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

191–200 of 295 posts

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#191

Post by roenxi »

judge2020 wrote: post #167
Jaepa wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with the general point that it isn't a good method of stopping a government falling into totalitarianism. However it is helpful if there is general consensus against facial recognition because it makes it a bit easier to identify the authoritarian-leading parts of government because they can't hide behind 'it is just usual practice'.

There are other, better, arguments in favor of personal liberty to use against facial recognition by law enforcement. Efficient, highly automated systems crush people who just happen to get caught up in them.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#192

Post by periya »

baroffoos wrote: post #171
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…

> security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past offenders, restraining orders) So now we literally destroy the lives of anyone who has ever committed a crime in the past. Imagine a world where every single store refuses you entry because you stole something years ago.

That’s the other thing that doesn’t get mentioned more in these discussion. Governments can be bad actors and suppress citizens like how China is doing right now, no guarantee your own country won’t use it to suppress citizens who they don’t agree with.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#194

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

baroffoos wrote: post #171
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…

> security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past offenders, restraining orders) So now we literally destroy the lives of anyone who has ever committed a crime in the past. Imagine a world where every single store refuses you entry because you stole something years ago.

So we pass a law to prohibit that.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#195

Post by Dylan16807 »

sunsetMurk wrote: post #50
malandrew wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sitting here imagining a very distant future where the part of the brain that recognizes faces eventually becomes vestigial and we end up relying on technology to recognize the people in our lives. Basically acquired prosopagnosia.

Almost feel like that's not so distant. Imagine how fewer people we would recognize if we weren't regularly pinged with an update about them or their picture scrolled passed on a device.

That sounds like the tech helping memorize faces, the exact opposite?

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#196

Post by onemoresoop »

travisporter wrote: post #187
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.

Whats the big deal to not carry a wallet? It’s not the convenience I’d swap for privacy. If you imagine where this could go wrong it becomes easier to just stick to the wallet. Even to cash.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#197

Post by jdsully »

hutzlibu wrote: post #186
jdsully wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

At the time the landmines were placed the US was at a stalemate with North Korea (and China) - and even the stalemate was pure luck as NATO forces were close to full defeat at many points after China entered the war. US backing did not make their survival a sure thing.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#198

Post by coss »

singron wrote: post #31
coss wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all blue collar employees (software engineers) are shareholders at Amazon.

Software engineers are white collar workers[0]. As far as I know, hourly employees no longer get equity[1], and I would guess they comprise most of Amazon's blue collar workforce. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_worker 1: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/amazon-hourly-workers-lose-m...

Sorry, working class (as some have said) or white-collar would have been a better choice of words.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#200

Post by adrianN »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #194
baroffoos wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past offenders, restraining orders) So now we literally destroy the lives of anyone who has ever committed a crime in the past. Imagine a world where every single store refuses you entry because you stole something years ago.

So we pass a law to prohibit that.

Passing laws like that is usually seen as "weak on crime" and is unpopular with politicians.
Post reply on HN