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

Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 286 posts

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#61

Post by tropo »

AngryData wrote: post #31
_iyig wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal immigrants are by definition disenfranchised. They are not citizens, so they do not get the franchise, which is the right to vote. That’s as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, and the basic law of (nearly?) every democracy.

Where does it say that foreigners can't vote in the constitution? Up until the 20th century the only requirement to vote in most states was residency, not citizenship. Many places only required 6 months stay to vote no matter who or where you were from, others required a commitment to long-term residency. It wasn't until women's and black's voting rights started becoming a popular issue that voting was redefined to m…

Well, to be fair, where does it say that anybody can vote?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...

So, if your state legislature chose to appoint electors by lottery, that would be acceptable under the US Constitution. Other options: appoint the oldest people, appoint the richest people, appoint the people who live closest to the center of the state, appoint the heaviest people, appoint the people with the longest tongues...

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#62

Post by Strongerpass »

makewavesnotwar wrote: post #41

Sure and while you're at it why not implement cameras all over every roadway to automatically ticket you every time you break the speed limit. Or better yet, why not devise a real time geolocation device to be embedded in cars and then lobby for it to be nationally adopted so people literally can't speed? The reality is that very few people want to live in that world and even if we do fully adopt technologies like th…

I agree in general but I think "A car traveling 30 mph is absolutely as lethal as a car traveling 10 mph faster than that." is a bit weak.

The speed of cars matter, obviously. If you are hit by a car driving 50km/h you will die 8 out of 10 times. If the car is only driving in 30 km/h you will only die 1 out of the 10 times. In other words, it's not a linear scale and the idea that you can drive a bit faster without making yourself substantially more dangerous is incorrect.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#63

Post by _iyig »

AngryData wrote: post #31
_iyig wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal immigrants are by definition disenfranchised. They are not citizens, so they do not get the franchise, which is the right to vote. That’s as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, and the basic law of (nearly?) every democracy.

Where does it say that foreigners can't vote in the constitution? Up until the 20th century the only requirement to vote in most states was residency, not citizenship. Many places only required 6 months stay to vote no matter who or where you were from, others required a commitment to long-term residency. It wasn't until women's and black's voting rights started becoming a popular issue that voting was redefined to m…

You're right, the issue is more nuanced than I had assumed.

Federal law (not the Constitution) prohibits non-citizens from voting in national elections [0]. However, it seems like states can establish their own rules for state and local suffrage, and non-citizens can vote under certain circumstances in states like Maryland [1].

Personally, I like the citizenship requirement for voting. It requires voters who weren't born in the U.S. to demonstrate a certain level of investment in the system they're seeking to change.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#65

Post by illiac_1962 »

makewavesnotwar wrote: post #41

Sure and while you're at it why not implement cameras all over every roadway to automatically ticket you every time you break the speed limit. Or better yet, why not devise a real time geolocation device to be embedded in cars and then lobby for it to be nationally adopted so people literally can't speed? The reality is that very few people want to live in that world and even if we do fully adopt technologies like th…

Yeah. The most perilous stretch I have on my bike is through a neighborhood of million dollar homes with asshole clueless Porsche SUV drivers buzzing around.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#66

Post by sergiotapia »

alexnewman wrote: post #3
tinktank wrote: post #2

It's just another use-case for them I suppose. Interesting to see how, as tech companies become bigger, they go the same way as companies in all the other industries. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

Stupid question. I actually am a big fan of no borders but what's wrong with this? Seems like America entering the new millennium. Edited also why was this downvoted?

I downvoted because open-borders is one of the stupidest mainstream ideas I ever heard. Right up there with flat earth.

Of course you want to keep people that don't share your value system out of your country.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#67

Post by joshuamorton »

exabrial wrote: post #57
joshuamorton wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a wide variety of positions between "open borders" and "forcibly take refugee children away from their families and put both in detention facilities". One can object to the latter without supporting the former.

Please name a crime where you are allowed to take your children with you when you're arrested.

Requesting asylum is not a crime, so I'm confused by this request.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#68

Post by wangyjx »

ardy42 wrote: post #46
wangyjx wrote: post #43

If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do and already done. It is just business.

> If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do. > It is just business. Guns are a mature technology, and pretty easy to use. If I don't do the hit for Vinny, some other hitman will, so I might as well make some cash. It is just business. The fact that someone else may perform…

gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. (another privacy vs safety argument)

Needless to say this technology can only deploy in public places. If someone appear in public places, why you think he would like to become invisible to all others.

In the meanwhile, I agree that no gov employee can be authorized to access the data without limitation. There must be some laws to regulate its usage.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#69

Post by exabrial »

joshuamorton wrote: post #67
exabrial wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please name a crime where you are allowed to take your children with you when you're arrested.

Requesting asylum is not a crime, so I'm confused by this request.

I think that's more than valid. Does doing so require always crossing border illegally? Also, what percentage of people are under a legitimate threat of their lives (or relatives)?

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#70

Post by illiac_1962 »

hnaccy wrote: post #60

More evidence that the invention of the transistor marked the doom of individual liberty. By the time I die I assume we'll all be tracked at all times or well on the way to that.

Yeah. Completely fuck this trend in totalitarian thinking. It seems like all these big tech executives are precumming at the thought of joining hands with China to bring on the brave new world. I have a feeling things are not going to go down the way anyone thinks they will.
Post reply on HN