Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#131

Post by jMyles » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

ENOTTY wrote: post #90

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #87

Earlier 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.

The conflation of compensation and profit is so toxic - I just don't understand this idealogy.

I mean, I prefer to envision a world in which state-sponsored armies (not necessarily navies) are deprecated entirely, or at least relegated to non-standing status (much like the US constitution originally prescribed).

But even holding this somewhat anarchist view, I can still make a distinction between the incentive stuctures of a for-profit model and mere compensation. If you're so sure-footed about view point, walk us through the deconstruction that makes these things indistinguishable in your mind.

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#132

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #115

bootlooped wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loca…

> 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.

This is a gross simplification that erases the very real differences between the incentives of a government vs. a for-profit company. Not only is the government accountable to its electorate, but a government that wants to save money can take a much broader approach - for example by funding access to mental health services - to keep people out of prison. Prisoners are expensive to keep locked up!

In the final analysis, all prisons are non-profit. None of them generate any value. They're all funded with taxpayer money that could be spent elsewhere. It's just that in the case of private prisons that money goes to a company that has no interest in saving the government money by reducing the prison population. Sure they'll try to run the prison efficiently, so they can pocket the difference, but they want as many prisoners as possible to get a bigger check from Uncle Sam.

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#133

Post by PurpleBoxDragon » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

sys_64738 wrote: post #117

edoo wrote: post #79

I 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.

But scale is an important difference in legality and morality.

Consider the following example. Calling someone to ask them on a date is normal acceptable behavior. Doing it 20 times an hour, 3 hours a day, every day, quickly becomes immoral and illegal.

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#134

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #104

jtr1 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of profit.

A salary is an expense for the company providing it, but the person receiving it profits from it.

I'd like you to try to claim your salary as corporate "profit" on your next tax return. Tell me how that goes.

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#135

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

I am of the opinion that facial recognition technology is a good tool to produce and sell to the police provided it is burdened with significant regulation to prevent abuse. this includes short term expiration of all imagery gathered, access by public warrant only, and full public auditing.

the reason I am of this view is that if can reduce the impact of the police on innocent people the better and I think that a system which can eliminate people as suspects is the true value here. anything that stops the nonsense or need of no knock warrants and other brutality the police have been caught doing.

the face id tech should work both ways, identify the police and policed.

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#136

Post by bagacrap » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:21 PM UTC

ENOTTY wrote: post #72

> Regardless of our views on the military, no one should be profiting from “increasing the lethality” of the military. It makes no sense for these two clauses to exist together. 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. Especially when the author follows up with this sentence: > We will not silently build…

The US military is not really "winning" in Afghanistan but I don't think it's for lack of lethality, so clearly you can improve the military without changing its lethality. Wouldn't a perfect war (or "action") result in all your political objectives being achieved with zero deaths in either side?

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#137

Post by M_Bakhtiari » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #122

kodablah wrote: post #96

> 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…

[flagged]

Not American, what's the link between ICE and the Holocaust?

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#138

Post by yAnonymous » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:23 PM UTC

bun_at_work wrote: post #95

yAnonymous wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one do you want citations for? These are all publicly accepted problems by now, so I'm not going to do a writeup for all of them just because one person asks for it. Your downvotes change nothing, by the way. This is not a sinister outlook, it's already happening right now and I'm provably right. We get more police and they get more permissions, including broader surveillance, and they're looking to adopt taser…

OP is asking for citations regarding the rise in crime you referred to. Understand - crime rates have been going down historically. Things are not getting worse, they are getting better. While that doesn't mean everything is OK yes, crime is going down. Therefore, your argument for increased surveillance because of increased crime is wrong. In short, crime is getting better, not worse, and your argument for increased…

I never said that crime as a whole increased, but the violence reached a whole different quality. You (deliberately?) misinterpret comments you don't agree with.

Stabbing people -which was never a big issue- has become very common, for example. Kicking people when they're down and out etc. Hurting people for fun. Someone I knew was stabbed and murdered for no reason at all. Not even a robbery. Just killed.

Even in fights, there used to be some unwritten rules of respect and common sense, but they're gone. The people who are responsible for most of these violent crimes brought this crap with them.

It's gotten to the point where knives are forbidden in certain areas and knife bans are under consideration.

I'm talking about Germany, by the way. How about you are a bit more open-minded and stop assuming other users' nationalities?

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#139

Post by allthecybers » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:23 PM UTC

This argument conflates a number of issues and frankly loses steam on that basis. The running list of demands so far: Don’t sell facial recognition, don’t work with the government, kick a paying customer off of your system because of who they provide services to and while we are at it you shouldn’t be working with anyone I don’t like. Is that it? For now, but check back with me cause I might want to add greedy investment firms to the list or any other villain of the moment.

I really find it odd that all of a sudden tech employees are resistant to supporting their own government. If it’s about the current administration - they are gonna be gone in a couple years and you want another admin to be years behind in capability?

The reason the internet and the tech industry as a whole exists at this point is because of the defense technology complex.

If this really bothered people they would leave the nice paycheck and the perks and go work for a co-op or a non profit or some other organization untouched by anything unsavory.

Re: Amazon Employee: We Shouldn’t Sell Facial Recognition Tech to Police

#140

Post by CoryG89 » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

I don't personally have a problem with Amazon selling tech to police or militaries. I would, however have a problem working for Amazon while not realizing that my work is being directly utilized by the military.

If I'm gonna sell out to the war machine, I want to at least make that decision myself ahead of time.