Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#211

Post by Jaepa » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:34 AM UTC

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.

Hypothetically?

A tool that could track individuals and was under the perview of Executive Branch (eg Homeland Security) sounds pretty dangerous. Any political rivals of family members who go for STI screening, abortion clinics, gay bars, oncologist, or couples consoling could be either leveraged or leaked for political effect. Or you it could be used to track groups of people, activist, reporters. Or any number of ways I wouldn’t be able to think of.

What I was trying to say is that if you are trying to establish a totalitarism not having any checks and balances on something like that would be handly.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#212

Post by didibus » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:37 AM UTC

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…

I'm pretty sure Microsoft sells facial recognition to government and military. They have opposed some bills which imposed too strict restrictions on its use as well if I reckon.

And Amazon has similarly suggested that there should be regulation put in place.

Here's the thing, regulation is good in this case, as long as it doesn't prevent Microsoft or Amazon from still selling the tech. That's why Microsoft opposed certain proposed bans, but recommend for regulation.

Things like, having to get a warrant are good, because Microsoft still sells the tech, but they don't get blamed when its use wrongly.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#213

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #189

chunkstuntman wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Prin…

Not only that, the precautionary principle applies equally to inaction.

Should we research nuclear physics? The worst that could happen is global thermonuclear war, so forget about it. But what's the worst that could happen if we don't? We might need a nuke to divert an asteroid. We might need nuclear power to prevent climate collapse. It could save the world rather than destroy it.

"What you don't know can't hurt you" is contrary to evidence.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#214

Post by tomhoward » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #53

mc32 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah but everyone on this site will tell you that laws and regulations are horrid evil things. So if we can't expect anything from the corporations because we should be looking to laws, and if we can't pass laws because they are evil hindrances to corporations, then what should we do?

> Yeah but everyone on this site will tell you that laws and regulations are horrid evil things

Haven't you seen any of the discussions on this site about topics like Facebook, Google, Uber, GDPR, climate change, and how much support there is for government intervention?

Being a large global community that attracts people of a broad range of backgrounds and worldviews, sentiment is anything but uniform on topics like these.

If that weren't the case, nobody would bother coming here as there'd be nothing to discuss :)

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#215

Post by mindgam3 » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

didibus wrote: post #212

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…

I'm pretty sure Microsoft sells facial recognition to government and military. They have opposed some bills which imposed too strict restrictions on its use as well if I reckon. And Amazon has similarly suggested that there should be regulation put in place. Here's the thing, regulation is good in this case, as long as it doesn't prevent Microsoft or Amazon from still selling the tech. That's why Microsoft opposed ce…

Do you have a source? I’m aware of Microsoft military contracts ie HoloLens, but have no knowledge of facial recognition contracts.

Also source for amazon suggesting regulation?

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#216

Post by lukasLansky » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:43 AM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #148

m3kw9 wrote: post #78

If there is a ban, it should be country law, not just one company. How is this gonna achieve anything if another company goes ahead anyways?

This same argument could be made about any decision to abstain from anything. If a country banned facial recognition the work could happen in another country. You can make it even more farcical by changing the act you abstain from: Why not kill someone? They will die eventually. For any actor, their choice to do or not do something matters. It might not matter much, but it has some impact. I would not describe Amazon…

Yes, AI regulation needs to be global to be effective.

The difference between "we should abstain from our moral values because everyone dies anyway in the end" and "we should find ways to pursue our moral values effectively" is substantial. You don't have to be nihilistic to not accept cheap signaling being sold as a solution to real problems.

Few corporations deciding to not do dirty work, just providing their lower-level cloud resources to thousands of smaller firms who will gladly compete for any kind of money -- that does not solve anything.

Stuff like GDPR can change at least something.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#217

Post by philwelch » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:43 AM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #210

philwelch wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CCTV cameras monitored by humans are COMPLETELY different from a facial recognition system recording the identities and movements of all people. There is no comparison. There absolutely is an expectation of privacy in public. Being seen in public by a series of uncoordinated people is massively different from a PI tailing you and recording your actions. This form of privacy is generally termed "obscurity".

> Being seen in public by a series of uncoordinated people is massively different from a PI tailing you and recording your actions.

That is actually completely legal to do in all circumstances, precisely because there is no expectation of privacy in public.

> CCTV cameras monitored by humans are COMPLETELY different from a facial recognition system recording the identities and movements of all people. There is no comparison.

Which is not necessarily how facial recognition would necessarily work. More likely would be to scan for known suspects and fugitives. But then we’re back to the “how is it used” question.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#218

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:47 AM UTC

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.

> 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.

Technologies take time to develop and deploy, and the fact of their development and deployment is a red flag that tells you something bad is coming and gives you time to react before it can actually be put into place.

Setting everything up for turnkey totalitarianism is not wise.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#219

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:47 AM UTC

fiblye wrote: post #202

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we pass a law to prohibit that.

Because corporations and governments always follow the laws they write and laws never get repealed and overridden. The fourth amendment already has a bunch of exceptions to it, and the constitution is the highest legal framework in the land. Other laws mean diddly.

Laws are a high latency side-chain of power and authority.

That doesn't mean they are completely useless.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#220

Post by jasonkester » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:48 AM UTC

m3kw9 wrote: post #78

If there is a ban, it should be country law, not just one company. How is this gonna achieve anything if another company goes ahead anyways?

One simple ethical rule that I live by:

If I ever find myself saying “if I don’t do this, somebody else will”, I don’t do the thing. It’s a good indicator that the thing in question is the wrong thing to do.

Other people will still do it. That’s true. There will always be evil people in this world. But it won’t be me. And that’s important.