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

But that's not what's happening.

>the difficult question is "what about employees whose political views are repugnant to you?

Why is this a question? What part of any statement that I made lead to the implication that only a certain subset of employee's should be heard from?

>The example of the cake bakery is easy to dismiss because it seems covered by existing law

It's not only easily dismissable if the conversation called for it, it's actually just irrelevant to the current situation. They touch on two completely different subjects and contexts. A company targeting specific individuals on an ad-hoc basis has no bearing on a company empowering a government with its product. You have to strip both situations down to "employee has opinion, will business listen?" for the current conversation to make any sense. I'd say that'd be absurd to do but I guess that's what we're actually doing.

>if a medical device company's employees are religious, should they force it to not sell to abortion providers?

There is an appreciable difference between a company taking its employee's views and wishes into consideration and obeying laws. There is no law stating that Amazon has to sell this technology. It'd be hard to make such a law, for a whole host of reasons. I'd be happy to expand on such reasons since we're going to start having a civics conversation at any point now.

These kind of analogies, again, are fundamentally mistaken. Because they confuse different issues, different subjects, and different contexts. It's a bad abstraction.

Relying on inaccurate information is more dangerous not less. Not to mention the potential pretextual abuses - drug sniffing dogs are infamous for being trained to be four legged probable cause and field drug tests are a sick joke that makes a mockery of chemistry akin to declaring anything with a PH below 5 is an explosive because picric acid is an explosive.

Speeding tickets are also people who were caught committing a crime.

Regardless, it is a new policy to put Adults who cross with children (even though many of these Adults are the parents of those children) into jail.

I for one, believe that there are more humane ways to treat boarder-crossers who are crossing with their family. Sure, maybe put the lone crossers into jail, but if they're coming over with kids, then I'd hope that the judges / immigration agents / etc. etc. have power to show compassion in those cases.

So yeah, put some of them in jail, and put others into other forms of detention that don't necessarily involve separating kids from their parents. And yes, I recognize that Coyotes exist (professional illegal boarder crossers who specialize in trafficking children into America), so I recognize that ICE has a hard job here. But a repeat-offender like a Coyote could be caught on the 2nd or 3rd attempt. I recognize that ICE needs a plan to deal with Coyotes appropriately, and that not every adult-with-children is necessarily the parent.

There's a lot of ways to deal with the problem, and its sad that the current administration thinks that separating families is the best way forward.

If separations are to happen, I want it to happen only to Coyotes and the children they're smuggling. We need to be careful to keep the real parents together with their real children.