The third is that we may think we only know what we know but we often know, or have information or intelligence relating to it, that which we don’t know we know.
The fourth is that some people think that knowledge and belief are the same; they are not. Others think that suspicion requires proof: it does not.
Suspicion is an emotional reaction to that which is before us. It is a state of mind It’s like or not like; trust or not trust. It is vague. It is a value judgement, often reached in a matter of moments.
This is why machines cannot reach suspicion. Machines cannot develop a state of mind. They best they can hope for is that someone has risk-scored every possible relevant circumstance and set value that, if exactly those circumstances were present at that time and in that order, a human would consider to be suspicious. That’s not going to happen, no matter what the technologists say. Why? Because machines can’t feel. They cannot think. They cannot make value judgements.
Can a machine be ″wilfully blind?″ The answer to that is ″no″ and that’s why the answer to ″can a machine define suspicion″ also has to be ″no.″
And that’s a fact.
The topics in this blog are expanded upon, with many other approaches to understanding suspicion, in my book ″Understanding Suspicion in Financial Crime.″ which, in May 2021 will go out of print and will be revised, updated and added to as an e-learning course at www.financialcrimeriskandcompliancetraining.com .