Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#161

Post by wavefunction » Thu, May 23, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC

spunker540 wrote: post #158

I feel like there are clearly ways in which facial recognition can improve a lot of systems -- ticketing (think airports, sporting events, concerts etc); automated stores (like the amazon cashierless stores); payment (imagine not needing a wallet because the combination of your face, gait, and voice is enough to verify you); security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past o…

I would quibble with your basic premise of facial recognition improving these things or even if these things are worthy goals. At least from my personal and selfish interest I don't perceive any improvement offered for myself or society. From a perspective of a shareholder/interested-party looking to maximize X via Z then yeah it makes sense.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#162

Post by chunkstuntman » Thu, May 23, 2019, 2:52 AM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #156

Christian_Baker wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf The issue is not whether it is amoral or not to do something. The issue is in the inherent asymmetry in making an error. If i knowingly sell a hammer to a particularly wicked individual, perhaps a dozen or so innocent people will perish due to my actions. However, if i sell facial recognition to the wrong individual, I may have wiped out an entire gene…

What about the possibility that a bad person uses the hammer to build a sarin gas bomb, uses it to destabilize the government, seizes control, and then executes entire races and gene pools? It's all about the consequences, not the probability, so doesn't that make selling a hammer just as wicked?

The US government routinely monitors purchase and search histories to prevent the active ingredients of something destructive like that from falling into nefarious hands, and you're posing a wholly disingenuous argument

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#163

Post by paxys » Thu, May 23, 2019, 2:54 AM UTC

joemag wrote: post #132

ahelwer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What happens if the system flags the wrong person as "America's most wanted" and a trigger-happy cop is nearby? Not saying all applications are useless, but most of them definitely warrant additional thought.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#164

Post by schrodinger » Thu, May 23, 2019, 2:55 AM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #161

spunker540 wrote: post #158

I feel like there are clearly ways in which facial recognition can improve a lot of systems -- ticketing (think airports, sporting events, concerts etc); automated stores (like the amazon cashierless stores); payment (imagine not needing a wallet because the combination of your face, gait, and voice is enough to verify you); security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past o…

I would quibble with your basic premise of facial recognition improving these things or even if these things are worthy goals. At least from my personal and selfish interest I don't perceive any improvement offered for myself or society. From a perspective of a shareholder/interested-party looking to maximize X via Z then yeah it makes sense.

If it came with absolutely no downsides, of course it would be awesome if a subway could identify and charge you just by walking in. Or an Uber. Or a grocery store. It’s the perverse abuses of such technology by the government or advertising companies that makes it dystopian.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#165

Post by ben_jones » Thu, May 23, 2019, 2:57 AM UTC

joemag wrote: post #132

ahelwer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And we're already into "Think of the children!"

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#166

Post by jdsully » Thu, May 23, 2019, 2:59 AM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #90

awakeasleep wrote: post #69

Earlier 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…

Landmines are a non-trivial factor in South Korea's freedom. For a large portion of their existence the South had an inferior army and economy. Their current might is a more recent phenomena.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#167

Post by judge2020 » Thu, May 23, 2019, 3:03 AM UTC

Jaepa wrote: post #157

cle wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws have a tendency not to stop dictators. They are the law. In reality laws are only as powerful as their enforcement, and if there is no will to enforce, like what happens during transitions to dictatorships, then they’ll just be ignored.

Yes, but that is kind of the point. The lack of checks and balances tend to lead to totalitarianism.

So in what way will facial recognition and "criminal spotted on 5th avenue" either dissuade or encourage totalitarianism/removing checks and balances?. If a Gov't falls into totalitarianism, a facial recognition ban (both internally within AMZN as well as on a national/local level) won't stop them from requiring AMZN to provide them facial recognition behind-the-scenes.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#168

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 23, 2019, 3:05 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#169

Post by philwelch » Thu, May 23, 2019, 3:07 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #141

joemag wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places And what happens if we descend into military rule or a dictatorship? With "America's most wanted" fliers, the general public can just refuse to participate. With facial recognition, anyone deemed an "enemy of the state" can easily be tracked and eliminated. Always assume the worst and work your way back to the good when doing the cost-benefit analysis.

> And what happens if we descend into military rule or a dictatorship?

We wear masks.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#170

Post by philwelch » Thu, May 23, 2019, 3:08 AM UTC

itwasntandy wrote: post #144

joemag wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I agree with the aspiration, I don’t see how it’s possible to use facial recognition to flag “america’s Most wanted” or to look for missing children without mass surveillance though? It only works if it scans _everyone_ . Additionally what happens when the technology isn’t perfect and innocent people get mistakenly flagged as persons of interest? The other thing is once it’s installed and in operation, what’s t…

CCTV cameras are already ubiquitous. That ship has already sailed. And honestly, there was never an expectation of privacy in public in the first place.