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

91–100 of 295 posts

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#91

Post by ahelwer »

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.

There are very, very few moral applications of facial recognition. Logging into your phone/laptop or assisting people with prosopagnosia, I guess. Everything else basically enables mass surveillance.

It is frankly astonishing, and an exemplar of technologist naivete, that so much effort was (and continues to be) dumped into developing this technology.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#92

Post by mlazos »

ljm wrote: post #79
JohnFen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 H…

I honestly don’t think any of the social issues you mention are accepted wholeheartedly by society. And I also don’t think the regulations you talk about are generally rejected by society. Just here on HN you can see how heated the discussion gets about regulating amazon. I’m pretty sure the government already has the power to fine or breakup businesses that brazenly break the law, but the system isn’t efficient because businesses can argue their case in court. I think my point is these problems aren’t trivial and your solution is right at a high level, but actually implementing it in a way that is fair is really difficult.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#93

Post by roenxi »

mc32 wrote: post #47
llamataboot wrote: post #11

Ah, the public corporation! Fictive structures created so that profit-making shall never be interfered with by moral or ethical concerns! Just creating shareholder value, what else can you expect us to do!

Public corporations, private corporations, state-owned, party-controlled corporations. It doesn’t matter. At least public corporations are known to bow to pressure. I think ownership is irrelevant. What matters is lawfulness and what remains lawful after pressure or indifference from the constituencies. Hand in hand with this is the rule of law. Some countries on paper have great liberties and rights for their people…

> What matters is lawfulness and what remains lawful

To expand on that idea - if something is both lawful and profitable, you have to have an almost absolute consensus amongst the people capable of doing it that it should not be done. Otherwise, potentially even if 1 person thinks it is fine, then they will be the one to do it.

Typically this is the main strength of the economic system - jobs that people don't want to do get allocated to the person who has the least problem with doing it.

The threat here was never the development of the technology - it is obvious that it is coming - the issue here is government demand. A corporation can only do so much with my face that annoys me - the government on the other hand can make life really miserable.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#95

Post by joombaga »

ahelwer wrote: post #91
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.

There are very, very few moral applications of facial recognition. Logging into your phone/laptop or assisting people with prosopagnosia, I guess. Everything else basically enables mass surveillance. It is frankly astonishing, and an exemplar of technologist naivete, that so much effort was (and continues to be) dumped into developing this technology.

I googled it.

pros·o·pag·no·sia

/ˌpräsəpaɡˈnōZH(ē)ə/

noun PSYCHIATRY

a neurological condition characterized by the inability to recognize the faces of familiar people.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#96

Post by philwelch »

llamataboot wrote: post #48
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people who don't think there's anything immoral about facial recognition, or even its lawful use by law enforcement. I am among them. Such individuals probably comprise a higher fraction of Amazon's voting shareholders than the population at large. Especially if you count by votes, since if Bezos thought there was anything wrong with it the program wouldn't exist.

Just out of curiosity - How have your interactions been with law enforcement during your life? Largely positive? Largely negative? Or non-existent? Do you, overall, feel that the US in largely a place where law-abiding citizens are free to go about their days?

I’ll respond too, since I agree with the guy you’re responding to.

By and large, I distrust American cops. I’ve had some bad experiences with them (though never catastrophic) but I’m well-aware that some people have had it far worse.

I don’t have a problem with facial recognition software being used by police. I have concerns about equipping police with MRAP vehicles, flashbangs, tasers, body armor, rifles, tear gas, and a few dozen other things, but not facial recognition. Why should I be concerned?

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#97

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

clairity wrote: post #66
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

you're argument is wholly misplaced. if it were a decision like "should we put this bin over on that shef?", then yes, it's reasonable to delegate to a rank-and-file employee. "should we develop technology that can lead to a surveillance state?" is not one of those decisions. that's a strategic decision entirely negotiated between the shareholders (via the board) and the management team, for which they should all be…

Almost all useful technology could conceivably lead to better surveillance. Email is a great example. It is infeasibly expensive to open and read everyone's physical letters. But reading everyone's email is possible and is literally done in some very large countries.

I believe that if the board of Amazon had more they wanted to say about this issue, either publicly or internally, they do not need a shareholder resolution to enable that -- especially a non-binding one. They can simply do so. So, the resolution's purpose is actually one of signalling the shareholder's stance on the technology being developed. Clearly, most shareholders agree with the board's implicit approval.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#98

Post by itslennysfault »

mc32 wrote: post #47
llamataboot wrote: post #11

Ah, the public corporation! Fictive structures created so that profit-making shall never be interfered with by moral or ethical concerns! Just creating shareholder value, what else can you expect us to do!

Public corporations, private corporations, state-owned, party-controlled corporations. It doesn’t matter. At least public corporations are known to bow to pressure. I think ownership is irrelevant. What matters is lawfulness and what remains lawful after pressure or indifference from the constituencies. Hand in hand with this is the rule of law. Some countries on paper have great liberties and rights for their people…

There are B-Corps (benefit corp) in many states that have charters that include bylaws that are as important or at least equally as important as profitability. IMO all health providers should have to be B-Corps that have patient health as their #1 above profit.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#99

Post by ShroudedNight »

matz1 wrote: post #83
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That depends on your mortality. I see it morally right to use it on my enemy.

How does one use them on one's enemy without also using them against the long-term population in their affected area?

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#100

Post by Causality1 »

ljm wrote: post #79
JohnFen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 H…

"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."
Post reply on HN