6 ms·

I live in Europe. I’ve been under investigation for money laundering twice in the last three years - not because I’ve laundered a single dime, but because I ha

I live in Europe. I’ve been under investigation for money laundering twice in the last three years - not because I’ve laundered a single dime, but because I have no discernible employment and move large capital sums around the globe almost constantly, and my bank accounts and tax returns inarguably look fucking weird. All 100% above board - I just made some good investments a while back. I even had the feds come knocking because they decided they needed to check I wasn’t trafficking narcotics. We had a nice chat, they decided they didn’t need to search the place, and six months later I got a letter confirming the case had been archived. Like one of the folks in the article, I had weed on me when they rocked up. Thankfully, in Europe, that’s basically just a “shrug” by law enforcement, unless you’ve got clear intent to distribute. From how it all went, they had quite clearly decided this was a waste of their fucking time before they even arrived. None of this is a good thing, and none of it is terribly new, either - reporting on finances has been going on for decades, but the integration is getting tighter. The main problem as I see it is that it has a horrendous false positive rate, and you end up with innocent folks like yours truly having to waste their time and energy proving that they are innocent of a crime that a machine dreamt up.

taybin 8d ago
It does sound like you should have been investigated though. Like, this sounds like the (or a) system working. What would the alternatives be? Don't investigate for money laundering? Or have so much info that they can eliminate you as interesting without even having a visit?
- iamnothere 8d ago
  Wait for actual evidence of a crime (or even an anonymous tip) instead of going on a fishing expedition targeting anyone with an unusual lifestyle or weird spending habits? I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
  - RHSeeger 8d ago
    > I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. I use this type of point all the time, and every time to blank stares. Me> The Flock surveillance network is bad - it is an invasion of privacy and gives way too much power to people that should not have that power. It _can_ be used to solve crimes, and does. But so could not allowing anyone out of their house without a permit. But that, too, would be stupid and harm society Them> _blank stare_ But.. it saved a child once.
    - pocksuppet 7d ago
      There is no evidence that Flock has ever saved a child once.
  - madaxe_again 8d ago
    I’m not sure that informants are the way to go either. More often than not in history, this has just been used as a tool to mess with the lives of people you do not like.
- RHSeeger 8d ago
  False positives are never a _should_ thing, they're a "best we can do, and worth the cost" thing (or not). It's entirely reasonable to push for a better system, one with fewer false positives (and false negatives).
  - taybin 8d ago
    I think finding better systems with fewer false negatives and fewer false positives is very difficult and might even be impossible for many things. It might be my lack of imagination, but I often think about the measures taken to prevent child abuse. As I see it, you’re either going to get kids left in abusive situations or you’re going to have kids unjustly removed. Both are terrible. I’m not going to argue where the action bias should be. We live in an imperfect world. I think preventing other crimes is similar. There will always be injustice on some side of the issue. And I’m not trying to argue that that means the status quo is great! But I don’t think we will eventually hone in a perfect system. Maybe just circle around some imaginary point, refining rules and processes until the whole thing breaks down.
    - RHSeeger 8d ago
      Even if we can't find ways to improve, we should continue to try.
- madaxe_again 8d ago
  The actual money launderers don’t leave honking great big digital footprints everywhere, and so aren’t found by these systems.

taybin 8d ago

It does sound like you should have been investigated though. Like, this sounds like the (or a) system working. What would the alternatives be? Don't investigate for money laundering? Or have so much info that they can eliminate you as interesting without even having a visit?

iamnothere 8d ago
Wait for actual evidence of a crime (or even an anonymous tip) instead of going on a fishing expedition targeting anyone with an unusual lifestyle or weird spending habits? I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
- RHSeeger 8d ago
  > I’m sure we could just put always-on cameras in every house to catch criminals too, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. I use this type of point all the time, and every time to blank stares. Me> The Flock surveillance network is bad - it is an invasion of privacy and gives way too much power to people that should not have that power. It _can_ be used to solve crimes, and does. But so could not allowing anyone out of their house without a permit. But that, too, would be stupid and harm society Them> _blank stare_ But.. it saved a child once.
  - pocksuppet 7d ago
    There is no evidence that Flock has ever saved a child once.
- madaxe_again 8d ago
  I’m not sure that informants are the way to go either. More often than not in history, this has just been used as a tool to mess with the lives of people you do not like.
RHSeeger 8d ago
False positives are never a _should_ thing, they're a "best we can do, and worth the cost" thing (or not). It's entirely reasonable to push for a better system, one with fewer false positives (and false negatives).
- taybin 8d ago
  I think finding better systems with fewer false negatives and fewer false positives is very difficult and might even be impossible for many things. It might be my lack of imagination, but I often think about the measures taken to prevent child abuse. As I see it, you’re either going to get kids left in abusive situations or you’re going to have kids unjustly removed. Both are terrible. I’m not going to argue where the action bias should be. We live in an imperfect world. I think preventing other crimes is similar. There will always be injustice on some side of the issue. And I’m not trying to argue that that means the status quo is great! But I don’t think we will eventually hone in a perfect system. Maybe just circle around some imaginary point, refining rules and processes until the whole thing breaks down.
  - RHSeeger 8d ago
    Even if we can't find ways to improve, we should continue to try.
madaxe_again 8d ago
The actual money launderers don’t leave honking great big digital footprints everywhere, and so aren’t found by these systems.