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

261–270 of 289 posts

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

#261

Post by stevew20 »

Uh they already have it. Have had it since the late 90s (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc..), and in the early 2000's it trickled out to some major PD's. The issue is, it's quite inaccurate. Being developed in the 90's, before the recent amazing leaps in ML, it is just not very good.

So Amazon, please sell the cops some decent software, so they are less likely to show up at my house because of a software glitch. Even better, use your vast wealth to push out self driving cars to all Americans, then we can disband the police (no traffic stops=no PD income)!

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

#262

Post by tengbretson »

throwaway837914 wrote: post #234
allthecybers wrote: post #139

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 invest…

> I really find it odd that all of a sudden tech employees are resistant to supporting their own government. Could you expand on this? Because it reads like "help build killing machines even though you signed up for a completely different job, or you don't support your government because you're a political partisan."

> Could you expand on this? Because it reads like "help build killing machines even though you signed up for a completely different job, or you don't support your government because you're a political partisan."

What's to expand upon? Anyone will admit that there are good elements and bad elements to the way our police force operates. This boils down to the question "Do you believe our police force as it exists today has a net-positive impact on our society?"

I suspect very few people would say they believe they have a net-negative impact. And even among the people that say they believe the police have a net-negative impact very few people actually act as if that is what they believe.

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

#263

Post by jopsen »

macspoofing wrote: post #94
jopsen wrote: post #91

As 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.

In the long run the US isn't the only market.

> I'm not seeing any sort of backlash against the military as Americans generally have a very positive view of it.

That might be true. But the military is many things, serving is in many ways honorable, creating weapons from behind a desk -- not so much.

Regardless, in the long run we are likely to see the end of armed conflicts. Investment in military tech will likely drop. That might take 20 years, or it might take 200 years.

But war doesn't create economic growth, why bother getting involved?

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

#264

Post by balfirevic »

tengbretson wrote: post #262
throwaway837914 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really find it odd that all of a sudden tech employees are resistant to supporting their own government. Could you expand on this? Because it reads like "help build killing machines even though you signed up for a completely different job, or you don't support your government because you're a political partisan."

> Could you expand on this? Because it reads like "help build killing machines even though you signed up for a completely different job, or you don't support your government because you're a political partisan." What's to expand upon? Anyone will admit that there are good elements and bad elements to the way our police force operates. This boils down to the question "Do you believe our police force as it exists today…

> This boils down to the question "Do you believe our police force as it exists today has a net-positive impact on our society?"

That is supposed to be the benchmark now? Holy shit.

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

#265

Post by stevew20 »

allthecybers wrote: post #139

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 invest…

[dead]

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

#266

Post by kevin_b_er »

> Selling this system runs counter to Amazon’s stated values.

This is exactly in line with Amazon's values and past practices.

> Bezos suggested we wait for society’s “immune response.”

Bezos wants to make as much as possible off this until its no good anymore. Operating in the margin of what is acceptable is opportunity, to refashion his famous quote.

I think the author is in some westcoastish bubble of thought that has obscured a fresh view of how Amazon acts. Bezos wants to bring in more cash flow and selling more is how it is done.

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

#267

Post by Zombieball »

jhabdas wrote: post #257
losteric wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, those 450 "signatures" were just members of an email list. That email list was founded to discuss ethical issues and draft a letter of complain, but discussion quickly fizzled without consensus on issues or solutions. Then, a month later, this was published out of the blue. No prior communication, no broader input, not even the opportunity to opt-out. Pretty unethical. As someone who was on that…

There's nothing unethical about being a hero. You should try it sometime.

Unless I misunderstood losteric, it sounds like all the names of people on a mailing list were automatically added as “signatures” to this letter even if they didn’t agree with the letter contents.

That sounds pretty unethical.

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

#269

Post by dang »

jhabdas wrote: post #257
losteric wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, those 450 "signatures" were just members of an email list. That email list was founded to discuss ethical issues and draft a letter of complain, but discussion quickly fizzled without consensus on issues or solutions. Then, a month later, this was published out of the blue. No prior communication, no broader input, not even the opportunity to opt-out. Pretty unethical. As someone who was on that…

There's nothing unethical about being a hero. You should try it sometime.

Since you've continued to break the site guidelines after we repeatedly asked you to stop, we've banned this account.

If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#270

Post by nkassis »

mantas wrote: post #245
gaius wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's just a byproduct of protesting against tighter migration control. God forbid law enforcement stops "undocumented".

I does not, you can agree to tight migration enforcement while treating people who are caught by that enforcement humanly.
Post reply on HN