Stopping facial recognition tech is not the solve. The problem is surveillance - that’s what we ought to address.
Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
111–120 of 289 posts
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you do not believe that people should profit from increasing the lethality of the military, then you do not believe in the utility of having a military. That doesn't follow. One can believe in the utility of the military while at the same time holding that it must operate purely as a public service, so that no incentives are created for a state of permanent war. Famously, an American president expressed this ver…
Unless the staff operating the public service receive no compensation at all, then there is profit involved.
If you go down that road, then you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons, since the guards are always paid employees. I think that's misinterpreting or misrepresenting the way "profit" is being used in this sense though.
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#113> Amazon, where I work, is currently allowing police departments around the country to purchase its facial recognition product, Rekognition, and I and other employees demand that we stop immediately. Ok, nod, nod... > The letter also contained demands to kick Palantir, the software firm that powers much of ICE's deportation and tracking program, off Amazon Web Services and to institute employee oversight for ethical…
> Second, you risk AWS being seen as non-neutral based on the whims of employees' feelings about a company (as opposed to something illegal). There are plenty of legal things that I think it’s fine with being non-neutral on. A private company SHOULD be non-neutral based on the whims of the employees! Who else steers their ship?
I think you're making a general statement, which I agree with in general, and I'm making one based on the nuances of this situation. It matters what you are non-neutral about and it matters if you provide a platform or not. Many see great value in neutral platforms. It should just be clear that picking and choosing winners in this way can harm that appearance of neutrality that may cause other [potential] users of your platform to be concerned about which side of the collective bed the employees will wake up on and kick you off. You can either be consistent or be seen as a risky proposition, especially in foundational contexts where lock-in applies.
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#114> Amazon, where I work, is currently allowing police departments around the country to purchase its facial recognition product, Rekognition, and I and other employees demand that we stop immediately. Ok, nod, nod... > The letter also contained demands to kick Palantir, the software firm that powers much of ICE's deportation and tracking program, off Amazon Web Services and to institute employee oversight for ethical…
> Second, you risk AWS being seen as non-neutral based on the whims of employees' feelings about a company (as opposed to something illegal). There are plenty of legal things that I think it’s fine with being non-neutral on. A private company SHOULD be non-neutral based on the whims of the employees! Who else steers their ship?
Can AWS be non-neutral? Sure, legally and even ethically, that's fine.
If AWS is non-neutral, will that hurt their ability to attract clients? Absolutely. I'm the first one in line to abolish ICE, but if AWS starts kicking people they don't like off of AWS I'll also be the first one to stop using it. Sure, we agree on ICE, what about companies that make violent video games? Companies that make firearm accessories?
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the staff operating the public service receive no compensation at all, then there is profit involved.
If you go down that road, then you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons, since the guards are always paid employees. I think that's misinterpreting or misrepresenting the way "profit" is being used in this sense though.
> you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons
Maybe there's an interesting thing to say here - some people people are against for-profit prisons because they think they encourage imprisoning more people as it creates more profit.
But if you have a non-profit, government-run prison in your local area, you may still be encouraged to imprison more people as it creates more profit for the local suppliers to the prison.
So yeah it doesn't matter if the final user is for-profit if you think there is a risk that profit is driving something you don't want.
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#116> We will not silently build technology to oppress and kill people, whether in our country or in others.
Country Joe McDonald at Woodstock on You Tube:
"Come on all of you big strong men Uncle Sam needs your help again he's got himself in a terrible jam way down yonder in Viet Nam so put down your books and pick up a gun we're gonna have a whole lotta fun . . . .
Hey students . . just agree to sign on with the US military, travel to foreign lands and murder foreigners in exchange for a shot at the GI Bill, we'll pay for your education (if you survive) you'll have a great chance at a lifelong guilt trip, suicidal depression and shame for being a paid Gov't sponsored "hitman", but heck, if you're gonna play, sometimes you gotta pay - - - with your life or your mental health. This is what the US politicians have achieved with the student loan situation. In Europe many university tuitions are free or very low cost,their kids are not coerced to take up arms and kill people, but in the US we have a "student loan crisis" where graduates with less desires to murder foreigners are in debt $30K to $40K or more for college tuition, many of them liberal arts degrees which may never allow them to pay back the debt. Default rates are already hovering at 10%. In the US we're creating a force of "un-natural born killers" exiting our foreign conflicts and undeclared wars, too many coming home to roam around with PTSD, shame, guilt and depression, the VA hospitals just putting them on questionable drugs, and some ending up in newspaper headlines for killing innocent Americans on American soil if they don't commit suicide first.
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#117I wonder if an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment right to be free from unseasonable search. Collecting your travel movements automatically without cause might apply. It is an interesting problem because there is no expectation of privacy in public. If you venture into public the police or anyone can stake you out and take pictures of you. Devices that do this are just an efficiency increase.…
This is no different than a spotter LEO or witness recognizing you from a mugshot or from video surveillance. It's just that it's done with EVERYBODY now.
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#118As a personal investor I hold a few Amazon stocks (yes, not much, but I have a small bet on Amazon). Nevertheless, I see a huge risk to doing this kind of business. Short term there might be profit, but long term it hurts your brand with consumers and erodes trust. A consumer dependent company like Amazon should avoid getting into ethical issues. Because it limits long term growth. At least that's my two cents.
>but long term it hurts your brand with consumers and erodes trust In crazy circles maybe. I'm not seeing any sort of backlash against the military as Americans generally have a very positive view of it.
I think it's disingenuous to call anyone opposed to persistent surveillance and the military "crazy". There are numerous reasons people would be opposed to those institutions and practices. And the more abused those things are, the more people will likely oppose them.
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#119constitutional rights (and a culture that enshrines them as sacred) is just one layer of protection for civil liberties. The other, Often overlooked layer is the fact that running a dystopian state is uneconomical. For better or worse this is the logic used by gun advocates, but it should also apply to other areas. technology can make it feasible to scale repression like never before. facial recognition, big data, ce…
"at the end of the day if amazon doesn't do this someone else will" "If Amazon doesn't fuck over people someone else will, so who cares" is a shit argument.
If you don’t care then you are just being anti amazon and not the idealist position you or TFA portrays
Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you justify this ethically?
You're not legally required to, so you don't have to. My government actively engages in different military operations around the world, even if I may disagree. For "ethical" reason the bank managing my pension fund refuse to invest in companies supplying the military my government use for missions I disagree with. So I have mixed feelings about mixing ethics and business.
I realise you don't have to; it is usual for conversational answers to not be legally mandated. What a weird thing to say.
Also quite weird is having "feelings" about mixing ethics and business. Businesses have effects on people's material reality, and businesses are staffed by people, whose actions can very legitimately be analysed by ethical positions. The "mixing" is there whether or not you have feelings about it.