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

271–280 of 286 posts

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#271

Post by JoeAltmaier »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #270
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tragically, reasonable fees for bad behavior encourage the opposite behavior: all guilt evaporates and folks feel entitled to the behavior, after all they can pay for it. Famous studies of charging parent who were late picking up children from school, everybody started doing it and gladly paying.

Ok, but, could it be that the fee charged to parents was simply too low? Can't we just view "the right to speed" as a service offered by the government and then apply the usual price and demand logic to it?

I've had the same idea - a geometrically increasing 'fee' for road use depending on speed. Kind of like toll roads, but maybe even most roads. If you want to spend the money (and have the money, thus likely the deep pockets to compensate for damage) then go ahead!

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#272

Post by amanaplanacanal »

dgzl wrote: post #156
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…

> ticket you every time you break the speed limit. Generally I'm against government spying and tracking, but I really don't think cities could afford the traffic situation of every driver obeying the speed limit. Think about how many commuters exceed the speed limit every single day, and imagine if every person were forced to actually drive the limit at all times. I would expect at least a 10% increase in on-road-tra…

I believe slower speeds increase the carrying capacity of any stretch of road. But I could be wrong.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#273

Post by amanaplanacanal »

m741 wrote: post #85
philwelch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Bill of Rights was also written in an era without systematic government ID or national police system, when you could live or travel in near perfect anonymity if you just left the small town where everyone knew you. So I think the perception goes both ways.

Additionally, the bill of rights was written in an era when there were no laws about immigration to the US at all. The US had completely open borders at that time, anybody could move there if they chose.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#274

Post by philwelch »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #273
m741 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bill of Rights was also written in an era without systematic government ID or national police system, when you could live or travel in near perfect anonymity if you just left the small town where everyone knew you. So I think the perception goes both ways.

Additionally, the bill of rights was written in an era when there were no laws about immigration to the US at all. The US had completely open borders at that time, anybody could move there if they chose.

It should also be pointed out that, at the time, cross-Atlantic travel was expensive and few people in North America outside of the US had any interest in immigrating.[1] Additionally, American independence ended the transportation of British prisoners to the colonies and severely limited the amount of indentured servant immigration.

[1] During the colonial era, the bigger problem was the risk of white settlers emigrating to a nearby American Indian community. For example, it's likely that the entire colony of Roanoke did this. Even as late as the 19th century, white children captured and raised by the Comanche almost exclusively chose to continue living as Comanche even after being given the chance to return.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#275

Post by tertius »

gideonparanoid wrote: post #225
tertius wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-speeder, cyclists here in the U.S. almost never obey the rules of the road.

Your experience does not necessarily reflect the reality of it [0]. [0] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b...

Ah, cyclists who were monitored break the law only 13% of the time.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#276

Post by tertius »

dgzl wrote: post #269
tertius wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Imagine" isn't data. I wouldn't be so sure. Rubber necking causes a lot more traffic... Side note: Stop speeding please. You're endangering other people.

It's not difficult to work the logic out. If ##% of commuters exceed the limit to get to work, and they are forced to cease, then the time and highway space they save speeding would instead be added to the overall stress of traffic. That would have ripple effects against people who drive the limit, and would cause everyone to need more commute time. The question comes whether the added stress would be debilitating fo…

I follow the logic, but it's not supported by data.

> and agree that driving fast is dangerous for many people

For all.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#277

Post by x220 »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #229
x220 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Political questions are matter of choice, not fact. Values will always be a matter of debate.

Absolutely true. The only problem is that rarely are actual values being debated in politics.

And that's a shame. People are scared to debate values because they don't want the value structures that their lives center around to crumble. Without debating values, you might end up spending a huge proportion of your life on something that later doesn't matter to you...

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#278

Post by TuringNYC »

TuringNYC wrote: post #107
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.

Also, because false positives dont matter when it affects "other people"

I see I need to start adding /sarcasm tags. Apparently scare quotes dont work. To clarify...I definitely think false positives are a big issue, though decision makers will often think otherwise as decisions are often not made by minorities.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#279

Post by gowthamgts12 »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #166
gowthamgts12 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always remember its really hard to get 100% accuracy on AI.

But is it more accurate than human judgement?

Well, it certainly depends on the person doing that, like accuracy of AI depends on the programmer.

Re: Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

#280

Post by snarfybarfy »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #253
snarfybarfy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you by any chance one of those people that still believe seat belts are for sissies? Because you can just hold tight to the steering wheel? And yes the kinetic energy per se does not kill you. It's when the kinetic energy gets converted to elastic/inelastic transformation of your head that you die. There is a clear correlation of speed and survivability. See: http://www.humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm…

>And yes the kinetic energy per se does not kill you. It's when the kinetic energy gets converted to elastic/inelastic transformation of your head that you die. There is a clear correlation of speed and survivability. Kinetic energy does nothing. NOTHING! It's all about acceleration (which is roughly interchangeable with force since the mass of the person is constant). The human body can deal with triple digit G forc…

There is the same correlation in regards to vehicle occupants. At some point the kinetic energy becomes so great that the body of the car is unable to absorb it sufficently and then the remaining energy kills you.

No straw men anywhere in my line of argument. Just a cheap dig. Sorry for that.

Post reply on HN