|
|
|
|
|
|
by adaptiveValleys
2532 days ago
|
|
|
I think that's the intent, but it seems to only have incentivized discovering another proxy for race. For example, I recently watched an infosec talk 'hacking your credit score.'[0] Where the presenter mentioned that Fair Isaac (a reporting agency mentioned in the article) has a parameter in their algorithm called 'HMA' (High Minority Area), that he found in an internal presentation. I think a solution would be any parameter that remotely gives a correlate for race should be entirely eliminated from scoring systems. Another startling insight from that talk was how normal services (i.e. home utilities, insurance, etc) will do credit inquiries and set a customer's rate based on their score. Which results in people with low credit scores pay more for services that are traditionally unrelated to borrowing. I'm worried that it could lead to a positive feedback loop that heavily affects those with poor credit scores in the long term. For this, it seems like a limitation on the kind of business relationships allowed to perform credit inquiries should be implemented. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gFDnQGr6WU |
|
|
The problem is, that's every parameter. The outcome you're trying to predict (will borrower repay debt) correlates with race, so other things that correlate with that outcome also correlate with race.
What you really need to do is to include as many non-race factors as you can, to give people with a couple of negative factors (who are often black or hispanic) more chances to redeem themselves with the other ones, to get the false positive rate down as much as you can.
Because the false positives (and false negatives) are really the problem. The true positives are... well, true.