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

181–190 of 289 posts

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

#181

Post by losteric »

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…

The letter sounds like something written by a small number of radical employees, because it was.

Most of those "450 signatures" never saw the letter prior to distribution. There were some pragmatic debates without consensus, many bringing up your concerns, then silence, then this gets sent out of nowhere. If the signatories had been consulted prior to distribution, I wouldn't be surprised if the number fell to... maybe 10?

This really reflects our political sphere. Partisans ignoring even the input of allies, blindly charging forward with irrational demands, and alienating rather than convincing the moderate majority. They operate as if this is a movie, where the hero makes a grand statement and instantly win support...

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

#183

Post by mercutio2 »

sam0x17 wrote: post #152
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.

Edit: first comment was applied on the wrong thread, oops!

I agree that engineering lethal tools only by people directly employed by the military is one possible way to make this argument internally consistent.

Another way is to just decide that non-lethal force is a useful and legitimate tool for the military.

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

#184

Post by mercutio2 »

bagacrap wrote: post #136
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?

Indeed.

The goal of the military is to apply force with as much precision as possible, to preserve the perception of legitimacy for audiences at home and abroad as much as possible.

Being lethal isn’t necessary to apply force; effectively applying non-lethal force is just much harder, so current military doctrine emphasizes lethality against combatants.

But against irregular opponents, whose goal is often to sow hatred for the opposing, powerful military because of their heavy handed tactics, being able to consistently and safely apply non-lethal force would arguably improve military effectiveness.

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

#185

Post by mindcrime »

_iyig wrote: post #173
mindcrime wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the whole point of having armed forces! Armed forces exist to provide achieve foreign policy goals (deterrence, coercion) through the credible threat of its lethality. WTF? No, just no. The only foreign policy goal the armed forces exist to serve is defense of the homeland. Everything else is a misuses of the military. Just because it's commonplace in this day and age doesn't mean it's OK or that anyone shoul…

Serious question: was liberating Auschwitz a misuse of the military?

Given that Germany had declared war on the US, and the liberation of Auschwitz was a direct consequence of defeating Germany, I'll say "no". But that doesn't mean that there's a general principle that "just because something has a desirable outcome, the action itself was proper or justified". Use of force should be reserved for all but the most dire circumstances in general.

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

#186

Post by throwaway2048 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #125
turdnagel wrote: post #111

Stopping facial recognition tech is not the solve. The problem is surveillance - that’s what we ought to address.

Agreed. Software doesn't run oppressive surveillance states. People run oppressive surveillance states.

Thus absolving the people who are building the surveillance state, some nice self serving logic.

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

#188

Post by macspoofing »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #118
macspoofing wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>I think it's disingenuous to call anyone opposed to persistent surveillance and the military "crazy"

I didn't label people who are against 'persistent surveillance' as crazy. I don't know why you attributed that to me. Though I will state that there is nothing wrong with an American company providing services to the American government. If you hate 'persistent surveillance' look to Congress, not contractors.

To extend my point to the military, it is unreasonable to label an American company providing services to the American military as intrinsically unethical.

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

#189

Post by sys_64738 »

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.

At some point it has to change from legal to illegal. That is, with n calls then you're still legal but that n+1th call makes you a felon. What is n?

What is n for facial rekognition?

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

#190

Post by kareemsabri »

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…

450 Amazon employees delivered a signed letter to Bezos stating their opposition to the program. Maybe this person is just a coward.
Post reply on HN