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

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

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 289 posts

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

#151

Post by andun »

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…

It baffles me that some people seemingly want their country to fill with illegal immigrants and they also don't want to give the police/ICE/whatever the necessary tools to be able to dispatch them. Fantasy world indeed. I guess it's the result of being a wealthy programmer in the upper part of San Francisco: they won't affect your job security and you won't have to deal with or even see them

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

#152

Post by sam0x17 »

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…

It is perfectly consistent for example to believe that it is OK to have a military, but not to do any R&D in the private sector. That is what this guy is advocating.

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

#153

Post by burger_moon »

zdragnar wrote: post #149
burger_moon wrote: post #146

I think it's important to note this person has to remain anonymous just to voice their concerns about the their employer > This person, who has spoken with me on the condition that their name not be revealed for fear of professional retribution This is not how an workplace environment should be. Don't one of Amazon's leadership principals talk about being vocally self-critical? Yet they drive such a fear mongering cu…

I think there's a difference between speaking up internally and bad-mouthing your employer in public (especially to the press). I can't think of any company that would let that slide.

You would consider this article bad mouthing amazon?

The way I interpret 'bad mouthing' is saying things which are false, or misrepresenting what Amazon is does.

I don't think the author made any misrepresentations of what Amazon is doing with their involvement but rather bringing to light that employees do not agree with their policies, that to me anyways is in a different category than bad mouthing.

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

#154

Post by forgottenpass »

M_Bakhtiari wrote: post #144

I wish these people wouldn't automatically assume everyone who reads their articles are Americans or otherwise intimately familiar with US institutions. What exactly is it that ICE does that is so bad?

They're a country-wide law enforcement agency for immigration law (ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

A big issue in our current politics is immigration policy, and there are segments of our population that dislike the current law so strongly they believe it should be go unenforced until the legislature writes an immigration law that they do like.

A lot of the dislike towards ICE is pointing out the harsh reality of any law enforcement agency ("putting people in cages", etc...), and holding that against them in the context of policy they dislike.

Edit: I'm trying to state this plainly for an outsider without showing my hand on our immigration policy. Even for a less-heated topic (e.g., obvious parallels with federal marijuana laws, selective enforcement thereof, and oft-abused LE powers both mundane and created specifically for the war on drugs) I'd frame it the same way.

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

#156

Post by bwood »

burger_moon wrote: post #146

I think it's important to note this person has to remain anonymous just to voice their concerns about the their employer > This person, who has spoken with me on the condition that their name not be revealed for fear of professional retribution This is not how an workplace environment should be. Don't one of Amazon's leadership principals talk about being vocally self-critical? Yet they drive such a fear mongering cu…

This is pretty common for large enterprises. They have an official PR mouth and any public communication regarding the company which doesn't first pass the PR filter is often a fireable offense, even if it's all positive and puts the company in a good light. If Amazon talks about being vocally self-critical, they almost certainly mean in the context of internal improvement, not talking freely to the press. Even if employees try raising issues internally at first, most companies won't take kindly to an employee going public. Please note that I am not defending Amazon, simply saying that this is bog-standard and not surprising.

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

#157

Post by azemetre »

spaginal wrote: post #130
vorpalhex wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why abolish ICE? What specifically is the issue with ICE short of news and celebrities demanding it because it’s in vogue? They serve a legitimate law enforcement function in our country, which by last check doesn’t have open borders and prosecutes those that cross illegally?

Because ICE was the result of 9/11 hysteria, it's a government organization whose duties were already being done elsewhere.

I don't think people realize it was only formed in 2003...

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

#159

Post by 0xfeba »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #133
sys_64738 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Not if you're calling different people, totally legal.

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

#160

Post by nradov »

User23 wrote: post #25
14 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are right and when the public has their own sting rays, their own license plate trackers, and their own facial recognition systems it will be a crazy world indeed. As these systems grow and learn more about people they will become increasingly powerful. Imaging a world where one mistake could follow you around for ever. You take a photo while in public and your facial recognition app detects someone in the backgr…

The public is going to have their own armed flying drones too eventually. The future is going to be so incredibly cyberpunk.

The FAA and ATF won't permit that.
Post reply on HN