Security cameras are already everywhere. So, um, should there be a law that only human retinas can look at them? Why allow recording of the feeds, for that matter?
Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
131–140 of 295 posts
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#132In 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.
Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members.
Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#133It amazes me still how much power in our "democratic" system is help completely outside of the control of the public. How some people, by virtue of owning capital, are vested with such powers that can make or break the lives of millions. Theirs are the decisions that can kill thousands or cause suffering to millions. Democracy is not a boolean. It's a continuum. To me, it means "power held by the people whom it conce…
Huh? If the government wanted to ban facial recognition, they could do it. Our democratic system absolutely has the power to ban it. It hasn't been done, presumably because there isn't a public consensus that it should be banned. If you're arguing for public ownership of companies, that's literally communism -- so not "democratic." But we don't need communism to regulate facial recognition.
A Princeton study in 2014 found that public opinion in the U.S. has virtually no influence on national policy decisions.
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/study-the...
Subsequent studies have found that it's not as bad as all that. But even they found that the public often doesn't get what it wants. Therefore we can't conclude there's no public consensus for a ban just because the government hasn't done it already.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#134And that is good news. Company should focus on making good services and good profit, not virtue signaling on political fluff
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Does Amazon have an army more powerful than the US? No? Then absolutely the government can regulate corporate America. It's a matter of the will of the people. Edit: 20 bucks OP (andrepd) has an Amazon Prime account.
>Absolutely the government can regulate corporate America. It's a matter of the will of the people. The issue (or rather, one issue among many) is that that isn't so straightforward. There is an inherent assymetry: a trillion dollar corporation can influence the government at a scale so staggeringly huge and pervasive there isn't even a comparison that can be made with the power and influence of a regular Joe. They c…
>There is an inherent assymetry: a trillion dollar corporation can influence the government at a scale so staggeringly huge and pervasive there isn't even a comparison that can be made with the power and influence of a regular Joe.
Where does Amazon's power originate from?
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#136In 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's undeniably a freedom tradeoff here as facial recognition systems expand and many corporations and governments gain access to millions of capable sensors sending this data. I can't think of a single use case where doing this in the cloud is a worthwhile tradeoff. If you want to do this locally, sure, I can see many silly use cases for it, but as soon as you start shipping that data off to say... Amazon, things…
Even locally is bad. Retail will use this right away to track everyone and what products they look at.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#137It amazes me still how much power in our "democratic" system is help completely outside of the control of the public. How some people, by virtue of owning capital, are vested with such powers that can make or break the lives of millions. Theirs are the decisions that can kill thousands or cause suffering to millions. Democracy is not a boolean. It's a continuum. To me, it means "power held by the people whom it conce…
Sure, Amazon shareholders can "make or break the lives of millions"... but only if the government lets them. Neither Amazon nor its shareholders can really overrule what the American government decides. In theory, this means that you and I hold ultimate power, and Amazon operates at our discretion.
The real problem is that the American government is beholden to corporations like Amazon, and the ultra wealthy like Amazon's shareholders. Not you and me. This in turn comes back to campaign finance reform. As long as politicians are beholden to the wealthy to fund their election campaigns, you and I aren't going to have nearly as much say.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#138What I really wanted was facial recognition in Google Glasses. I hate it when I am in the store and someone comes up and says Hi hows the wife and kids, and I am like "who is this....". Would be great to say "Hey Bob, doing good" :)
Soon you will also be able to see a rating next to their name showing their social credit score so you will know how much interacting with them will affect your score.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
A land mine can only be a landmine. A hammer can build and destroy. So it makes sense to ban mines completely, as there is no humane use case. But for facial recognition, I do see valid use cases. So yes, I do agree with OP and rather have the bad use cases banned/regulated. And your metric: "If everyone used this technology would we live in a desirable world?" Totally depends on how it is used. I do see a potential…
A landline could prevent a burglar from walking on my property.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How about enforcing a DMZ?