> According to the article, the actions described seem like discrete and well-defined like giving false information about terrorism, and not paying fines.
That's just the sales pitch to make it seem reasonable and positive to the average person. It's naive to think that this social credit system won't have a political component. Here are some descriptions of some current pilot programs that make that much clearer:
> But the fourth category, behaviour and preference, is where it gets interesting.
> Under this system, something as innocuous as a person's shopping habits become a measure of character. Alibaba admits it judges people by the types of products they buy. "Someone who plays video games for ten hours a day, for example, would be considered an idle person," says Li Yingyun, Sesame's Technology Director. "Someone who frequently buys diapers would be considered as probably a parent, who on balance is more likely to have a sense of responsibility." So the system not only investigates behaviour - it shapes it. It "nudges" citizens away from purchases and behaviours the government does not like.
> Friends matter, too. The fifth category is interpersonal relationships. What does their choice of online friends and their interactions say about the person being assessed? Sharing what Sesame Credit refers to as "positive energy" online, nice messages about the government or how well the country's economy is doing, will make your score go up.
If they're slurping up your purchases and social media for your credit score, it's going to be a lot more than about if you lie or fail to pay fines.
Also what might "false information about terrorism" really mean in practice? Vouching for your friend when the government thinks he's a dissident?
The thing is, these all aren't enforced by governments, but through social media and organizations. The popular one sesame credit in China is from the Alibaba group, not the Chinese government. In the same vein, Instagram is it's own platform, people can determine how much they think "followers" are worth and businesses can use their own discretion to decide how much to enforce their own policies based on others "social credit" or "followers"
>In China each adult citizen is getting a government mandated "social credit score". This represents how well behaved they are, and is based on crime records, what they say on social media, what they buy, and even the scores of their friends.
This really isn't all that different than what is happening elsewhere across the world today. Your Uber rider score represents your "social credit" for that service. Your Airbnb guest reviews impact if you will be allowed to rent a room. Each platform is putting social credit in place via crowd-sourced "trust"
EDIT: I don't mean to minimize China's human rights violations, but to posture that independently of central control many companies are implementing their own versions of these systems, which can have _some_ of the same effects in terms of losing access to services. Obviously one's Uber scores won't put you in jail / detainment camp and I was not intended to imply such.
"The public blacklist has been incorporated by another incarnation of the social credit system — Zhima Credit, a service of the mobile payment provider Alipay. China has a huge mobile payment market, with transactions totaling $5.5 trillion in 2016, compared with $112 billion in the United States. Alipay, owned by Ant Financial, and WeChat Pay dominate the still-growing Chinese market.
Zhima Credit is an optional service embedded in Alipay that calculates users’ personal credit based on data such as spending history, friends on Alipay’s social network, and other types of consumer behavior. Zhima Credit’s technology director controversially told the Chinese magazine Caixin in 2015 that buying diapers, for example, would be considered “responsible” behavior, while playing video games for hours could be counted against you.
Hu Tao, Zhima Credit’s general manager, paints a different picture now. She says the app doesn’t monitor social media posts “nor does it attempt to measure qualitative characteristics like character, honesty, or moral value.” Zhima Credit is not a pilot for the social credit system and doesn’t share data with the government without users’ consent, she says."
> While English-language media describe China’s social credit system as a Black Mirror-like authoritarian implementation, Chinese social media users seem to focus more on the advantages than the burdens.
> At time of writing, Sesame Credit has 240.000 fans on its official Weibo account (@????), where they promote the most recent benefits to users with higher credit scores, such as the possibility to get Hello Bicycle (????) rental bikes without deposits.
> Apart from Hello Bike or Ford, there is a myriad of other brands that seem happy to participate in the Sesame Credit system and the idea of Shared Economy. “Thumbs up for sharing [economy]!”, some netizens comment.
This can't be more ridiculous, whoever wrote this article has no idea what Sesame score is, but I do agree with the author that the totalitarian government in China does have the intentions to associate not political opinions with credit system, they may wants to add morality in to account also.
Sesame score is less than harmless, and to most extent, less than useless. China already has a political rating system it's called ??(Personal Record File). Actually it has acted a crucial part in Chinese society, individual themselves aren't allowed to access their own file, and records inputs we given by their supervisors. You will have your record with you since elementary school, or even earlier. It was serious in 80s and early 90s where state owns everything, you can imagine how hard for an individual to live back in the old days. Since private firms became the mainstream and acts an important role in the Chinese economic structure, these files are no longer required for private owners. As of today, it's only important if you work for state owned units, but it still works, and alive.
If the totalitarian government wants to make a political evaluation system, they can just make use of ??, plus minus Internet surveillance data they gathered all the time. There's no need of data from any parts that Alibaba(NASDAQ:BABA) owns, Weibo(NASDAQ:WB) is the most influential social network in China, but a local government/state-owned companies easily take down any information they think inappropriate. They do have have read/write privileges to these information, not to mention other minor ones. As for data mining, not a problem, given the resource they have.
Also they don't need something like a smokescreen, or justification for that, since there's already a similar system working, it's easier to maintain that start a new one.
Sesame is merely a joke in the game of privacy-invasion, or credit scoring. Consumers don't care about their sesame score, since they can't make use of it. The imaginary party they 'are trying to serve' in the article, doesn't need them. Though the Aligroup tried to do some evil, but was too dubious and obvious. Last time they tried really hard to do some evil deeds and do crossed some lines by calling your friends telling them your purchases when you have overdue bills for sometime[1]. Things like such makes people question their capabilities of being evil, also ability to score people's credit correctly.
> The Chinese social credit system looks at your social media and phone usage and says, "Sorry, we're denying you a loan because you were critical of the government."
That's a common misconception of how Chinese social credit works. China doesn't really care if you're criticizing the government as long as if they don't think of you as a threat. If they do, they'll simply imprison you. If the government is only a little suspicious, they wouldn't want to send you on guard by lowering your credit score.
This goes much further into social behavior, and takes advantage of consumer and social data in new ways:
"If friends have a poor lending reputation, this reflects badly on the person, just as prolonged playing of video games. Buying diapers indicates responsibility and scores therefore well."
Also, while it starts with financial responsibility, the ambitions are larger:
"The intentions of the new system are not only economical, fighting fraudulent practices, but also moral. 'This is a deliberate effort by the Chinese government to promote among its citizens "socialist core values" such as patriotism, respecting the elderly, working hard and avoiding extravagant consumption', says Creemers."
> The social credit score in China is far more invasive and penalizes you for associating yourself with individuals who have low scores.
Social network-influenced credit scores are becoming common internationally, including by US lenders, but do not appear to be used yet by the major credit reporting agencies in the US due to uncertainty over status under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (just a few of many articles):
> I've seen quite a lot of criticism against the social credit system. But to me it it just crime history and (financial) credit history mined from big data and combined into a centralized system.
> What's particularly bad about the system per se,
Tightening everyday social control that's at least partially designed to serve the political goals of an unabashedly authoritarian regime that's self-consciously opposed to things like "universal values of human rights." [1] [2]
It might be easier to understand it this way: in China, you're a de-facto criminal if they judge you to be in some way opposed to the regime.
> The social credit score in China... penalizes you for associating yourself with individuals who have low scores.
This isn't the same social credit that is mentioned in this article. What you're describing is a speculated feature of a social credit system that doesn't even exist yet.
> One such company, Lenddo, determines if you're friends on Facebook (FB) with someone who was late paying back a loan to Lenddo. If so, that's bad news for you. It's even worse news if the delinquent friend is someone you frequently interact with.
Fully expect to see this sort of thing incorporated in credit scores barring legislation to restrict it. We've got even less ability as individuals to stop Equifax from doing this sort of stuff than we would versus a government.
> The technology Daquin and colleagues learned about in Shenzhen underpinned what would become China’s “Social Credit System.” The still-evolving system, part of which uses “smart citizen cards” developed by ZTE, grades citizens based on behavior including financial solvency and political activity. Good behavior can earn citizens discounts on utilities or loans. Bad marks can get them banned from public transport or their kids blocked from top schools.
A detailed look into China's famed social credit system by
Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard.
1. scores are computed using models like FICO (credit worthiness)
2. scores b/n 0–1000
3. scores computed based on “Big data” - basic data, +ve credit, notices, bad credit.
4. Scoring models are akin to standard "FICO"
5. Activities that boost score:
- on time contribution to social security, insurance
- volunteering
- donating blood
- using public transport
- separating waste
- work as teachers/doctors/public interest areas
6. Quantifying social behavior is at the core of the system. Algos used are far from mature or proven
7. No ML/AI models used
8. App-based/WeChat interfaces
9. Score benefits:
- deposit free access
- discounted access
- priority access to services.
0. You lose points by breaking law
- Minor (5-10)
- Moderate (15-20)
- Serious (30-50)
- Extreme (100-150)
11. Who can levy deductions?
- Traffic Police
- Common Reserve Fund
- Urban Mgmt Committee
> At the same time, a whopping 76 percent of survey participants said that “mutual mistrust between citizens” is a problem in Chinese society. Social credit systems are viewed as a means of bridging that trust gap.
I'd say on the contrary, when anyone could snitch on you, you'd lose your trust in society. The social credit system might have the exact opposite effect than intended.
No, that's not quite how Sesame Credits work in China.[1][2] The system computes a social score for each citizen. But it's not run by the Government or a bank. It's run by Tencent and Alibaba. It tracks what you say online, what you buy, and who your friends are. Having a low-scoring friend brings your score down. New feature: Baihe, China's largest dating service, now uses Sesame Credit scores in matching. It's voluntary now, but will become mandatory in 2020.
This is the successor to the Dang'an, a permanent record kept for each citizen of China since it went Communist. The record was typically maintained in a book by the employer, in conjunction with the Public Security Organization. The Dang'an system became less relevant as more non-state employers appeared. Now it's getting an upgrade.
All of this cloud data will eventually be funneled into your social credit score ("Sesame Credit"). This is already happening. Chinese individuals are being ostracized from personal and professional relations because of their score.
China invented whuffie, but in the most dystopian and fascist way possible.
--
Edit with citations as requested. (I'm not asserting that this social pressure is universal or even common yet.)
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/
She explained how to boost my score. “They will check what kind of friends you have,” she said. “If your friends are all high-score people, it’s good for you. If you have some bad-credit people as friends, it’s not nice.”
[1] https://theconversation.com/chinas-social-credit-system-puts...
“Since last December, the National Development and Reform Commission and Central Bank of China began to approve pilot plans to integrate big data with the Social Credit System. As one of China’s first pilot provinces, Guizhou province was selected to showcase a government-led experiment of a big data-empowered Social Credit System.”
Australia, for example now lowers your credit score if you pay bills late. But it doesn't (yet?) penalize you for who you associate with.
That's a defense of a financial credit score system, not a social credit score system. And it's no defense of a top-down authoritarian score system.
China doesn't have free speech or free press, so unfortunately a Chinese resident can only form "low-information" opinions about issues outside their immediate experience; as they spend their entire life under the brainwashing of an authoritarian government.
That's just the sales pitch to make it seem reasonable and positive to the average person. It's naive to think that this social credit system won't have a political component. Here are some descriptions of some current pilot programs that make that much clearer:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-cr...:
> But the fourth category, behaviour and preference, is where it gets interesting.
> Under this system, something as innocuous as a person's shopping habits become a measure of character. Alibaba admits it judges people by the types of products they buy. "Someone who plays video games for ten hours a day, for example, would be considered an idle person," says Li Yingyun, Sesame's Technology Director. "Someone who frequently buys diapers would be considered as probably a parent, who on balance is more likely to have a sense of responsibility." So the system not only investigates behaviour - it shapes it. It "nudges" citizens away from purchases and behaviours the government does not like.
> Friends matter, too. The fifth category is interpersonal relationships. What does their choice of online friends and their interactions say about the person being assessed? Sharing what Sesame Credit refers to as "positive energy" online, nice messages about the government or how well the country's economy is doing, will make your score go up.
If they're slurping up your purchases and social media for your credit score, it's going to be a lot more than about if you lie or fail to pay fines.
Also what might "false information about terrorism" really mean in practice? Vouching for your friend when the government thinks he's a dissident?
reply