Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#101

Post by smsm42 »

dnomad wrote: post #75
smsm42 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question…

> US legal system seems to disagree with you. You're wrong. The use of the term "criminalization" here is correct. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime [1]. You then deliberately try to conflate this with border crossing but note that irregular border crossing is also not a crime when individuals are seeking asylum. The US law here is actually q…

> The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime

Being is not. Crossing the border not via border control is.

> but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane

We are not discussing what is humane according to some international treaty, we are discussing what is the US law and whether ICE has any power to change it. US law is illegal border crossing is a crime and ICE must enforce it.

> ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties

It does. Changing the law about what is criminal and what is not is not part of it. It can, if directed by the head of the executive, refuse to uphold the law and prosecute behavior which is criminal by law, but that won't change the fact it is criminal - it'd be just criminal behavior that is not prosecuted. They way to make it not criminal is to change the law that makes it criminal. And, also, they can not just decide something is criminal and start prosecuting it without the law already having it as a crime - it's just not in their powers.

> Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police

Whose popular belief? ICE is a separate law enforcement agency, just as FBI, DEA, CBP or Secret Service are. The fact that they are not police does not change their powers as an executive agency.

> There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own.

There is, but it doesn't change anything about criminality.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#102

Post by dolzenko »

rumcajz wrote: post #99
confounded wrote: post #42

Seeing, in the press, actual technologists' opinions on what is and isn't a good use for their technologies is extremely refreshing, and something that that many on HN have grumbled about for a long time. Along with the similar actions at Google and Microsoft[0,1], I hope that this represents a bit more of the decision-making power of tech companies coming back towards technologists, and away from the money-men. [0]:…

It would be nice if this spread beyond the US. Although it's kind of hard to imagine workers having any voice in countries like Russia or China.

One always has a voice simply by choosing the place to work at.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#103

Post by andrewmcwatters »

int_19h wrote: post #82
wencha wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason, the conversation here and in some other places is dominated by people who want open borders, and therefore don’t believe entering a country without permission is illegal. Such an argument would never fly in real life, so I don’t know why so much time is wasted arguing with them. It feels like some kind of elaborate trolling, saying something super crazy and waiting for answers (baiting).

Most people appalled at what's going on aren't arguing for open borders. They do want borders, and some degree of border security. What they're saying is that at some point, the amount of suffering you have to cause to reach that level of security is simply morally unacceptable.

Oh, those poor criminals.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#104

Post by sctb »

awalton wrote: post #87
derping_hacker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. Free college education for every American would cost 50-60. Why should I value criminals more than my fellow Americans. What legal obligation do I have to have the money I work for used to pay for illegal immigrants? We could educate every american and have another 60 billion to spare to help the African-American community. http…

Well, it's good to know Russian robots have made it to Hacker News.

> Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#105

Post by bb88 »

confounded wrote: post #96
bb88 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were an honest debater, you would have discussed the pros and cons of facial recognition software instead of labeling my position as somehow inherently evil without argument.

No need to assume I’m out to get you. Are there benefits of facial recognition cameras for law enforcement which can’t be said of other mass surveillance techniques? Are there specific pros you want to be acknowledged?

I didn't realize you have the PhD to diagnose me as paranoid as well.

Again, if you want an honest debate, I'm willing to have one. But I think in your quest to make a popular rhetorical argument, you've lost the moral high ground.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#106

Post by jstanley »

naasking wrote: post #88
confounded wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if the parent expressed anything approaching either anger or hate. > ... that protection will require facial recognition software. Why? Lots of things are effective, but life in a free country means that we don’t do some of them. We could put cameras in every home, make them illegal to disable. Ban encryption. Censor the web. Ban cars that can’t be remotely disabled. Free societies are free because there is…

> My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Your assumption that this software would be used for authoritarian ends is exactly the problem the OP was trying to point out.

The argument is that use of this software is inherently authoritarian, in and of itself.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#108

Post by whatyoucantsay »

bb88 wrote: post #105
confounded wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to assume I’m out to get you. Are there benefits of facial recognition cameras for law enforcement which can’t be said of other mass surveillance techniques? Are there specific pros you want to be acknowledged?

I didn't realize you have the PhD to diagnose me as paranoid as well. Again, if you want an honest debate, I'm willing to have one. But I think in your quest to make a popular rhetorical argument, you've lost the moral high ground.

I think confounded makes some good points.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#109

Post by bb88 »

jstanley wrote: post #106
naasking wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Your assumption that this software would be used for authoritarian ends is exactly the problem the OP was trying to point out.

The argument is that use of this software is inherently authoritarian, in and of itself.

No object ever in society is "inherently authoritarian".

Authoritarianism is a behavior of a country's leaders, not a label on some unwanted technology.

E.g. Sniper rifles are not authoritarian in an of themselves. The use of sniper rifles to snuff out dissent is.

And that's why this debate is dishonest. Because if you support facial recognition software for the police as another tool for the good guys, you get smeared as supporting authoritarianism.

When in fact, if you deeply wanted to remove authoritarian behaviors, you would add more checks and balances to the system to prevent unchecked behavior from our leaders.

The founding father's knew that and designed the constitution that way.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#110

Post by jstanley »

bb88 wrote: post #109
jstanley wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that use of this software is inherently authoritarian, in and of itself.

No object ever in society is "inherently authoritarian". Authoritarianism is a behavior of a country's leaders, not a label on some unwanted technology. E.g. Sniper rifles are not authoritarian in an of themselves. The use of sniper rifles to snuff out dissent is. And that's why this debate is dishonest. Because if you support facial recognition software for the police as another tool for the good guys, you get smear…

I agree that the existence of the software is benign. I said the use of it is authoritarian.

And sure, I didn't make it explicit, so let me make it explicit now: the use of the software to identify real people is authoritarian.

If you use it to classify random cat pictures then that's obviously not authoritarian.

Post reply on HN