Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#231

Post by oarsinsync » Thu, May 23, 2019, 6:56 AM UTC

edanm wrote: post #228

Jaepa wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝘁 possible uses for this. To illustrate lets imagine a really really good system that had a 0% false negative rate¹ , and a 0.000001%² false positive rate. If we were to sample the entire country looking the the FBI's most wanted we would end up with ~3290 matches, 3280 of which are going to be other people³. Considering high value of the individual the chances of harassment or wrongful arrest…

While valid, your criticism is with the actual ability/execution of the technology, not the concept. Imagine we get it to a 100% match or, more realistically, use it in a way that makes more sense than just flagging someone and ruining their life forever (not to mention being biased). Would you still be opposed to the technology? If so, your opposition has nothing to do with the above argument.

This may or may not be valid, but I'm not aware of any advanced technology that is 100% accurate that exists today.

Rather than the hypothetical of 'is this ok if we have 100% accuracy', how about 'is 100% accuracy ever likely to be possible?'

If it's not, then the previous question is about as relevant as 'if unicorns existed, would you want one?' (and yes, I would!)

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#232

Post by eecc » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:00 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?

Yeah, I never got this American Disdain for the State and regulations. Everything - health, pension, parental benefits, environmental restraint, repression of discrimination - ends up in the domain of corporate benevolence, the whims of the market and of shareholders.

If it’s not in the Law, it's just corporate marketing

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#233

Post by Calloutman » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:02 AM UTC

julkali wrote: post #225

jasonkester wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A very noble approach, however in the life of business, moral has no place. Which is very unfortunate in my opinion. I couldn't imagine how the world would look like if everyone thought the way you do...

Doing something legal but immoral to boost your profit margins is by definition immoral. I don't know how some ceos sleep at night.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#234

Post by anoncake » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:04 AM UTC

Calloutman wrote: post #233

julkali wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very noble approach, however in the life of business, moral has no place. Which is very unfortunate in my opinion. I couldn't imagine how the world would look like if everyone thought the way you do...

Doing something legal but immoral to boost your profit margins is by definition immoral. I don't know how some ceos sleep at night.

People who don't sleep at night when they do immoral things don't tend to become CEOs.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#235

Post by tanilama » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:12 AM UTC

danielovichdk wrote: post #9

Dont buy from Amazon. How hard can it be

Not hard.

But boycotting Amazon because of it is selling facial recognition API? Most people will call it nonsense.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#236

Post by anoncake » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:14 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?

If someone wants to pay you to do something immoral, then that means that you're the best/cheapest/some mix of that they found. If you refuse, you make an immoral act more expensive or reduce its "benefits".

That can be enough to reduce the cost/benefit ratio far enough that your potential customer does not consider it worth it anymore. If it does not, the next best option also has the option to refuse, and so on. Even if the immoral act eventually gets done, you have harmed the immoral actor, thus reducing their ability to act in the future -- and it's likely that you wouldn't approve of their future actions either.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#237

Post by edanm » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:24 AM UTC

oarsinsync wrote: post #231

edanm wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While valid, your criticism is with the actual ability/execution of the technology, not the concept. Imagine we get it to a 100% match or, more realistically, use it in a way that makes more sense than just flagging someone and ruining their life forever (not to mention being biased). Would you still be opposed to the technology? If so, your opposition has nothing to do with the above argument.

This may or may not be valid, but I'm not aware of any advanced technology that is 100% accurate that exists today. Rather than the hypothetical of 'is this ok if we have 100% accuracy', how about 'is 100% accuracy ever likely to be possible?' If it's not, then the previous question is about as relevant as 'if unicorns existed, would you want one?' (and yes, I would!)

I agree, which is why I wrote "or, realistically, use it in a way..." etc.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#238

Post by dnautics » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:27 AM UTC

eecc wrote: post #232

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?

Yeah, I never got this American Disdain for the State and regulations. Everything - health, pension, parental benefits, environmental restraint, repression of discrimination - ends up in the domain of corporate benevolence, the whims of the market and of shareholders. If it’s not in the Law, it's just corporate marketing

It exists because the American government (or governments writ large around the world anyway) have had a poor track record of regulating things ethically. For example, the us government has not done a great job of ethically regulating native Americans, or, ethically regulating terrorism abroad, or maybe in more quotidian and economic terms, regulating the sale of loose cigarettes. It baffles the mind that one would want the same entity responsible for such large scale horrors responsible for deciding educational policy.

If you don't want to involve regulations resulting in people dying, we can look at regulating interior decorating, or hair braiding, neither of which was conducted in the public interest. Can you name the last 2000 regulations that have been enacted in the us? Can you be sure all of them were in the public interest?

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#239

Post by anoncake » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:27 AM UTC

cle wrote: post #142

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.

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.

Some people consider violating laws immoral per se. If you make actions leading to a dictatorship illegal, you reduce the potential dictator's supporter base.

Also, in a functioning state, the bureaucracy (mostly) follows the law and the judicary's interpretation of the law. Then again, functioning states don't tend to turn into dictatorships.

(Fun fact: Article 20 (4) of the German constitution explicitly authorizes every German to resist when someone abolishes freedom and democracy. Considering the mentality of the average German, this is probably necessary.)

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#240

Post by anoncake » Thu, May 23, 2019, 7:34 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #201

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.

And dictators have a tendency to use expensive infrastructure that was built before they came into power. Setting everything up so that switching from a free society to a mass surveillance and state control hellhole is as easy as editing a config file is not a good idea.

I think what's more important about not building surveillance infrastructure is not that the infrastructure does not exist, but that building it does not become normalized. It should be morally and socially unacceptable, so those hired to build and operate one will either refuse or sabotage it.