PDA

View Full Version : False Positives and the Nanny, er, Database State



Linoleum
07-16-2009, 08:44 AM
I always wince when spoofychop posts british tabloid tales. The UK seems hell-bent on sliding into a Brazilesque statist bureaucratic nightmare and reporting crap from the Daily Mirror obscures the real problem. Charles Stross looks at a hilariously depressing bit of think of the children (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/07/false_positives.html).


There is, in the UK (as elsewhere) a prevailing climate of paranoia about adults interacting with children.

In an attempt to be seen to Do Something, in the wake of a particularly gruesome multiple murder, the British government established a new agency, the Independent Safeguarding Authority, "to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults." Working with the Criminal Records Bureau, the ISA "will assess every person who wants to work or volunteer with vulnerable people. Potential employees and volunteers will need to apply to register with the ISA." For a fee of £64 you apply to the ISA for a background check. They then certify that you're not an evil paedophile and a threat to society, and issue you with a piece of paper that says you're allowed to interact with children in a specific role. Want multiple roles — driving kids to school in your taxi, and teaching them karate in the evening? — get multiple certificates.

Authors need to get a certificate before they can visit schools to deliver readings. MPs need a background check, it seems, before they can visit schools. (Usually the employer is responsible for getting the certificate; hilarity ensues when it transpires that MPs aren't actually employed by Parliament ...)

As you can imagine, the authors are upset. As Philip Pullman puts it, "It seems to be fuelled by the same combination of prurience, sexual fear and cold political calculation," the author of the bestselling His Dark Materials trilogy said today. "When you go into a school as an author or an illustrator you talk to a class at a time or else to the whole school. How on earth — how on earth — how in the world is anybody going to rape or assault a child in those circumstances? It's preposterous."

He then goes into some personal risk assessment based off error rates and a knowledge of database management and makes some conclusions as to whether or not it's a good idea to do readings at schools (hint: no).

Jason McCullough
07-16-2009, 09:31 AM
The problem here isn't databases; it's the British public's incredible ongoing moral panic about child molestation. It's oozing out through every possible pore of society over there, apparently.

Adam B
07-16-2009, 09:39 AM
Oof, it's actually worse over there than it is here? That must suck.

Tim James
07-16-2009, 10:36 AM
I haven't looked into it too much, but the problem seems to be that government has no real penalty for a false positive, other than a bit of ridicule and frustration from the public. Pre-emptively blow up a newsbin on the highway, shoot the minority holding a cell phone, accuse the law-abiding citizen of being a molestation risk: they almost have to be done these days because of either public or internal pressure not to let the big one happen on your watch. It's cover your ass to the nth degree because there is no push for efficiency, for lack of a better term.

It is like taking the criminal justice principle of letting 10 guilty men free rather than convict an innocent one, and turning it on its head. Democratic principles don't seem to be working to help fix the situation, either, and it could certainly be the public's fear of any single false negative that is at fault.

Shadarr
07-16-2009, 11:28 AM
the problem seems to be that government has no real penalty for a false positive

Sounds like the no-fly list in the US, or the sex offender list. Even though everyone knows they're fundamentally flawed and functionally useless, they persist because OMG terrorists! Pedophiles! One of the flaws in representative democracy seems to be that there is an incentive to be seen to be doing something, but no incentive to do something effective.

EvilIdler
07-16-2009, 03:28 PM
Sounds like I have zero chance of ever speaking in public there!

Anti-Bunny
07-16-2009, 03:44 PM
But what are they doing about peedoe-files (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NesjvRihbEg) using ONLINE GAMES? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx4ixXQFUQY)

Karen
07-17-2009, 08:01 AM
I mentor in the local public schools.
When I joined the group I had to be finger printed and have a background check done. They charged $20 which kind of irked me at the time. What, I have to pay to volunteer? The worst part is that I work in an industry which requires extensive background checks. The thing that pissed me off the most was that the second check was a waste of time and money, but I couldn't say - hey just check this database and we can all save some time and money. It looks like in the UK there will be at least a central database.

SpoofyChop
07-17-2009, 12:50 PM
I like it when other people notice this kind of bullshit tyranny and call it out so I don't have to.

:)

cliffski
07-18-2009, 01:59 AM
Its so fucking retarded. If my local college or school wanted someone to talk about game development for free, I'd happily do it. The minute they mention something about background checks, and the laughable suggestion to bill me for it, they could fuck off.
What retards think this is a good idea?

Nellie
07-19-2009, 07:01 AM
Daily Mail readers