Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

Post by alexnewman » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 3:46 AM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #19

stonecraftwolf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, activists, political opponents. That is extremely frightening coming from an administration that is increasingly using violent and elimitionist language to levy completely made up charges at immigrants, LGBT, and particularly political opponents.

Do people have a right to not be identified in public? In public, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from having your picture being taken. Then, what if someone identifies you from your picture? How about if they use a CV system to speed it up? What's the argument here? BTW, as I expand upon below, I'm against surveillance of private communications, I think we all are. As far as I understand it, this is not su…

Post by alexnewman » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 3:47 AM UTC

Bahamut wrote: post #14

stonecraftwolf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, activists, political opponents. That is extremely frightening coming from an administration that is increasingly using violent and elimitionist language to levy completely made up charges at immigrants, LGBT, and particularly political opponents.

Something that doesn’t get publicized but is as onerous is that Amazon is recruiting engineers to work on facial recognition tech that was implied to be used for their warehouse workers[0]. [0] Amazon recruiter emails that coworkers and I have gotten from Amazon. These emails had a very heavy implication that that particular group was using the facial recognition tech for this purpose.

Post by m741 » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 3:49 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #35

taurath wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s one thing for you to go out in public, it’s another thing when “public” follows you around like a private investigator snapping photos of you everywhere. The right to privacy is the right to be able to go about your business unimpeded. It’s a core idea on which the bill of rights was founded. It’s not written of course, but I’d argue it’s a fundamental human right.

The Bill of Rights was written in an era when most Americans lived in small towns where everyone was recognized everywhere. The anonymity of urban and metropolitan life is perhaps a happy accident, but it wouldn’t have been perceived as a fundamental right to people living in a predominantly rural country.

Post by poulsbohemian » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 3:50 AM UTC

Strongerpass wrote: post #62

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 m…

Post by fzeroracer » Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 3:51 AM UTC

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.