Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Creates Office Dedicated To "Algorithmic Transparency"

Posted by timothy on from the from-the-government-and-here-to-help dept.

jfruh writes When Facebook's EdgeRank algorithm filters a meme you posted out of your friends' feed, you might find that annoying. When your bank's algorithm denies you a mortgage, that has a serious effect on your life. But both kinds of algorithms are generally opaque to customers and regulators, and the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection has set up an office dedicated to figuring out these algorithms affect our lives and intersect with the law. Perhaps they can start with how the IRS selects people to audit, and whether constantly shifting TSA policies make sense.

75 comments

  1. Gaming the system by jklovanc · · Score: 0

    No selection algorithm is perfect. There will be ways to exploit aspects. By knowing all the algorithm it may be much easier to game the system and gain false advantage. For example, financial transactions over a certain dollar value, I think $10k, have to be reported. This leads to many transactions that are $9,999.00.

    1. Re:Gaming the system by dale.furno · · Score: 0

      having multiple $9,999.00 transactions is a nearly guaranteed way to get an audit.

    2. Re:Gaming the system by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's perfectly legal to make a $10k cash deposit into or withdrawal from your bank (assuming that the underlying use/source of the cash is legal, of course). It is, however, definitely ILLEGAL to make a $9999 deposit for the purpose of staying below that $10k limit. It's called structuring, and can get you into a lot of trouble.

      As an example, you sell a car for $13,000, and get paid in cash. If you go and deposit that $13k in cash in the bank, you're entirely kosher. It'll generate a currency transaction report, but they're not at all uncommon.

      If, however, you deposit $9k, and then $4k, to stay below that $10k ceiling, you've just committed a federal crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Gaming the system by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Knowing what specific values triggers audits has nothing at all to do (hopefully) with the algorithm; it's just a variable.

      If an algorithm has to be secret, it sucks. The good cryptographic algorithms are all publicly available. It's only the keys that are secrets.

    4. Re:Gaming the system by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Not all structuring gets caught. It was just an example of how knowing an algorithm can modify behaviour to change the outcome.

    5. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bank algorithms that piss me off are the ones that will hold deposits for 5 days if it looks like withdrawls might go over, but will put them through immediately if you don't have withdrawls pending - they will apply daily (and weekend) withdrawls before deposits even if they were entered as cash deposits before any withdrawls were made, etc. These are clearly done algorithmically to maximize profits for the banks by piling on every fee they possibly can. Something like 80% of bank profits these days are fees and penalties on people's private checking accounts.

    6. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you have the freedom to do what you want with your own money. Just because some criminals do the same activity doesn't make yours criminal.

    7. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point is that with a transparent algorithm, you'll know the cooldown period, degree-of-separation, and other factors considered between the transactions and you can take those into account and avoid getting audited. Even if you're doing something extremely shady and probably illegal.

      No algorithm is perfect in every domain. Go watch a NES TAS video and you'll see how an all-knowing, all-powerful controlling entity can completely destroy any sense of fair play. Now imagine that sort of "ownage" in a payment processing system. The fuckery would destroy the modern world.

      This isn't a matter of security through obscurity. It's function through access control, specifically, controlling access to who has a full and complete picture of all interactions within financial systems. (The correct answer that should be defended at all costs is "nobody, anywhere, ever".)

    8. Re:Gaming the system by jklovanc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need to get a Credit Union. The credit union I deal with bends over backwards to avoid fees. For example, there have been times that my paycheck deposit has come late in the day but withdrawals have come out earlier and should have caused an overdraft fee. But because my regular pattern was to deposit my pay that day no fee was charged. That is one of the many reasons I deal with a Credit Union and not a Bank.

    9. Re:Gaming the system by afidel · · Score: 1

      Sounds like people need to find a bank or credit union that doesn't suck. Huntington for example not only does credits before debits but they also give you 24 hours to make up any overdraft and will automatically pull from your savings to make it up if you have agreed to let them.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re: Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In spain, bo sums would have been reported anyway

    11. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal to make a $10k cash deposit into or withdrawal from your bank (assuming that the underlying use/source of the cash is legal, of course). It is, however, definitely ILLEGAL to make a $9999 deposit for the purpose of staying below that $10k limit. It's called structuring, and can get you into a lot of trouble.

      As an example, you sell a car for $13,000, and get paid in cash. If you go and deposit that $13k in cash in the bank, you're entirely kosher. It'll generate a currency transaction report, but they're not at all uncommon.

      If, however, you deposit $9k, and then $4k, to stay below that $10k ceiling, you've just committed a federal crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Which is stupid and they should just change the law.

      The minimum threshold for what needs to be reported was probably set before banks had the ability to easily report all transactions automatically, and the law about structuring is a kludge to fix the bug the created when the set a lower amount bound on reporting requirements.

    12. Re:Gaming the system by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      When you find people gaming the system and the results of that are undesirable, isn't that a good time to refine your algorithm?

      What's so magical about the $10,000 number? Why not $9,999, or $10,001? Should it be indexed to inflation? Did someone pull that number out of thin air, and if so, is that a responsible way to write laws?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    13. Re:Gaming the system by Straif · · Score: 2

      But to too many US "law enforcement" agencies the fact a criminal may also do something similar gives them enough leeway to seize your money and use it as their own.

      Civil forfeitures laws in the US are so ridiculous that if you happen to get pulled over for speeding on the way back from selling your motorcycle for cash, the cops can seize the money "just in case", or more related to this depositing issue, if you happen to run a small store and do nightly deposits under 10k (because that's what was in the till at the end of the day) they will seize your accounts.

      Even when they know with certainty there was no crime committed and you have all the legal justification in the world to have done what you did with your money they will gladly seize it and make you spend the next 6 months+ fighting to get it back.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    14. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bank has a stated policy about transaction application order and frequency.

      They apply all posted transactions every day, including weekends, at the end of the day. Transactions are applied in the following order:
      1) Deposits
      2) Intra-account transfers (both directions)
      3) Intra-bank, inter-account transfers (both directions)
      4) Inter-bank transfers (both directions)
      5) ATM/cash withdrawals
      6) Debit card withdrawals
      7) Checks

      All accounts finish each step daily before the next step is applied to any accounts (thus deposits for all accounts are settled before any transfers between accounts are begun).

      This is an ink-on-paper policy of the bank, not just hearsay from a low-level branch employee.

      And it's a real FDIC-insured bank, not a credit union. Incidentally, this is a bank that didn't use bailout money (it was required to accept it because the feds are a bunch of fucktards, but it held it and repaid it as soon as possible, and provided disclosures to their customers when this was done at each step) and didn't have any major difficulty weathering the "great recession". If you can, bank with a KC bank instead of a NYC one. Just sayin'.

    15. Re:Gaming the system by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      When you find people gaming the system

      There is the rub. Sometimes you don't notice the system being gamed until too late.

      What's so magical about the $10,000 number?

      Laws have to be black and white. The line is arbitrary but well defined. That is how laws work. If inflation causes the number to be too low they can change the law.

      Lets not go too far into this specific case. It is just an example of how knowing an algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.

    16. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws have to be black and white. The line is arbitrary but well defined. That is how laws work. If inflation causes the number to be too low they can change the law.

      There are plenty of laws where the limits are indexed by inflation rather than being an arbitrary number.

      Examples of laws that SHOULD be indexed to inflation include this example, along with:

      o AMT limits
      o 401(k) contribution limits
      o IRA income limits

      and many, many more.

    17. Re:Gaming the system by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      What's so magical about the $10,000 number?

      Laws have to be black and white.

      That still doesn't explain why $10,000 is a better number than $9,999 or $10,001. The fact that it's a suspiciously round number suggests negligence on the part of whoever wrote the law.

      If inflation causes the number to be too low they can change the law.

      How would you know whether the number is too low? Why wasn't that same mechanism used to help write the law long ago when the cost of making changes to the law was much lower?

      Lets not go too far into this specific case. It is just an example of how knowing an algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.

      You're partially correct. It's an example of how knowing a poorly designed algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    18. Re:Gaming the system by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      So instead of fixing the algorithm, they wrote a new law making it illegal to exploit the algorithm.

      That's your federal government at work!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    19. Re:Gaming the system by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      How would you have suggested they "fix" the algorithm?

    20. Re:Gaming the system by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      That still doesn't explain why $10,000 is a better number than $9,999 or $10,001.

      Round numbers are easy to remember and deal with. It is the same mechanism that sets limits for severyity of theft and damage laws. For example, theft under $1000 is a different degree of severity than theft over $1000. The former is usually a misdemeanour while the latter is a felony. These numbers are arbitrary and have changes by amending the laws over the years.

      How would you know whether the number is too low?

      When too many transactions get reported and the investigation teams get swamped.

      Why wasn't that same mechanism used to help write the law long ago when the cost of making changes to the law was much lower?

      Because the mechanism is subjective and laws have to be objective. Any subjective changes in criminal law must be voted on by elected officials to become law.

      You're partially correct. It's an example of how knowing a poorly designed algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.

      Do you have a better algorithm? It is easy to say why you think is bad but much harder to fix the "problem".

    21. Re:Gaming the system by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      When have you know anything about the gov or law making for that matter to be responsible?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    22. Re:Gaming the system by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      You want all banking transactions reported to the Feds? Personally, I'd rather not.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:Gaming the system by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Round numbers are easy to remember and deal with.

      That's true, but other than criminals, who needs to memorize how much a person can deposit before it gets reported?

      [The number is too low] When too many transactions get reported and the investigation teams get swamped.

      That's an objective metric, certainly better than picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been. Maybe they should write that into the law and also that the number must be re-determined periodically so it's never too high nor too low.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    24. Re:Gaming the system by khallow · · Score: 2

      Don't monitor money transactions in the first place.

    25. Re:Gaming the system by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      That's an objective metric, certainly better than picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been.

      Unless there is an exact number assigned to the metrics it is a subjective metric. There are two solutions to the issue of overwork; raise the number or hire more people. Decisions like that are made by elected officials and are not written into laws.

      picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been.

      That is an assumption on your part. Maybe a full analysis was done and a round number close to the optimal number was selected. Yes laws like this are arbitrary.

      Maybe they should write that into the law and also that the number must be re-determined periodically so it's never too high nor too low.

      Sometimes it is which is called sunsetting. On the other hand why mandate when a number has to be reexamined? If inflation is low it could be quite a while before needed. Why make laws more complex than necessary?

    26. Re:Gaming the system by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Certainly an option, but would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop money laundering, and hence effectively increase the profitability of a lot of illegal activity.

    27. Re:Gaming the system by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It was just an example of how knowing an algorithm can modify behaviour to change the outcome.

      Why is that a bad thing? If I am going to be judged by an algorithm, don't you think I should know what the parameters are? How can I ever rectify a problem parameter if I don't know what it is?

      There will always be cheats, you can't eliminate them all you can do is minimise their damage. There comes a point when the efforts to catch cheats outweighs the benefits, the system itself suffers as the rules and parameters expand in an attempt to catch every last petty cheat. The US health system(s) are a prime example, both private and public systems spend an inordinate amount of resources on lawyers and accounts that do nothing except look for ways to deny coverage / payment. It ends up costing the honest players up to 10X what it does in comparable countries such as Australia, but it still hasn't eliminated cheats.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re:Gaming the system by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Certainly an option, but would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop money laundering, and hence effectively increase the profitability of a lot of illegal activity.

      I don't have a problem with that. I think a lot less illegal activity should be illegal.

    29. Re:Gaming the system by volmtech · · Score: 1

      OK, banks are all about money. They know when and how much I deposit. What would prevent a bank from making a transaction report for me when I deposited the 4000 dollars? That way their customer (me) doesn't get into trouble. Are they not allowed? I have to keep track of my deposits and request a report myself? Shouldn't the teller inform me that I am over the reporting limit and the IRS might seize my money?

    30. Re:Gaming the system by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Maybe a full analysis was done and a round number close to the optimal number was selected.

      That also happens to be a power of 10? There's only a 1 in 10 chance of that happening in real life, so that's not likely.

      On the other hand why mandate when a number has to be reexamined? If inflation is low it could be quite a while before needed.

      Someday the number will need to be raised, so why not plan for the inevitable?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    31. Re:Gaming the system by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      What would prevent a bank from making a transaction report for me when I deposited the 4000 dollars?

      Then you've just lowered the threshold for reporting to $4000. That means they've reported your $9000 deposit and the $4000 one. And anyone else who has deposited more than $4000. Like me, when my paycheck is deposited.

      I have to keep track of my deposits and request a report myself?

      No, the bank does it.

      Shouldn't the teller inform me that I am over the reporting limit and the IRS might seize my money?

      No. What makes you think the IRS is going to seize your money just because you deposited more than $10,000? It happens alot. It isn't a crime. BUT it can be combined with income information and might cause an investigation if you're busy making routine $20,000 deposits and withdrawals but you report only $5000 in income.

      There's no magic to the $10,000 threshold. It's just a nice round number that will result in the vast majority of transactions to not be reported. Since the $9000/$4000 transactions aren't reported, it isn't like the feds can detect the attempts at gaming the system and come after you. The law against gaming the system is there not to catch people who just split the deposits because they don't want them reported, but to allow increased penalties for those they determine are money laundering (a federal crime) through other means.

    32. Re:Gaming the system by hermitdev · · Score: 2

      I know you're probably purposely being obtuse here, but the IRS doesn't seize your money if you deposit more than $10K at a time. If they did, I would be broke, as they would seize my paycheck every month. The $10K "limit" is a threshold for an alert, not extra-jurisdictional action to seize your money. That the $10k level was imposed decades ago, when it was far less common for individuals to be making deposits or withdrawals of that amount, still holds today is just another example of how short-sighted and slow moving the federal government is. The size of the transfer isn't the only key, either. Financial institutions may also need to track the country of origin & destination of money transfers (i.e. so you can't wire money to/accept from Iran or North Korea).

      The $10K transfer "limit" is akin to the $100 bill being made the largest physical denomination. It doesn't make it illegal to have more than $100 in cash, it makes it impractical to have significantly more than that in hand, physically. (There're even calls to make $50 or $20 USD the largest physical denomination). Basically the US federal government wants to make it illegal/difficult/impractical to move large sums of US currency surreptitiously, at least without being noticed and recorded/tracked.

    33. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo dude. It's like how corporate tax accountants have full view of tax law so they can legally circumvent as much as they can. We should be allowed to see the algorithms so we can ensure we're getting what we want and not getting near criminal territory.

    34. Re:Gaming the system by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Someday the number will need to be raised, so why not plan for the inevitable?

      They did by allowing the law to be amended when needed and not at an arbitrary time.

      It is interesting that you have a problem with an arbitrary number but not with an arbitrary amendment timeline.

    35. Re:Gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you honestly believe they don't have access to that data already? After the snowden revelations I'd call that ... naieve

    36. Re:Gaming the system by LQ · · Score: 1

      having multiple $9,999.00 transactions is a nearly guaranteed way to get an audit.

      Falling foul of Benford's law.

    37. Re:Gaming the system by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      They have access to the data, which I'm not real happy with. I'd rather not see all transactions automatically reported.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:Gaming the system by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      The law against gaming the system is there not to catch people who just split the deposits...

      Except when it's used just to catch people who split the deposits.

    39. Re:Gaming the system by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Except when it's used just to catch people who split the deposits.

      Except it wasn't. Since amounts less than $10,000 are not reported, the reports cannot be used to catch people who are just splitting deposits. The article you linked to said it was her other financial activities that raised the red flag, at which point the investigation disclosed the deposits. They didn't come knocking just because of the deposit pattern.

      Not saying the government is acting appropriately in this case, but she did break the law.

  2. Bennett Haselton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that you?

  3. not from personal experience, mind you. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    ex : breathalyzers

    And voting machines.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:not from personal experience, mind you. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The Breathalyzer issue looks like an implementation issue and not an algorithm issue.

  4. Keep private things private by mi · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they can start with how the IRS selects people to audit, and whether constantly shifting TSA policies make sense.

    Yes, it may make sense to audit and review the algorithms used by public agencies. But private ones (including banks) should not be so molested...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Keep private things private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, it may make sense to audit and review the algorithms used by public agencies"

      You are obviously missing the true purpose behind this initiative.

    2. Re:Keep private things private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is all part of a paranoid witch-hunt to identify supposed racial discrimination hidden in algorithms.

      Regulators just can't believe that that there might be any difference in the races and that risk might correlate with race.

      Any difference in lending rates is seen as proof of discrimination.

      The only way lenders could avoid cries of "racist" was to try and automate judgement.

      Well now that the algorithms produce similar results, it must be racist algorithms denying loans to innocent victims.

      The same thing has happened in hiring. No judgement is allowed anymore. Hiring has become rule driven (must have a degree in X, must have Y years experience in Z) to avoid cries of "racist".

      No one is allowed to think lest their thinking reveal some hidden racist devil.

    3. Re:Keep private things private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRS is a money making machine. They select audits based on income levels where the belt is kept too tight and things are out of average on statistics,

      What? If you report all the income you earned to the IRS on your tax return (e.g. enter all of the values for your W-2s, 1099s, etc., etc.) and properly pay all of your taxes your chances of being audited are virtually nil regardless of how much money you make.

      They make select audits if you demonstrate that you pay $100,000 in property taxes with an annual income of $101,000, though.

    4. Re:Keep private things private by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to add to this post that, in my mind at least, racial differences can be, and likely are, a result of that race's culture in a given nation - Not necessarily because one "race" is "less intelligent" or some shit than another. American blacks (in general) for instance seem to celebrate the thuglife hustler liftstyle, where only paying bills that are the shutoff warnings is common practice. This wrecks their credit, and can cause problems getting loans. How is this racist? The whites I know that act like this are similarly limited. But it's apparently only racist if blacks with bad credit are denied.

  5. It's only a matter of time... by terraformer · · Score: 2

    ...before this new "office" starts demanding access to not only the underlying data, but the specifics of the algorithms themselves. The amount of heavy handedness that focusing on the algorithms, as opposed to say the effects of the business practices themselves, that can be brought raises the bar on a government way too willing to be heavy handed.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  6. Credit Ratings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to see the credit bureaus' rating "algorithms". Given my high rating (800+) and high credit card debt, I suspect people who generate consistent income for banks get bonus points. Of course I can't prove this, but I'm gathering evidence...

    1. Re:Credit Ratings by pavon · · Score: 1

      Yeah it is really crappy that a company can lie to the credit agencies about you, destroying your credit score and there is nothing you can do about it. I mean, you can file to have the information in your credit report corrected (because those are statements of facts which would constitute libel), but they aren't required to stop including that information in your credit score (because the score is a statement of opinion) and they usually don't.

    2. Re:Credit Ratings by afidel · · Score: 1

      I've never generated a penny in fees to any lending institution and yet I too have an 800+ rating so there is more than one way to score highly in FICO and other scoring systems.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re: Credit Ratings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You score high because you consistently make payments.

      My score is low because I pay it off entirely every month.

  7. All banks "too big to fail" by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    should be required to cease algorithmic trading until they can prove that their trading algorithms are logically equivalent to a particular reference algorithm provided by the FTC!

  8. If they can't show what Diabold Did in 2004 by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

    If they can't show what Diabold Did in 2004 in ohio and Florida, then what is the point of this? Perhaps to give someone the ability to game the system?

  9. HFT by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    So will Wall Street be forced to disclose their trading algorithms as well?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  10. TSA algorithm by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    The TSA algorithm is already pretty transparent. If they're brown, pat em down.

  11. Yeah, why not FICO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .... what about our crufty friend the FICO score? If the FTC truly cares about "consumer protection" then shouldn't they seek some "transparency" there? I can't think of an opaque metric that has a greater impact of the lives of consumers today. Perhaps it's not interesting enough for regulators creating more make work jobs in Washington.

  12. Maybe start with the No-Fly list? by leftover · · Score: 3

    All the "suspected terrorist" lists are notorious for their unrestricted inclusion/non-existent removal policies, none more so than the No-Fly list.

    It might not be glamorous to review a blank 'algorithm' but it would be a significant step for transparency in government. That is where the focus should be. We need to make a lot of noise to support this point of view. Otherwise all the usual race-baiters and niche-problem whiners will disperse and ruin what could have become a powerful tool.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
  13. Neural Nets by gregor-e · · Score: 1

    Neural nets are already a kind of black box. If a NN-backed expert system declines a mortgage, I doubt any customer service agent could explain its thinking.

    1. Re:Neural Nets by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Secure multiparty computation algorithms provide fully visible algorithms that remain a black box.
      A neat trick.

      http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nige...

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Neural Nets by fflewddur · · Score: 1

      Absolutely right, though there are still useful things that could be explained: the types of inputs the algorithm accepts, the range of outputs it can potentially give, the model used, etc. In the '90s researchers experimented with building more scrutable models (like decision trees) using a neural net as the training source, with encouraging results [1], but I think the work languished when neural nets went out of fashion.

      More importantly, I think this showcases how opaque learning systems (while potentially powerful) may not be appropriate for circumstances when people need to know *why* the system reached a particular conclusion. Predictive accuracy should not be the only metric of concern when developing a machine learning model; comprehensibility of the decision process also needs to be taken into account.

      [1] Craven, M. W. and Shavlik, J. W. (1997). Using neural networks for data mining. Future Generation Computer Systems, 13:211–229.

  14. That was some pretty stupid political commentary.. by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Timothy, that was some pretty lame and obvious political axe-grinding there... and completely off-topic from both the summary and the article.

    The Federal Trade Commission, by it's very nature, regulates trade (as in, private businesses.)

    The TSA and IRS are completely out-of-scope of their jurisdiction. (This kind of role is usually handled by the GAO.)

  15. IRS/TSA algorithm is well-known :P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they can start with how the IRS selects people to audit, and whether constantly shifting TSA policies make sense.

    Magic 8-ball. I thought everyone knew that.

  16. Car Insurance, and other Mandatory Services by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The first thing that came to my mind was car insurance, though of course now that health insurance is required, we need to be able to see that, too. Any insurance policy you're required to have, they should be required to show you the algorithm and all the relevant data. Of course, that's their secret sauce, but I don't care. If we're forced to have it, it's only fair.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Car Insurance, and other Mandatory Services by plopez · · Score: 1

      Screw car insurance, how about MEDICAL insurance. How do they decide who will or won't get a procedure covered. The true death panels may be insurance company algorithms.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Car Insurance, and other Mandatory Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you that with the large amount of money involved there are people, and usually more than one, that make those decisions. My wife used to work as an assistant to a BC/BS exec in South Carolina about ten years ago that was on their death panel. The only surprising thing was that they had a fairly large budget to pay claims that would have been otherwise not been covered. Almost always it was for a mother with young children that hit the lifetime limit on cancer treatment. Their compassion was surprising. They even sometimes provided the families with cash for travel and hotels so the husbands and children could be with the mother.

  17. #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google PageRank

  18. Google Play - More transparency for Suspensions by jbrohan · · Score: 1

    It's hard sometimes to see what the offence is. My app was suspended for reasons that were not clear. Yeah for transparency