I don't think it's safe to write off that 1% if you don't first make sure you understand who that 1% is and how decisions like this, especially at scale, could harm those people. If a person says that they are eligible to work in the USA, that should be taken in good faith. If 99% of applicants are fraudulently answering this question, you're probably doing something wrong and need to figure out what's broken in your application process, rather than aggressively filtering out applicants based on correlation. It would be better to filter them out with a more robust application process that doesn't attract these scattershot job applications typically pushed by bots.
> I don't think it's safe to write off that 1% if you don't first make sure you understand who that 1% is and how decisions like this, especially at scale, could harm those people.
Businesses prioritize profit, not "safety" or whatever else you're talking about. Profit always comes first.
laws and regulations are supposed to provide a counter to a corporation's amoral greed which prioritizes profit over all else (including human life or suffering) and the harms that greed causes on a societal/global level.
If enough people are being wrongly treated because companies won't (and arguably shouldn't) care about the harms they are causing, that's when government should step in and find a way to force them to stop acting in ways that we (those of us who aren't amoral monsters) deem unacceptable.
It sounds like it might be time for governments to step up and address this situation with fraud detection, but hopefully part of that will involve cracking down harder on the rampant fraud going on that caused these flawed detection systems to be seen as necessary in the first place
