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

181–190 of 295 posts

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#181

Post by simcop2387 »

AtHeartEngineer wrote: post #177
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…

If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend reading 1984. I'm sure you read it in high school or whatever, but actually read it as an adult.

Definitely a good idea. But the problem is that it's gone down the memory hole, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am... . It's a bit scary how much of it has been happening, and it's not been completely that either; there's a lot of elements from the other side of the picture. Typically espoused by Brave New World.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#182

Post by harry8 »

mindgam3 wrote: post #112

One of the things that blows my mind about the current tech landscape is that Microsoft now appears to occupy the moral high ground with its stance calling for regulation on facial recognition. I grew up with a profound distaste for Microsoft's anti-competitive business culture under Gates. But now I have to give credit where it's due. Even Apple, which has come out with strong statements on privacy, is lagging behin…

The sad thing is that Microsoft really haven't improved. The competition got more successful and took the ethics down much lower than the bar set by Microsoft. They only look good because their power diminished and others are more effective at being utterly horrible.

Apple are but one example. Can you imagine if Microsoft had tried to take 30% of your sales revenue for selling software that runs on windows? Apple did it, got away with it and took that bar down lower. Google followed and got right in there. Privacy concerns? Race to the bottom with facebrick, goog and everyone else seeing who can fk everyone over with a bait and switch strategy, deeper, faster and more profoundly. Microsoft haven't really competed there but I'm pretty sure it's not because they've taken a moral position anymore than IBM did about competitive practises in the 90s.

Microsoft probably haven't got a lot of my data under false pretenses and without my explicit consent but it's unlikely because they chose that - they just don't have much I'd want to use as a lever to rip me off. At least yet.

IBM look ok now, right? Whodathunk they literally provided the infrastructure for Nazi death camps? [1] Did their investors bless that moral position in those days too? There go Amazon claiming the right to sell facial recognition services to assist despots destroying the lives of humans.

How much money is enough Bezos? Does your toy rocket make you feel better about it? He probably wasn't so bad at one time. It can happen to any of us even without masses of money to lubricate the process.

Nonbinding resolution saying "Don't sell this stuff to evil bastards." Non-binding. Can't even have that as an "ideal" to aspire to. Get rid of that, could be money in it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#183

Post by mixmastamyk »

philwelch wrote: post #169
tw04 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

A guy in england was just cited for covering his face.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19928231

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#184

Post by philwelch »

IOT_Apprentice wrote: post #106
philwelch wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

So it is ok that China is using Facial Recognition and active surveillance to oppress, as long as it is not in your backyard? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveill...

I’m not in favor of doing business with the Chinese government. Pretty sure the Chinese are capable of developing the technology themselves, anyway.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#185

Post by tamrix »

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…

They'll just break the laws and pay the fine.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#186

Post by hutzlibu »

jdsully wrote: post #166
hutzlibu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without doubt, landmines are a effective and cheap killing tool.

But they kill or cripple anyone. And the person placing them, usually does not remove them anymore.. so lots of one legged children in the end, as normally (rightfully!) war places see peace again. But with mines being cheap to deploy and removing them beeing very expensive they tend to stay where they are, until your childrens children walk over them as boyscouts.

And south corea had US backing as far as I know.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#187

Post by travisporter »

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…

“payment (imagine not needing a wallet because the combination of your face, gait, and voice is enough to verify you)“

If it can be done from a distance, this is bone chilling to me. A company could use this to literally extract money from someone’s bank account.

I agree with the rest of your sentiment though.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#188

Post by rurp »

schrodinger wrote: post #164
wavefunction wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly even if the tech were magically perfect I think the maximum benefit is pretty small. Pulling out my wallet to pay for something or show my id only takes a handful of seconds and it's a routine action with minimal cognitive load. Plus it has the benefit of me knowing exactly what's happening with the transaction. I can decide on the spot to use a different card for whatever reason and I know precisely when a transaction is taking place.

I'm sure the automatic charges described here would be loved by corporations, which would try to find ever more clever ways to manipulate people into making even easier impulse buys.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#189

Post by roenxi »

chunkstuntman wrote: post #162
tedunangst wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Gp isn't remotely disingenuous, they are pointing out that 'probabilities ... are irrelevant [w]hat matters is the consequences' is a philosophy guaranteed to lead to stupid decisions.

To make a sensible decision in a risky context both probability and consequence are needed. There is always a (practically 0%) risk of any action leading to catastrophic global consequences.

In addition, the original Precautionary Principle paper linked is an idea that sounds nice but is actually a bit dangerous. If we applied the PP to the formation of the internet it should have been suppressed right from the get go - we never had and still have no positive evidence that social media won't cause extreme harm to the public (eg, it could have caused mass depression and disengagement with reality and maybe moral corruption :p). The internet is risky - did huge damage to existing industries and triggered the rapid rise of China through knowledge sharing and enabling remote management of industry (why else have we never seen anything like it before?). Impact of research into splitting the atom - did a lot of damage, much more risk.

Proving that something is safe without just doing it is hugely expensive. Technological advancement would not be a fraction of what we have now - the cost of trying things needs to be cheap to encourage progress. We couldn't prove most of the things we do are safe without being able to point to them and say 'seems to be working?'.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#190

Post by hutzlibu »

IntelMiner wrote: post #160
baddox wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A landline could prevent a burglar from walking on my property.

Or it could also kill a pizza delivery boy

Or yourself or the people helping you, after you had a stroke and don't remember anymore that and where your placed them.
Post reply on HN