Slashdot Mirror
Thousands in London Face Incorrect Benefit Cuts From Automated Fraud Detector (sky.com)
Thousands of people could soon be receiving letters threatening to cut off vital housing benefits as they face being incorrectly targeted by a new automated fraud detector. From a report: The government-backed London Counter Fraud Hub, developed by BAE, has been hailed a success after being trialled in four boroughs - Camden, Ealing, Croydon and Islington. Using vast quantities of data from millions of households, it is designed to target potential fraud cases involving the single person council tax discount, subletting in local authority housing and business rate relief and rating.
Ealing, the lead council for the project, found the automated elements of the system targeting single person discount fraud was 80% effective -- which is seen as an acceptable benchmark. With just over one million claimants of council tax single person discount in London, the London Counter Fraud Hub estimates it will detect around 40,000 fraudulent cases in the first year. Critics say the 20% error rate is unacceptable as around 8,000 people will receive letters wrongly accusing them of fraud.
Ealing, the lead council for the project, found the automated elements of the system targeting single person discount fraud was 80% effective -- which is seen as an acceptable benchmark. With just over one million claimants of council tax single person discount in London, the London Counter Fraud Hub estimates it will detect around 40,000 fraudulent cases in the first year. Critics say the 20% error rate is unacceptable as around 8,000 people will receive letters wrongly accusing them of fraud.
Don't bring it to America or it'll be pealing like crazy around this Dunnald Drumpf traitor's White House.
Nothing wrong with using an automated system that assumes conclusions. As long as you have
1) A viable system in place for remedying the failures. If you're unsure about the soft word in there, peg it at "better than youtube's"
2) The claimed conclusions are asserted tentatively. (The data in our system suggests) YOU LIED ABOUT X AND Z WILL HAPPEN (if not addressed).
Unfortunately we fuck up both. Privatize the savings, socialize the fuck up, charge forward trusting the data without hesitation, why stop at flags and alerts when you can have it execute outright.
Donald Trump is a leftist? He's the biggest leech in the entire country.
Yeah.. I've built a few of these kinds of systems. Fraud detection is a trigger / alert NOT an automatic action unless you have certainty. (Like mathematical 100% accuracy). Can be tiered:
1) Fraud Detected: "If" you have some clear "Yes this is for sure fraud" metrics then this tier can result in automatic action. (That can be a Big "if")
2) Fraud Almost Certain: Trigger an investigation and depending on your definition of "Almost" maybe some "light" action (Protect from further harm if possible)
3) Fraud Possibility: Depending on the order of magnitude and your staff resources this could also be "Trigger an investigation" but if the number is too large more like "flag as suspect" -> repeated indicators elevate this to #2 and maybe the fancy version lower level investigation like the support equivalent of an off-shore call center.
Sounds like they are treating everyone as a #1 and with a success rate of 80% they are SOOOO far from that being acceptable. Note most banks have a version of #2 for bank activity.. Pretty sure most of y'all have gotten the "We've detected questionable activity on your account.. please verify these transactions" ... dealing with Gov't benefits that's a different situation entirely but if these mails being sent out were very gentle like "The Department has questions regarding the status of your benefits call this number -> XXX-XXX-XXXX" --> That call center I was talking about that could be acceptable.