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

Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 295 posts

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#71

Post by rifung »

deathanatos wrote: post #41
danielovichdk wrote: post #9

Dont buy from Amazon. How hard can it be

For example, my friend has a doorbell with a camera. The doorbell has software that runs facial recognition on me, and it often correctly identifies me, regardless of whether I look into the camera or not. (Nowadays I do, since I know it already knows me, I just make silly faces since I know it goes to his phone.) Now, IDK how I feel about this doorbell. But it's also his property; am I to say he can't have an AI-enh…

> Now, IDK how I feel about this doorbell. But it's also his property; am I to say he can't have an AI-enhanced doorbell on his house? But that doorbell also likely uploads my image, and data about me, to centralized servers somewhere, largely without my consent. (Aside from perhaps my implied consent of entering his property, but even then, I don't think I noticed it the first time I visited. Now I'm aware of it, since he told me, and has demoed the tech to me in various ways.)

Even if it weren't his property, if you were in the public aren't people legally allowed to take photos of you and upload it wherever they want? If it weren't legal there wouldn't be paparazzi I would think.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#72

Post by JohnFen »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #49
xvector wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RTFA: > The first proposal would have made the company stop offering facial recognition to governments unless its board determined sales did not violate civil liberties. A second would have requested a study by September of the extent to which Amazon’s service harmed rights and privacy. There is no world in which you are not disgustingly greedy, unempathetic, and immoral to reject sales of facial recognition technolo…

That's not what the rejection of this proposition indicates. The shareholders are not saying, "Amazon, sell to anyone no matter how bad." They are saying, "Amazon, continue using whatever processes you are already using to determine who to restrict from using this product." It is very common for people who have a particular issue that they care about to attempt to require the board of a company to handle that issue.…

> I am sure there will be entities to which Amazon would not offer facial recognition services.

I see no reason to suspect that this is true.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#73

Post by JohnFen »

awakeasleep wrote: post #69
plandis wrote: post #52

In my mind selling facial recognition seems no different than selling a hammer. It’s amoral, it can be used for good or bad. Id much rather see laws to limit when and how the technology can be applied.

same thing with land mines? What about an autonomous drone? Hell, even a bottle of aspirin filled with poison tablets secretly placed on a store shelf could kill a future serial killer. I believe your judgement mechanism is meaningless. Even the most evil stuff can be used for good, and everything is a tool. A better metric would apply one of the standard ethical frameworks, like utilitarianism or deontological ethic…

Or nukes?

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#74

Post by JohnFen »

rifung wrote: post #71
deathanatos wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, my friend has a doorbell with a camera. The doorbell has software that runs facial recognition on me, and it often correctly identifies me, regardless of whether I look into the camera or not. (Nowadays I do, since I know it already knows me, I just make silly faces since I know it goes to his phone.) Now, IDK how I feel about this doorbell. But it's also his property; am I to say he can't have an AI-enh…

> Now, IDK how I feel about this doorbell. But it's also his property; am I to say he can't have an AI-enhanced doorbell on his house? But that doorbell also likely uploads my image, and data about me, to centralized servers somewhere, largely without my consent. (Aside from perhaps my implied consent of entering his property, but even then, I don't think I noticed it the first time I visited. Now I'm aware of it, si…

> if you were in the public aren't people legally allowed to take photos of you and upload it wherever they want?

No, not in the US, depending on exactly what you're doing. Taking pictures of people in public is legal, but there are restrictions on what you can do with them.

> If it weren't legal there wouldn't be paparazzi I would think.

The law is different, and less restrictive, when it comes to certain classes of people such as celebrities and politicians.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#75

Post by jjeaff »

JohnFen wrote: post #67
rednixion wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should also add that maximizing shareholder value isn't a hard legal requirement since those laws are often misquoted to imply the opposite for some reason and that the board had "no choice" to pursue a particular controversial revenue stream, source: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...

Yes. If maximizing shareholder value was the end-all and be-all, then every corporation would be in the sex, drugs, and gambling businesses.

Gaming industry has around 10% net profit margins. Compare that to Apples 30%.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#76

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

llamataboot wrote: post #65
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are obviously serious problems with law enforcement in the united states. Although I think that these mostly manifest in face to face encounters with the poor, people of color, and the mentally ill. I can't think of many recent cases where local law enforcement's application of information technology resulted in gross injustice.

The idealistic argument would be that moving to IT and algorithms reduces the gross amount of human bias that currently enters into the system. The reality may be far different as the algorithms themselved make the biases even less seen and less able to be contested.We're not in full minority report territory, but I think the worry is that added the ability to do near permanent surveillance to an already militarized…

> The idealistic argument would be that moving to IT and algorithms reduces the gross amount of human bias that currently enters into the system.

That is not my argument. I am merely saying that I don't think facial recognition is going to present problems that outweigh its value as a law enforcement tool. There will no doubt be some abuses, just as there is of any new technology. I support regulation and intense scrutiny of how law enforcement uses these tools, to minimize the severity and duration of these abuses. But I don't think that means it's a good idea that Amazon's board should have to approve each entity attempting to use their services individually.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#77

Post by CobrastanJorji »

awakeasleep wrote: post #69
plandis wrote: post #52

In my mind selling facial recognition seems no different than selling a hammer. It’s amoral, it can be used for good or bad. Id much rather see laws to limit when and how the technology can be applied.

same thing with land mines? What about an autonomous drone? Hell, even a bottle of aspirin filled with poison tablets secretly placed on a store shelf could kill a future serial killer. I believe your judgement mechanism is meaningless. Even the most evil stuff can be used for good, and everything is a tool. A better metric would apply one of the standard ethical frameworks, like utilitarianism or deontological ethic…

I will accept your metaphor as valid if you can present to me a moral use of land mines.

I agree with you about autonomous drones. They have many moral uses. Weaponized ones, not so much.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#79

Post by ljm »

JohnFen wrote: post #64
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but everyone on this site will tell you that laws and regulations are horrid evil things. So if we can't expect anything from the corporations because we should be looking to laws, and if we can't pass laws because they are evil hindrances to corporations, then what should we do?

Not everyone. I happen to think that laws and regulations can be wonderful things.

It strikes me as odd that we accept and even celebrate law and order for the individual person, but many people balk as soon as the same standard is applied to an organisation.

The war on drugs and mass incarceration of weed smokers is fine. Regulating a woman's body by banning abortion is fine. Regulating against a woman to protect the rights of a rapist is fine. Regulating sexuality is fine.

But regulate ISPs, or Hollywood, or financial institutions, or Walmart or Amazon, or whatever other corporation? Oh hell no, that's a cardinal sin. You can't get in the way of money.

I think that running a business should be a privilege, one that can be properly revoked when the business fails to serve the society it depends on.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#80

Post by richthegeek »

WorkingClassSWE wrote: post #30
dragonwriter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> blue collar employees (software engineers) Huh?

Working class might've been a better term

SE are not working class. At best they are at the top end of the middle range, and generally above 100k is considered 'upper middle'.
Post reply on HN