because you think you might someday have a better one. Not good tactics.

  11. Liberal Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The "Liberals"/"Progressives" have been statistically pigeonholing people for years and now they're concerned?

  12. Newsflash: Rich have advantages, poor do not by swb · · Score: 2

    They have more money, more political access, are better educated and have access to more resources.

    Even if Boston dispatched street repair based on complaints, wouldn't they end up fixing roads in wealthier areas before poor areas simply because the more money people have the more likely they are to own cars and drive more? And are more likely to call and complain, and so on?

  13. America!!! by cookYourDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a masterful politician.

    Instead of a discussion on privacy, and liberty, we are moved the much more state-friendly discussion of skin color and class. After all, Americans are all racist, greedy, and hate-filled, and only the state can protect us from one another. I, for one, support the drones.

  14. NSA? by srichard25 · · Score: 2

    Let's apply the same standards to the NSA collecting data on all Americans. Since white people are more likely to own cell phones and use the internet, the NSA data collection will be racially biased and should be ended in the name of equality.

  15. Re:dont seem to care about by taylorius · · Score: 1

    Let me know how the million-webgamer march goes.

  16. The Attorney General . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . orders you to "don't go there."

  17. Not discrimination by mysidia · · Score: 1

    He described a program called "Street Bump" in Boston that detected pot-holes using sensors in smartphones of citizens who had downloaded an app. The program inadvertently directed repair crews to wealthier neighborhoods, where people were more likely to carry smartphones and download the app.

    This is a perfect example of something that's NOT discrimination. The "wealthy" neighborhood committed more time and energy towards reporting potholes; this is not discrimination based on their person, but these people made different choices.

    This is not government discrimination. This is an emergent difference, based on choices that different groups of people in some areas may be more likely to make.

    These were most likely just the earliest adopters of the app, BUT people who can afford gas for a $5000 for a car can afford a $50 smart phone capable of running the apps.

    The government could also do smart things like make sure to send their own cars down to look at streets not frequently visited by users of their app.

    1. Re:Not discrimination by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      heres another idea, Fit this app on cops who do patrol work, you would get a good map fairly quickly, and you would be helping out the poor (most crime happens in poor areas, therefore more cops driving around, therefore more potholes reported!)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Not discrimination by tepples · · Score: 1

      BUT people who can afford gas for a $5000 for a car can afford a $50 smart phone capable of running the apps.

      The purchase price of a smart phone is only a fraction of how much it costs to run over a 24-month period. Or are the applications also designed to run with no data connection, logging data for later upload through Wi-Fi?

    3. Re:Not discrimination by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The purchase price of a smart phone is only a fraction of how much it costs to run over a 24-month period.

      And yet... so far my admittedly limited observation is that in the US -- most people have cell phones, even people who are poor ---- their cell phone may have replaced their landline. The monthly cell phone plan is one of those essential things that people seem to buy, just after water food, essential medicine, and electricity, even when they don't have any disposable income.

      Or are the applications also designed to run with no data connection, logging data for later upload through Wi-Fi?

      The streetbumb.org app records an entire trip, and you upload the data after the trip is over.

  18. OK by koan · · Score: 1

    Why is simply classifying people by their race, religion, or other attributes discrimination? Seems to me in order to have "discrimination" you would have to use that data in a negative (or positive) way, say no loans for people that are "purple" (as an example) and then use the data classification to isolate all the purple people.

    It seems to me PC'ism has gotten out of control and is a real threat now.

    Screw privacy that's gone at this point, what I want is to be able to see what they have collected about me, all of it.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:OK by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Seems to me in order to have "discrimination" you would have to use that data in a negative (or positive) way, say no loans for people that are "purple"

      Are you aware that if you leave $1M in gold bullion lying on your front lawn, it's illegal to steal it? Are you aware that in the Federalist Papers it was recommended that federal judges be well paid in order to lessen the possibility of corruption? If you don't understand the importance of temptation and easy means to commit a crime, then you're woefully unrealistic.

    2. Re:OK by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that if you leave $1M in gold bullion lying on your front lawn, it's illegal to steal it?

      Are you aware that if you leave $1M on your front lawn, you can't insure against the loss, and if someone stealing it hurts their back hauling it away, you'll likely lose the lawsuit? There are *lots* of good reasons to not leave $1M of anything unsecured on your front lawn. IT's effectively illegal to leave $1M on your front lawn. It's explicitly illegal, in many states, to leave your car unlocked and running unattended.

  19. The poor can get smart phones thru SafeLink et al by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    Poor people can get gov't-subsidized smart phones. There's no reason in the world they can't use these apps the same as the evil rich folks. This is blatant race- / class-baiting from the White House to further distract the masses from matters of real importance -- you, destruction of our civil liberties, telling the NSA not to talk to the press, etc.

  20. Generalizing about averages is bad science by voss · · Score: 1

    Between 1972 and 2002 the average iq difference between blacks and whites shrunk from 15 points to 9 points.

    Thats an average...not something that can be generalized to all black people. Im willing to bet that Neil Degrasse Tyson
    is smarter than 99.9% of the white people in America including you.

    1. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm white and a member of Mensa and I know Neil DeGrasse Tyson is smarter than me!

    2. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by taylorius · · Score: 2

      I agree with you, the variance of the distribution is such to make the difference in mean IQ utterly meaningless on an individual basis. It must be incredibly frustrating to an intelligent black man to have that average working unfairly against him.

      If you think that's bad though, imagine a world where it is easy to determine the average IQ of a black man from Baltimore, with a dead father,and who drives a car more than 8 years old. Now imagine coming from such a background, and being a great computer programmer. Now imagine the sinking feeling as you're handed a demographic form upon arriving for an interview for a coding job you could do well.

      A life under the tyranny of statistics could be a hard life indeed, if we're not careful.

    3. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by erroneus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Tyranny of statistics. Indeed. When looking at the rate of criminal, especially violent crimal activity, especially violent criminal activity resulting in death and dismemberment, the statistics point unfavorably in a particular group's favor.

      I'm guessing everyone missed it when the Obama administration took over the census statistics -- the ones used by everyone for a variety of purposes including detecting voter fraud and all of that.

      IQ might appear to be meaningless until you see the continuous results of all of this. When you search the term "model minority" you will find all sorts of hateful things. Largely among these are indication that while one ethnic group might seems to struggle due to environmental conditions, others seem to come through it all rather successfully by properly taking advantage of government programs intended to alleviate the problems of adverse environmental conditions.

      And let's never talk about Liberia and the failure of every African nation not under western influence. First Zimbabwe and then S. Africa? The word hostile comes to mind and they certainly had their way to their own peril and suffering.

      How much of a much bigger picture does anyone need to know before they come to realize what had been consitently stated for literally hundreds if not thousands of years?

      And back to tyranny of statistics -- really. Is it tyrannical? Attempting to capture objective reality to better understand what is wrong is tyranny? Let's not forget the purpose of statistics. The opposite of stats is anecdotes and it thrills me to no end that the response to statistics here is anecdotes. (And it should trouble everyone who cites black successes to note that hearly none are 100% black. Tyson is part puerto-rican which is a mix of all sorts. So if anyone wants to pick anecdotal evidence, at least make it valid.)

      I used to be on a completely different page than I am on today. I wasn't born or raised this way. I was well into my 20s and 30s before I began to see what's what in life. This, of course, also goes back to statitical tyranny -- trying to deny reality by denial of knowledge is and has always been the classic play by tyrants.

    4. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Tyranny of statistics. Indeed. When looking at the rate of criminal, especially violent crimal activity, especially violent criminal activity resulting in death and dismemberment, the statistics point unfavorably in a particular group's favor.

      Odd. The statistics I've seen for the chance that a person will commit a death and dismemberment crime are equal for all races (within the margin of error) if you look only at the people with no criminal record. It's only when you arrest the minorities and prosecute them more heavily when you see differences appear. Racism causes the rift, not inherent qualities, as you imply.

    5. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by jbburks · · Score: 1

      The statistics I've seen for the chance that a person will commit a death and dismemberment crime are equal for all races (within the margin of error) if you look only at the people with no criminal record.

      That's easily explained as most people committing death or dismemberment don't startwith that crime, but work their way up to it.

    6. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's true for all crimes, I was just using it as the example because it was the one mentioned.

      When I was young and stupid (about 12) I shoplifted. I stole a pack of gum. There were 6-8 witnesses from my school, all who confessed to having done it, and went with me to make sure I did it. If I had been caught, I'd have been warned without legal issue (the proof to that being that some of the others had been caught, warnings only). Perhaps the school would have gotten a call. But there'd have been nothing on my record. But a black kid doing it is much more likely to have the crime prosecuted. And once you start getting the law enforced against you (especially unfairly), you stop following it. Yes, murder isn't generally the introductory crime, but the studies I've seen indicate that crime is roughly equal across all races, for those with clean records. It's only after arrest when the statistics start varying wildly.

    7. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by iMactheKnife · · Score: 1

      You are describing EVERY outcome based government program.

    8. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Note that statistics do not apply to individuals.

      You might be familiar with the concept, that generalizing results requires a certain minimum sample size to be "statisticly significant".
      Well, the results are also not significant if they are applied to a group that is -smaller- than that sample size, such as only one!

      This mistake is the cause of many evils...

    9. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Cite them. The FBI would indicate otherwise.

    10. Re:Generalizing about averages is bad science by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The FBI would indicate otherwise.

      Then cite that. Go start reading, start with The Mismeasure of Man.

  21. Re:Newsflash: Rich have advantages, poor do not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To balance it out, they should install pothole sensors in police cars. Since the police are no doubt disproportionately dispatched to poor areas, the additional potholes detected there should easily balance things out.

    dom

  22. Re:Idea sounds good by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    That shouldn't be too hard as pedestrians have repeated acceleration/deceleration in the vertical axis as they take steps. Pothole accelerations are more infrequent and irregular (except in NYC).

  23. Re:Newsflash: Rich have advantages, poor do not by swb · · Score: 1

    Sensors on any municipal vehicle that covers a lot of geography would be great -- cop cars, garbage trucks, busses. Busses and garbage trucks would be especially useful because you'd get regular coverage -- equip enough busses and you might have near real-time info on many streets.

    They should consider some kind of ultrasonic or laser surface scanning over just vibration sensors (which would need a lot vehicle-specific calibration). Surface scanning would give them actual road surface measurements and maybe allow for better long-term road maintenance data -- durability of initial road surfaces, durability of patches and fixes, trends over time and so on.

    Maybe they could even have a drone car with more detailed sensors for higher resolution info that just drove the streets endlessly.

  24. Yet... by edibobb · · Score: 1

    Yet the White House has no qualms about discrimination based on lack of net neutrality. They can be bought.

  25. This is Good News! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Describing concerns about the potential for big data methods to inadvertently classify people by race, religion, income or other forms of discrimination ...

    This is good news, and I'm surprised people upthread have said little about that. Very few people in the general public seem to give a damn about invasion of privacy, or perhaps are even all that aware of it, but if you can frame the debate in terms of hot button issues like discrimination it will go a long way in helping to bring about awareness of this issue. Have you ever heard of the media not jumping on a discrimination issue (except age discrimination of course)? If we ever return to a system of government where each citizen gets one vote, instead of each million dollars getting one vote, it might even result in laws or regulations that limit invasion of privacy.

  26. Re:Diversity doesn't work by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    when you destroy culture

    Pray tell what's destroying American culture? Once upon a time many said that about the Irish, Italians, Jews, assorted Eastern Europeans, etc. Forget immigrants - they said that about flappers and Elvis Presley too. Interestingly, despite the rough spots that are often glossed over in history, the destruction of American culture didn't come to pass. It did evolve, which is a good thing because cultures that don't evolve either die or become relegated to some anthropological curiosity. Do you think there's a lesson there?

  27. Potholes are not your biggest worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This happens regularly today but you are not aware of it yet:

    You apply for a job and the company buys your analytics. They are interested in your credit rating, your health record & your socio-economic standing. If you are a woman: how many children do you have? how often and for how long have you left work to raise them?

    Data analytics from your Facebook (for example) will answer all these questions and return scores. If your scores are low you will not be hired. Just like your credit rating has always been pulled when you applied for a job.

    Hiring sick people costs more money (in the US) so companies will not hire you if you have a serious illness (or sick children). Further, your profile can indicate health in your family (all your connections, and all comments made etc), and so can score your health insurance risk in the future.

    You socio-economic score also relates to how healthy you are as health and $ are strongly correlated.

    Credit card companies already pull credit scores on all your Facebook connections and this now forms part of your credit profile. Companies are also interested in this information as your socio-economic class is related to many other positive factors.

    A woman who leaves the workplace to raise a baby is very expensive for a company. Companies are not interested in babies (unless they sell diapers or baby food). They want profit and want to hire the person that will be most beneficial for them to accomplish this. All this they can get for your analytics.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg that we know about (BTW, I know about this because this is what I do for a company).

    Things are moving deeper in this direction than you think. Recall the latest slashdot article (a few weeks ago) which claimed that your Visa statement is available to the US government. Not just the balance, but the hole damn thing, every single purchase, every location, every date, every amount (this I can't confirm but I wouldn't doubt it).

    Be careful what you put on Facebook (& other sites). If you have a sick child, you can't post this to Facebook since you husband may not get the job. If you have a bunch of stoner friends from high school with low credit scores, this may affect you ability to get a job. Don't post things about your health as this can count against you in the future. Did you post that cancer runs in your family? Probably not a good idea.

    All the above of course transfers to your application for other things like private insurance. You can be assured that insurance companies have teams of people checking and scoring everything they can get their hands on.

    Well at least you can delete it all from Facebook right? Oh right, it's a one way street. Post and it stays with you for the rest of your life.

    Be careful out there. There is nothing to worry about until one day there is.

    So I'm not really concerned about the potholes.

    1. Re:Potholes are not your biggest worry... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Do you have citations for any of the above? No snark - I'm honestly interested.

  28. Re:That's funny! by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    The stereotype it confirms for me is that every country, every culture, every ethnic, racial, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. has assholes. Sometimes I dream of a place where that isn't true, but thanks for helping to keep me realistic.

  29. Re:Inadvertently? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    the app sounds like a stupid idea to run like that anyways.

    however, just put the sensors on post cars.

    (ok ok poor neighborhoods maybe don't get served their mail so often??)

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  30. Selective case to prove point by kenh · · Score: 1

    Podesta argues that pothole repairs will be disproportionately skewed towards smartphone-toting folks in the suburbs, not the low income areas, really?

    What happens when a city bus load of smartphone-toting commuters hit a pothole? Thirty or fourty simultaneous alerts will all go out for the same pothole.

    Don't poor/lower income areas, by definition (almost) have orders of magnitude more traffic that the affluent neighborhoods? Wouldn't the greatly increased traffic, even with disproportionately fewer smartphones in use, result in an equal or greater number of alerts than in the more affluent areas?

    Finally, Mr. Podesta appears to have forgotten that the FCC has expanded it's lifeline phone service (which, though initiated under Pres. Reagan, is commonly referred to as Obamaphones) to include 2 Gb/month data plans and free smartphones?

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Selective case to prove point by tepples · · Score: 1

      What happens when a city bus load of smartphone-toting commuters hit a pothole? Thirty or fourty simultaneous alerts will all go out for the same pothole.

      Only if 1. the application's data filter is tuned for bus suspensions and not just passenger car suspensions, and 2. that route's driver hasn't mastered swerving to miss it every time.

      Mr. Podesta appears to have forgotten that the FCC has expanded it's lifeline phone service (which, though initiated under Pres. Reagan, is commonly referred to as Obamaphones) to include 2 Gb/month data plans and free smartphones

      I wasn't aware of that either. Have final rules been adopted? If so, I'd like to read these rules to see who qualifies, particularly whether already having (or appearing to have the means to pay for) Internet access at home would disqualify someone.

  31. History is tracing points through time by hessian · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time many said that about the Irish, Italians, Jews, assorted Eastern Europeans, etc.

    Ever notice how more complicated American life got after that time? At least those groups were related to the founding group of Western Europeans. The newer groups have nothing in common at all.

    Do you think there's a lesson there?

    Yes. What's mistaken for "evolution" is often decline and some people will say anything to avoid facing the bald truth in front of their faces.

  32. Nobody ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    ... collects (or requires the collection of) more race information than the federal government. Physician, heal thyself.

  33. Downfall of an empire by hessian · · Score: 1

    Big media, illegal aliens, racism against white culture, public education, tyrannical government, the destruction of the middle class - basically the Democrat party platform.

    They all seem to decline in the same way, which is roughly represented by the above.

    It's as if there were some pathological mentality that makes people want to destroy their civilization at some point. Like lemmings marching over a cliff.

  34. Wha Do Be Dah Interview? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Sometimes society gets silly. The simple truth is that any interview is a deliberate act of discrimination. It is not about race or religion. Sometimes it is about where you are born or where you live. Suppose you want to hire a salesman to sell Mercedes Benz cars. Obviously you want that salesman to come from a background and living situation in which owning a new Mercedes is common place. A salesman from that background can reel in new customers for the dealership. More common yet is an experienced employer who wants to hire people that live very close to the work place. After all workers who drive quite a ways to get to work will insist upon raises as driving is expensive.

  35. Apparently does not understand "hypocrisy" by mpercy · · Score: 1

    At least on this topic, I am unaware of any Republicans decrying the use of big data while simultaneously using big data. OTOH, we have Obama complaining about the inadvertent racist bias of numbers while simultaneously exploiting the racist bias of numbers.

    Your tu quoque response basically failed.

    1. Re:Apparently does not understand "hypocrisy" by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      At least on this topic, I am unaware of any Republicans decrying the use of big data while simultaneously using big data.

      That you are unaware of it proves it never happened.

    2. Re:Apparently does not understand "hypocrisy" by mpercy · · Score: 1

      Oh, there are reams of paper we could devote to detailing Republican hypocrisy, I did not mean to imply otherwise. Further, if there is some example of Republicans complaining about big data while using big data, by all means, share this information so we can mock further Republican hypocrisy.

      The original tu queue claimed that Republicans use big data, too. Which is certainly the case, but there is no Republican hypocrisy on this topic (yet?). If the only defense for Democrat hypocrisy is to toss out some Republican hypocrisy, at least make sure the Republican actions being flamed is actually hypocrisy.

  36. iPhone only. Android users need not apply. by tepples · · Score: 1

    so far my admittedly limited observation is that in the US -- most people have cell phones, even people who are poor ---- their cell phone may have replaced their landline.

    Unless you get someone who buys a dumbphone because he doesn't want to have to pay extra for a data plan. Or perhaps he buys an Android phone because it's cheaper than the iPhone that Street Bump requires because he didn't buy the phone with the specific intent of running Street Bump.

    records an entire trip

    Thank you for clarifying. But it still requires specifically an iPhone, and I was under the impression that iPhone ownership, as opposed to dumbphone or Android phone ownership, was correlated with higher socioeconomic status.

    1. Re:iPhone only. Android users need not apply. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      But it still requires specifically an iPhone

      They are working on it

  37. We knowingly discriminate based on analyitics by quietwalker · · Score: 1

    Another problem is that many of these analyses - let's assume they're generally accurate and not misleading - could result in numbers that are not politically correct. Like the sort of statistics that might drive law enforcement policies, or new laws targeting certain lifestyles or races. I don't know how we can differentiate between statistical analysis driving action and action born of discrimination, but simply ignoring the issues is not the correct decision.

    There are whole sets of these sorts of problems with certified causes and guaranteed solutions, but we're not even allowed to talk about it because they are almost wholly restricted to the behaviors of specific minority. It's simply not politically safe to grapple with these issues. So we ignore them. Strike that - we actually go a step further and demonize the people who say them. My personal experience is that if a white male says something like this:

    "National crime rates show that low-income black males between the ages of 15 and 34 are responsible for over 50% of the violent crime in America, most in urban environments. If we want to lower the crime rate, we should start there." ... people will start mentally - if not verbally - tossing around terms like 'neo-nazi republican' and 'racist', and much much worse. It doesn't matter if that's what the statistics show. It's simply not politically correct to point out minority groups have negative traits, especially by white males - the majority of our politicians.

    Then we have the deliberate ignorance by politicians which focuses on emotional appeals in popularity and re-election bids. For example, attacking scary looking rifles and calling them 'assault weapons', over the weapon of choice in something like 98% of the crimes involving firearms in the US: sub $400 handguns. It's just not as sexy, somehow. Not to mention that a fix like simply raising the price via tax - like we've done with cigarettes for example - will have a backlash claiming it's targeting the poor.

    Yes, privacy is an issue, yes, poor input will result in inaccurate trend predictions or incorrect results, and yes, even something like the manner in which the data is collected can introduce a bias. However, I think these are minor issues compared to the glaring problem of not using the data once it's obtained. We have such a poor track record for making rational, data-driven decisions as a country that we don't need to speculate about misuse. The fact that we obtain it and then ignore it is misuse!

  38. Oh noes! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    He described a program called "Street Bump" in Boston that detected pot-holes using sensors in smartphones of citizens who had downloaded an app. The program inadvertently directed repair crews to wealthier neighborhoods, where people were more likely to carry smartphones and download the app.'

    Oh noes! More tax money might be spent on the undeserving rich! Someone might raise a big stink about this, increasing the number of people who get this app! If too many people get the app, how can they justify hiring as many telephone operators for in-person reports, think of all the lost jobs!

    In other news, one more person has discovered that when collecting data you need to account for inherent biases in collection if you want unbiased data.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  39. Mod parent up. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Interesting. Some truth must be in there somewhere...

    One theory I've heard is that community is dead. A diverse community is possible but it has to be a functioning community with some common shared things between them. The common traits are gone in the schools and education and well, everything else has been gone for more than a generation. People don't know the neighbors, have community activities, even their religious activities are individualized and limited so those little communities are much weaker; those were the last hold outs (unless you are in a cult or something.)

    Diversity isn't the source of the problem but maybe it's a factor-- it would seem the greater threat would be not getting people together and sharing some common experiences.

    All I notice today is common consumption, movies, etc. people can talk about movies and maybe a few books at the rare gathering. not much else and not there are not many gatherings wither for that matter. People do WORK too many hours and then need the off time for other BS -- that has to contribute to the undermining of community more.

  40. Blunt As A Rock by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Frankly the issue of race and discrimination gets danced around and never really spelled out clearly. The truth is simple. Even if everybody in the nation is pure in heart and free of preferences discrimination will remain a huge problem. The majority group will tend to do better than any minority group. This issue starts with the family. If you have a nephew who needs a job and you are in a position to boost your nephew up a bit the chances are that you will give him the job. If you are running a restaurant and know that your customers want to see a sharp looking young girl to wait tables that is who you will hire. By being inclusive to one group you exclude other groups. One by one these little trends of including some people will become a brick wall for other people that often can not be penetrated. I even met a doctor that could not make a living. He was short and tended to be pudgy and had lousy skin color and frankly was on the ugly side. His healing skills might be wonderful for all I know but the man gets no new patients and therefore can only work in situations like an emergency room where patients are assigned to him. His financial success is very limited compared to what it might be if he were at least of average attractiveness. When it comes to many darker skinned people we probably should be assigned a financial penalty to help support them as prevailing conditions will cause many of them to live in poverty despite great effort on their part to succeed.

  41. "to wealthier..." but maybe not wealthiest by dakra137 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Street Bump detects pot holes equally well in the wealthiest neighborhoods. Maybe they have a higher percentage of cars with cushy soft suspensions that are less likely to cause a pothole to trigger a reportable event.