One might argue that a citizen shouldn't need to prove they didn't break a law, but rather the government has to (reliably) prove that they did.
I wonder if there's a phrase for that.
I wonder if there's a phrase for that.
It doesn't especially matter where the burden of proof lies if the process for contesting requires any substantial amount of effort on the part of the victim of the false positive.
In other words, the burden of proof is still on the government to provide sufficient evidence. If they won’t or can’t, there is no case.
That should be codified into law because the state is doubly incentivized to do nothing about false positives. If you pay it, they get free money. If you don’t, they get free labor.
But what we should expect (and demand) is that the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal.
I would actually ask that the errors be easier to correct, not just no harder.
Even if the error rate is lower, automated systems will detect a larger number of errors and therefore are likely to create a larger number of false positives. If we're going to automate the creation of false positives we need to equivalently automate their correction.
The only thing you can argue is that it shouldnt require a court case to dispute unless it fails a human review.