The system, called Giant Oak Search Technology (GOST), ranks a person's social media scores from one to 100 based on what it thinks is relevant to the...
US immigration enforcement used an AI-powered tool to scan social media posts “derogatory” to the US | “The government should not be using algorithms to scrutinize our social media posts”::undefined
Yeah this is scary and honestly why I’m super careful what I put online. Well, mostly.
There are professional social media checkers who will find your hidden/locked social media (and Reddit etc).
They get hired by recruitment agencies or companies who are hiring.
And on the surface it could be to check no one is a secret nazi/chauvanist etc
But I bet there’s secondary data about political leanings or how “appropriate” your friends are.
Or if you’re willing to be a part of the old boy’s club (coke and strippers is fine for execs, but you can’t have a nephew who is in a labor union etc).
Yep. The CCP’s social credit system was always going to be the end game of surveillance capitalism. It will be spearheaded by conservatives because they’re the most religious, authoritarian, and have an innate desire to restrict social progress and enforce their views on everyone else.
The best part is they’ll claim it’s completely different and represents Freedom™️ because it’ll be established by capitalism… Even though it’s functionally identical, the CCP are more capitalist than communist, and western conservatives jizz their pants at the level of power and control the CCP have over the Chinese people.
The general thought or claim for companies that do or permit this is that they’re performing some sort of due diligence or that it increases their knowledge of the candidate. The problem is that even if they tried to be objective it’s easy for a candidate to claim discrimination, even if it’s not discriminatory on it’s face. Why?
When you get asked questions in a job interview or on a screening form, it’s very easy to control that these questions and the implied related decisions are related to the job, work and just that. The screening questions for protected classes you see (are you a vet, disabled, what is your sex, ethnic background, etc.) are almost exclusively stored for reporting purposes and not even accessible during the hiring process, which is a good thing for reducing bias. Outside of a candidate volunteering “I’m Hindu” in an interview, the hiring team and/or HR for the most part would have no way to be exposed to lots of personal information about the candidate.
Enter social media. If you work for a company and click on an applicant’s social media profile and see them sacrificing a goat with a group of people and are scared or disturbed and change course in the hiring process, guess what, you just likely discriminated on the basis of religion. Picture of them partying and drinking with friends, don’t look responsible. Guess what they were at a club specific to their sexual orientation or identity and you just screwed your company. The key point in these examples is that even if you didn’t consider a post or image in your decision, it’s difficult to prove, and social media is an entire library of potential biased or protected classes.
Every piece of data available has shown that humans are unable to control biases in the interview process. Allowing or endorsing social media screening for companies is not only a terrible liability, but it’s not going to be effective as your humans are going to fall victim to the same biases they normally do and make the same mediocre decisions they currently do.
If you’re interested in this topic or Human Resources related subjects, take a look at !ask_hr@lemmy.world (https://lemmy.world/c/ask_hr )
Oh so only the exact thing we’ve criticized China for? Are we going to start taking people’s passports as they’re exiting the country to detain them for months for slander now?
When I travel I generally delete all my social media apps off my phone and leave my laptop at home, this seems drastic and I actually think it’s more trouble than it’s worth to be honest. I have no past history of crimes, my politics are left leaning but I’m naturally curious about all branches of political leanings, religions and philosophies among other things. Oddly I have recently gotten off telegram and my instances of being questioned by the CBP (for no reason at all) have virtually stopped.
There’s a world of difference between witnessing something in public and following someone around, making note of everything they say and do “in public.” We call the latter “stalking” when an individual does it.
“A regular 4th amendment violation right here! Everyone look - the government is looking at my Instagram without a warrant!”
Please. At this point the NSA has probably already developed their own internal LLM based on illegally collected communications intercepts combined with many other data sources and is using that to aid in parallel construction efforts.
But no, let’s worry about whether what you post on Instagram should need a warrant, because somehow you have an expectation of privacy for the things you publicly post on the Internet…
Lemmy is hilarious sometimes.
Fun fact: The US government is allowed to read any emails in cloud storage older than 6 months old without a warrant.
The issue I see is less a 4th amendment than a 1st. Any “derogatory” language has long since been upheld as protected, so any action they took based on the information would 100% be illegal. Yes, the CIA/NSA has actually stated that they love social media because we are all just surveilling ourselves for them. That is them, not ICE. ICE has no business tracking people’s social media.
Technically until they have successfully immigrated there’s limited first amendment rights.
As the supreme court has found over and over, given there is no inherent legal right to enter the country, there is no infringement of rights to discriminate who can and can’t enter based on political speech. For prior cases if you are interested, see:
Exclusion of a British anarchist was at issue in Turner v. Williams (1904).
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952) concerned deportation of communists.
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) examined denial of a travel visa to a Marxist.
So while ethically you may feel it’s an infringement of the principles of the first amendment, it is not currently seen that way legally and hasn’t for a long while.
At the same time, whenever there is a mass shooting where the killer posted their intent online, people always say “why weren’t the authorities paying attention”.
We’re on track for some 600-700 mass shooters this year.
The US has 300 million social media users.
So in a given year, 0.00023% of social media users will turn out to be mass shooters.
So even if we had an algorithm that was 99.99% accurate at identifying a potential mass shooter from social media, we’d still have a less than 1% chance of correctly identifying a mass shooter from social media posts.
So what’s the cost of false positives? Do people flagged by such a system get harassed by law enforcement? If they are sovereign citizen type gun nuts or paranoid schizophrenics, does the additional law enforcement attention potentially instigate shootings or standoffs that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred at a higher rate than the successful prevention of mass shootings?
And what’s the false negative rate? Because if only a small number of mass shooters are correctly identified by such an algorithm at a high rate of false positives but a majority of shooters actually slip through the cracks as false negatives, there too is the potential for overreliance on an algorithm to harm progress towards alternative solutions (such as advancing legislation banning firearm possession for people with mental health issues).
AI analysis of social media combined with other data sources becomes a more appropriate tool in a situation like “we have three suspects based on multiple other factors for who is an active shooter - did any of the three have a recent stressor in their life such as a job loss?” In that case an 80% correct model could be quite helpful.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I for one welcome… blah blah
Yeah this is scary and honestly why I’m super careful what I put online. Well, mostly.
There are professional social media checkers who will find your hidden/locked social media (and Reddit etc).
They get hired by recruitment agencies or companies who are hiring.
And on the surface it could be to check no one is a secret nazi/chauvanist etc
But I bet there’s secondary data about political leanings or how “appropriate” your friends are.
Or if you’re willing to be a part of the old boy’s club (coke and strippers is fine for execs, but you can’t have a nephew who is in a labor union etc).
Yep. The CCP’s social credit system was always going to be the end game of surveillance capitalism. It will be spearheaded by conservatives because they’re the most religious, authoritarian, and have an innate desire to restrict social progress and enforce their views on everyone else.
The best part is they’ll claim it’s completely different and represents Freedom™️ because it’ll be established by capitalism… Even though it’s functionally identical, the CCP are more capitalist than communist, and western conservatives jizz their pants at the level of power and control the CCP have over the Chinese people.
Yeah, my company for sure checks all social media during hiring background checks.
Your HR are morons.
The general thought or claim for companies that do or permit this is that they’re performing some sort of due diligence or that it increases their knowledge of the candidate. The problem is that even if they tried to be objective it’s easy for a candidate to claim discrimination, even if it’s not discriminatory on it’s face. Why?
When you get asked questions in a job interview or on a screening form, it’s very easy to control that these questions and the implied related decisions are related to the job, work and just that. The screening questions for protected classes you see (are you a vet, disabled, what is your sex, ethnic background, etc.) are almost exclusively stored for reporting purposes and not even accessible during the hiring process, which is a good thing for reducing bias. Outside of a candidate volunteering “I’m Hindu” in an interview, the hiring team and/or HR for the most part would have no way to be exposed to lots of personal information about the candidate.
Enter social media. If you work for a company and click on an applicant’s social media profile and see them sacrificing a goat with a group of people and are scared or disturbed and change course in the hiring process, guess what, you just likely discriminated on the basis of religion. Picture of them partying and drinking with friends, don’t look responsible. Guess what they were at a club specific to their sexual orientation or identity and you just screwed your company. The key point in these examples is that even if you didn’t consider a post or image in your decision, it’s difficult to prove, and social media is an entire library of potential biased or protected classes.
Every piece of data available has shown that humans are unable to control biases in the interview process. Allowing or endorsing social media screening for companies is not only a terrible liability, but it’s not going to be effective as your humans are going to fall victim to the same biases they normally do and make the same mediocre decisions they currently do.
If you’re interested in this topic or Human Resources related subjects, take a look at !ask_hr@lemmy.world (https://lemmy.world/c/ask_hr )
Oh so only the exact thing we’ve criticized China for? Are we going to start taking people’s passports as they’re exiting the country to detain them for months for slander now?
When I travel I generally delete all my social media apps off my phone and leave my laptop at home, this seems drastic and I actually think it’s more trouble than it’s worth to be honest. I have no past history of crimes, my politics are left leaning but I’m naturally curious about all branches of political leanings, religions and philosophies among other things. Oddly I have recently gotten off telegram and my instances of being questioned by the CBP (for no reason at all) have virtually stopped.
deleted by creator
And I just saw an article yesterday stating that the government is creating a whole department to manage the impact of AI and how it is used.
I have nothing to hide
.
/s
The government should not be scrutinizing anyone’s social media outside of a criminal investigation with a warrant.
Public posts have no expectation of privacy.
There’s a world of difference between witnessing something in public and following someone around, making note of everything they say and do “in public.” We call the latter “stalking” when an individual does it.
Looking at someone’s post history != following a person around.
Further following someone around is not stalking there has to be an action that would make someone fear being harmed.
If I click your username, I see everthing this account has posted to Lemmy. There’s no real-world equivalent to that.
Nearly everyone using Lemmy knows that’s how the software works and should keep that in mind when posting.
It’s not just public posts, private messaging apps are also scrutinized.
The AI system searches public posts, it’s not able to read DMs, it doesn’t have login credentials.
Arr gotcha, I was referring to searching devices generally.
Hahahaha.
‘Warrant’ for public data.
“A regular 4th amendment violation right here! Everyone look - the government is looking at my Instagram without a warrant!”
Please. At this point the NSA has probably already developed their own internal LLM based on illegally collected communications intercepts combined with many other data sources and is using that to aid in parallel construction efforts.
But no, let’s worry about whether what you post on Instagram should need a warrant, because somehow you have an expectation of privacy for the things you publicly post on the Internet…
Lemmy is hilarious sometimes.
Fun fact: The US government is allowed to read any emails in cloud storage older than 6 months old without a warrant.
The issue I see is less a 4th amendment than a 1st. Any “derogatory” language has long since been upheld as protected, so any action they took based on the information would 100% be illegal. Yes, the CIA/NSA has actually stated that they love social media because we are all just surveilling ourselves for them. That is them, not ICE. ICE has no business tracking people’s social media.
Technically until they have successfully immigrated there’s limited first amendment rights.
As the supreme court has found over and over, given there is no inherent legal right to enter the country, there is no infringement of rights to discriminate who can and can’t enter based on political speech. For prior cases if you are interested, see:
So while ethically you may feel it’s an infringement of the principles of the first amendment, it is not currently seen that way legally and hasn’t for a long while.
deleted by creator
At the same time, whenever there is a mass shooting where the killer posted their intent online, people always say “why weren’t the authorities paying attention”.
The problem is false positive and negative rates.
We’re on track for some 600-700 mass shooters this year.
The US has 300 million social media users.
So in a given year, 0.00023% of social media users will turn out to be mass shooters.
So even if we had an algorithm that was 99.99% accurate at identifying a potential mass shooter from social media, we’d still have a less than 1% chance of correctly identifying a mass shooter from social media posts.
So what’s the cost of false positives? Do people flagged by such a system get harassed by law enforcement? If they are sovereign citizen type gun nuts or paranoid schizophrenics, does the additional law enforcement attention potentially instigate shootings or standoffs that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred at a higher rate than the successful prevention of mass shootings?
And what’s the false negative rate? Because if only a small number of mass shooters are correctly identified by such an algorithm at a high rate of false positives but a majority of shooters actually slip through the cracks as false negatives, there too is the potential for overreliance on an algorithm to harm progress towards alternative solutions (such as advancing legislation banning firearm possession for people with mental health issues).
AI analysis of social media combined with other data sources becomes a more appropriate tool in a situation like “we have three suspects based on multiple other factors for who is an active shooter - did any of the three have a recent stressor in their life such as a job loss?” In that case an 80% correct model could be quite helpful.