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.

46 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  2. Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They do need to work on their error rate, but they should be working on the false negatives. The false positives can be handled with a human investigator.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Don't let that strawman crush you.

      It's obviously about being cost effective. Not even looking at 90% of scammers while only finding 20% in error is clearly not investigating enough leeches.

      The key number would be ratio of cost of an investigation vs. cost of an undetected ongoing scam. As this is rent (expensive bene), they can and should be investigating _all_of_them_, about once/year. Same as SS disability grifters in the USA. But first they should investigate the government 'workers' assigned to investigate the scumbags. They are always a big part of the problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      It's obviously about being cost effective.

      Nothing about this government is cost effective.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by suutar · · Score: 1

      do you have evidence that the number should be more than 4%?

    4. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When free shit is being handed out, it's _always_ more than 4% scam.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This system is really going for the low-hanging fruit, which should be easy to assess one way or another.

      For example, council tax is paid annually and is based (crudely) on property value. However, discounts and uplifts apply in certain circumstances. If 1 adult only lives at an address, they receive a 25% discount. If the property is unoccupied, it receives no discount, and may attract a supplement of up to 100%. If the property is occupied only by vulnerable people or students, then they receive a 100% discount.

      There is considerable fraud over the single occupier discount. However, this is easy to check. The council simply need to cross-reference the occupier list for council tax purposes with the list of registered voters (both lists are managed by the council). If there are 2 registered voters at the address, but for council tax purposes, there is a single occupier who is one of those voters, then there may be an issue, and an investigation may be required. Similarly, the databases can be cross checked with other public information (phone directories, drivers licence details, etc.).

      Similarly, subsidised social housing is intended to be for vulnerable people. However, there is rampant subletting, where the person supposed to be living at the address moves out to live somewhere else, and charges a commercial rent to a paying tenant. Again, this is easy to detect - you simply cross check the list of authorised council subsidised tenants with the voter list, and if it doesn't match then ask questions.

    6. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      4% sounds about right, or even high. The US has less fraud then that in its welfare programs, in terms of bad actors. Just some of the bad actors are doctors using fraud for millions with SSNs of old people on Medicare they never met.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by lgw · · Score: 1

      The key number would be ratio of cost of an investigation vs. cost of an undetected ongoing scam. As this is rent (expensive bene), they can and should be investigating _all_of_them_, about once/year. Same as SS disability grifters in the USA. But first they should investigate the government 'workers' assigned to investigate the scumbags. They are always a big part of the problem.

      The cost of fraud within Medicaid is much higher than private insurance fraud. However, the administrative cost is much lower. Turns out the total is about the same. It's not just the cost of investigation, it's the ongoing cost of more elaborate paperwork and process in the name of fraud prevention. Much better to have the simpler solution if it ends up costing the same - optimize for the normal people, don't punish them just to punish the grifters too.

      Automated fraud detection has great promise to be the best of both worlds. However, a freaking 20% false positive rate completely fails it. If your false positive rate is higher than your actual fraud rate, that means a "positive" fraud result means "someone who probably isn't committing fraud". You damn well better not make them prove their innocence when you don't have probable cause.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Given the penalties for fraud and the hoops you have to jump through to get housing benefit, 4% seems ludicrously high. I appreciate people have ideological problems with giving the poors the ability to have a roof over their heads, but I have a feeling that if the algorithm had found a 50% fraud rate, you'd still be claiming it was too low and would be much higher.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by kenh · · Score: 1

      Right, no one sells their SNAP benefits for 50 cents on the dollar to buy things not available for SNAP benefits... It's all doctors defrauding people on Medicare. /SMH

      --
      Ken
    10. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by kenh · · Score: 1

      The data fed into the system provides "probable cause", and any follow-up/review will be done by civil servants that never, ever make a mistake.

      --
      Ken
    11. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by lgw · · Score: 1

      I get the joke, but by definition "probable cause" needs to be more than 50%. This is the usual problem with profiling, of course.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the question was "are people getting benefits they're not entitled to." Which is true of the doctors defrauding Medicare (getting money for unperformed procedures). The people selling their SNAP benefits usually are people entitled to SNAP benefits. Therefore, it's not "fraud" in the same sense that we are describing, even thought it is illegal.

      Selling them is bad, sure. But in it's not different from buying the food and then reselling it. There's no real way to stop it on an individual level; like with the doctors the real enforcement should be focused on the stores that convert the SNAP to cash.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    13. Re:Only 4% fraud on 'government tit'? Bullshit! by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      You contention just doesn't seem reasonable. In the case of housing single individuals, particularly one who are secually active often let boyfriends, girlfriends, etc. crash at their house for long periods of time. This would indicate they are defrauding the government if they are receiving money because they are living alone. How often would an unauthorized crasher have to stay at a place before the receiver would have to inform the government and stop taking benefits?

      This is a typical problem in the U.S. where someone in public housing lets a boyfriend live there in violation of the requirements.

      Certainly if the check being done is comparing addresses in different databases then this would seem to indicate long term defrauding of the system. Can addresses in different databases be incorrect? Surely which is why you do followup when you find them.

      I for one have no problem with helping the poor put a roof over their head. Most of the time the best way to do that is to make them self sufficient. For that percentage which will never be self-sufficient social safety nets are important. Bad actors will always try to game the system and it is imperative that they are found and prosecuted, because every cent you waste on them means that some person who needs help might not get it.

  3. Re:80% False Positive !?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just a high-level screening, false positives are not a big deal.

    FTFA:

    "We will not cancel anyone's council tax discount without giving them a fair say, which is why we are writing to them first. The council has experience of dealing with vulnerable people and others who need help communicating and will ensure we use the best channels of communication and provide support where necessary, as we do already," the spokesperson said.

  4. Old but fitting quote by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    "To err is human; to really foul things up you need a computer."

  5. No manual review? by jma05 · · Score: 2

    Automated fraud detection is fine.
    But acting on a number which is basically a statistical guess, without some follow-up manual review is plain irresponsible.
    The credit industry does this and regulation differs by country. For public services, the justice standards should be different.
    I don't think we are hearing the whole story though. It is hard to believe that a 20% error rate is accepted by European standards of fairness.

    1. Re:No manual review? by Matheus · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:No manual review? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Often the fact that the computer says something primes the person reviewing the situation to believe it, creating a bias. In fact even just filtering out all the ones that are likely to be fraudulent can create bias, as the perceived amount off fraud goes from 4% to nearly 75%. Suddenly fraud isn't rare any more, it's the norm.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:No manual review? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree mostly. However, banks do actually implement action on things they only suspect all the time. Case in point. My credit card gets frozen because the terminal at the gas station I used it on was sending a different zip code than the one I was typing. Sure, it was suspicious to them but I don't think it warranted freezing my credit until I replied to them. BTW, I think the zip code sent differed because the keypad wasn't aligned with the labels.

    4. Re:No manual review? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Australia's welfare system sent automated letters to everyone they detected as being over paid. Cutting them off, or at least setting up a way to claw back the overpayment.

      Problem was of course that the data wasn't perfect, and the system double counted some people's salary information going back 5 years.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    5. Re:No manual review? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The story is meaningless without knowing what is the ramification of those false positives. What happens, is it just a letter, can the person seek compensation for unfair psychological stress, do they need a lawyer, how about compensation for wasting their time. What happens, obviously 20% false positives is entirely unacceptable and if it generates 20% false positives, how many does it miss. Is it all a typical scam, the automation contract worth exorbitant amounts and how much profit it generates is the sole focus.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. the real story by bill.pev · · Score: 2

    I've always been bothered that all police in the US carry guns - where in general the police in the UK don't, at lest in the England of my youth. But make no mistake, there is a pernicious truth: despite unarmed Bobbies, England is a police state. Just look at the speed control on the roads. Variable Speed limits with long distance tracking, not a person in sight. I know there is a safety argument, but it is absolute control over people's movement. Literally. But that's not my point.

    The real story is how a 20% Error Rate is even close to acceptable in any automated system, especially in an environment where addressing issues through bureaucracy is practically impossible?!?! On top of that every run will yield a new chance to be falsely accused so the threat always looms. Seeing this in my own USA is a much deeper fear for me than any terrorist activity, and 40% of the public will welcome it, including people who will be ruined by it. It's insane.

    This is part of the thick edge of the wedge. Beware all.

    1. Re:the real story by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So they analyzed 1,000,000 claims, and detected 40,000 of those were fraudulent. Of which 8,000 were "incorrectly" marked as fraudulent. That sounds like a pretty decent first run to me. Unless you want to manually look through 1,000,000 claims, or pay a team to look them all over. This just reduced the cost to identify fraudulent claims by 25x.

      Not perfect, no. But having a team analyze the 40,000 claims it kicked out is a heck of a lot cheaper than analyzing the 1,000,000 that went in.

    2. Re:the real story by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Problem is that 8,000 people were royally screwed by this. People literally starving, having to rely on charity hand-outs to feed themselves and their children because the system made a mistake. That's pretty callous.

      Best thing now would be for all 8,000 people to submit GDPR review requests. The GDPR allows for decisions made by machines to be reviewed by a human on request.

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

      The GDPR allows for decisions made by machines to be reviewed by a human on request.

      That's limited to decisions "which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.".

      Here, there are not yet any actual effects. At this juncture they're just receiving initial letters saying that the council suspects they're falsely claiming a tax credit, and have an opportunity to show evidence to the contrary -- evidence which a human then would have to review. I highly doubt that would fall under the above definition.

    4. Re:the real story by kenh · · Score: 2

      8,000 people get letters - the horror!

      Needs-based benefits deserve to be challenged periodically, and recipients should be able to defend their claims at any time.

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:the real story by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I've always been bothered that all police in the US carry guns - where in general the police in the UK don't, at lest in the England of my youth.

      I've been bothered with the idea that the police in the UK don't carry guns. There's a near complete ban on the private ownership of guns in the UK but does that stop the criminals from being armed? I seem to recall a few instances of people using knives and vehicles as weapons. Sure would be comforting to know that at least the police were able to shoot the assailant sooner rather than later, and minimize the death and destruction.

      Getting back on the topic of being tracked by automation. If you want this to stop then we need to do something about the infrastructure built that allows this tracking. You want the police to stop tracking your movement by car? Then let's get rid of things like license plates and licenses to drive. Oh, you think that would make us less safe? With people not needing a license to drive? Well, take your pick. Do you want freedom or safety? I know that is something of a false dichotomy, as there is likely some room for a middle ground. Okay then, where is it?

      I'm saying that if the police tracking bothers you then let's not make it so easy with a plainly visible identifying plate on the car, that registers the owner (and highly likely driver) with the government. Then with another government registry where the drivers are kept, with pictures, identifying features, address, signature, etc. to further allow the tracking.

      Here's a problem with those databases that few people will discuss. Licensing does not stop bad drivers from driving. Enforcement stops bad drivers. People drive without licenses, without insurance, and without car registration, all the time. How many? Nobody knows because they are not registered any where. Best guess is that it is in the millions in the USA. So long as they follow the rules of the road then they are not likely to get caught. If these people follow the rules then tell me why I should care if they haven't got their "papers in order"?

      You don't like the police state? Then let's get serious about how far it has already come. Let's cut it off at the knees and put an end to the databases full of people that have not broken any laws. No more licenses to drive and no more license plates on cars. Get the paper pushers out of DMV offices and instead get law enforcement on the streets where they can actually stop those that do real harm.

      Oh, and about getting rid of paper pushers that do nothing to keep us safe... We are seeing many states this years get rid of licenses to carry concealed weapons. There's 15 states now that do not require "papers in order" for a private citizen to carry a concealed weapon in public. And we are likely to see another 1 or 2 before the year ends. The average American citizen is better armed than the average British bobby.

      Oh, and before someone replies on how Americans shoot each other more than in any other "civilized" nation remember this, America is not a single nation with a single set of gun laws. It is a federation of states, each with their own different gun laws. There is no connection between the murders in Illinois and New York and the gun laws in New Hampshire and Wyoming.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:the real story by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Disability fraudsters are stealing from the disabled. They ARE SCUM.

      The USA has been gaining 1 million additional 'disabled' every year since welfare reform passed. The whole system is routinely gamed. Lawyers make careers out of getting disability for the able bodied One million more per year, while the big demo bump (baby boom) ages out of SS disability and onto regular SS.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:the real story by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Problem is that 8,000 people were royally screwed by this.

      They were royally screwed by getting a letter? I can only assume you jumped to conclusions, and didn't read the article before you jumped on the sky is falling bandwagon. No one is literally (or figuratively) starving because they received a letter. They have up to ONE YEAR to respond to the letter before anything happens.

      But yes, filing a GDPR review request would likely be a good idea.

  7. Re:80% False Positive !?!? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    Translation: There will be a premium rate phone number that goes to India. It will never be answered, not that it would be any use if it was.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. We don't need $30 aspirin and $250/ 15min doctor by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    We don't need $30 aspirin and $250/ 15min doctor bills.

  9. benefits cliffs just make people work less or not by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    benefits cliffs just make people work less or not work at all.

    Why work MC's part time as if you end up working 22 hours one week vs say just 20 you lose benefits that take a long time to get back.

  10. Developer here by PPH · · Score: 1

    I thought they said frog detection.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. So what is acceptable error rate? by kenh · · Score: 1

    Critics say the 20% error rate is unacceptable as around 8,000 people will receive letters wrongly accusing them of fraud.

    And if you say Zero then you have to prove to me that the prior system had zero errors.

    Demanding perfection in replacing a flawed system is ridiculous.

    I guarantee there is a appeals process after detection - people will not be thrown out of their homes instantly.

    --
    Ken
  12. it depends on how the follow up is handled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the fraud is then MANUALLY checked by somebody competent in the same department, fine. if on the other hand this lead to an automatic guilt process, or requesting the person to prove their "innocence" that begins to be far far less fine. And that seem to be partially the case as those "fraud detection" recipient are sent automatic letters. How would you feel if your government accused you of fraud in an official letter ?

    1. Re:it depends on how the follow up is handled by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      How would you feel if your government accused you of fraud in an official letter ?

      Like an American citizen. Last year 0.86% of all tax returns resulted in an audit.

      This new system incorrectly flagged 0.80%. And they got a letter. I'm fairly certain that responding to the letter is both easier and faster than getting audited by the IRS in the US.

  13. Re:80% False Positive !?!? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If you were suspected of tax fraud you probably earned enough that the Tories consider you to be human.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The number that abuse the system is miniscule. The bigger problem is at the other end with tax dodging companies and individuals with more money than they or their descendants would even be able to spend for centuries.

  15. Re:Centrelink in Australia... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The UK did something similar before, I think it was with disability benefit. They outsourced it to a US company and paid them based on the number of cases processed and the amount of money saved.

    But I'm sure a quadriplegic could work on a building site, if he made the effort.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. Re: Good by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Your a fucking idiot.

    His what?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. I've got all me own teeth. In a jar. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It's all those Pollacks, Ruminants and Albino Huns. They'll all be sent packing soon thanks to that lovely Mr Farage.

    He's so dapper, isn't he? Never see him with without a proper shirt and tie.

    You couldn't get bananas. They all went to the brave boys in the trenches you know. Unless you dropped your knickers for any Yank that walked by, that is. So I heard.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Re:Centrelink in Australia... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    But I'm sure a quadriplegic could work on a building site, if he made the effort.

    Centrelink is way ahead of you...judging by the rate of progress, the entire crew working on Sydney’s new light rail are quadriplegics.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  19. Re:Failing at math again by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Been a while since I did stats, but I think you're right.

    Tossing a coin will give plenty of both.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Re:Centrelink in Australia... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Good news. The California 'High Speed Rail' build crew has just become available.

    They should put your schedule 'right'. You'll have Sydney light rail connecting Alice Springs with the nearest empty crossroads in only 10 years...depending on the breaks.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'