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

Post by zjaffee » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 6:18 PM UTC

tomnipotent wrote: post #206

kadendogthing wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Second, you risk AWS being seen as non-neutral based on the whims of employees' feelings about a company God forbid workers have say in how their work is used, instead of just being robots. Smart enough to build the technology, but apparently not qualified enough to have input on limiting its nefarious and anti-social uses at the hand of an executive branch the employees probably don't favor.

Should a conservative bakery be allowed to refuse service based on religious beliefs?

Post by gnopgnip » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 6:19 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #131

ENOTTY wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stuctu…

Post by mantas » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 6:27 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #240

Frondo wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being in the country without authorization is a civil infraction, not a criminal one, and people aren't sent to prison for civil infractions. You're also allowed to be here if you're seeking asylum. But, at the end of the day, if your basis for the family border separation policy is to defend it with "well, criminals also have their families broken up," then I'm not sure how to convince you it's right to care about a…

if your basis for the family border separation policy is to defend it with "well, criminals also have their families broken up," Not at all. I just find it curious that this one particular application of what is actually a common policy has suddenly become protest-worthy. By all means protest it in its entirety (if you think it’s appropriate for children to serve sentences alongside their parents in the same cells) b…

Post by mantas » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

kadendogthing wrote: post #230

alexanderwept wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We codify against pointless discrimination against protected classes of people for a reason. Some things are no longer worth debating and serve no purpose but to actively harm people. So no, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But where do we draw a bright line? Sure, maybe we want religious people baking cakes for gay weddings. But should Muslim bakers be forced to draw likenesses of the Prophet Muhammad if a cus…

>But where do we draw a bright line? It's an evolving conversation. There is no line to be drawn. We learn, we codify, we move on. Let's stick to applicable conversations, shall we?

Post by mmmmmmmmm » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

fipple wrote: post #129

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…

No, I believe the military should exist but shouldn’t be too good at its job. If the US president knows that 3,000 American soldiers will die doing something, it will make the calculus of doing it very different than if only 3 soldiers would die. This may actually save lives overallx