31–40 of 191 posts
What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability…
[deleted]
> "Insider reported in February that Amazon was equipping all delivery vehicles with an AI camera system called Driveri, which is manufactured by a company called Netradyne. > The cameras are always on and scan drivers' body language and the speed of the vehicle, detect if a driver is wearing a seatbelt, and even measure drowsiness. > The system then uses "automated verbal alerts" to tell drivers if a violation has b…
"Netradyne provides cutting-edge technologies in AI, ML and Edge Computing to help reduce accidents by creating a new safe driving standard for commercial vehicles. Our industry solutions reduce driving incidents and protect against false claims" https://www.netradyne.com/
Five bucks says their buzzword-compliant Sauron-o-scope is nothing more than a thin layer over some student's OpenCV project.
I do wonder what kind of company culture produces decisions like this. Multiple high-level people will have signed-off on this. They'll have sat in meetings reading their six page documents and nodding at eachother. I wonder if, at any point, anyone said no - this is excessive? Or that this is dehumanising? Or is it that when you get past a certain level at Amazon are you already so invested in their worldview that t…
What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability…
To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriately) seems like a fundamentally good move. And makes basic sense in any vehicle still piloted by a human.
The issue is that (of course) people being watched by a camera opens the potential of misuse, and so (as ever) people jump to worse-case scenarios and start using emotionally-loaded words like ‘dystopian’.
Of course, we don’t know for sure if it will be misused, and/or dystopian, until it’s actually implemented and we have observed results... but people do like to get upset and sensationalise just about anything that’s a new idea, these days.
What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability…
Obligatory dystopian scifi on this theme: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
Eventually this is going to start costing them jobs and money... and even then they'll just find a way to shift blame. At this point I don't want to buy anything from them anymore. It's just not worth supporting this kind of institutional myopia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> detect if a driver is wearing a seatbelt, and even measure drowsiness. These actually sound like good things, but they’re also implementable without a camera
Wearing a seatbelt was already monitored via vehicle telemetry, so this is patent nonsense.
I wonder if wearing a shirt with an image of a seatbelt would be enough to trick the camera or AI :)
What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability…
Because Amazon + cameras + AI + sensationalism = clicks? To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriately) seems like a fundamentally good move. And makes basic sense in any vehicle still piloted by a human. The issue is that (of course) people being watched by a camera opens the potential of misuse, and so…
What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability…
Having cctv in a factory is one thing, having one camera pointed to the face of each employee with AI to detect what they're doing is something else.
Is this kind of supervision ok?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wearing a seatbelt was already monitored via vehicle telemetry, so this is patent nonsense.
Without visual confirmation, the driver could either buckle the seatbelt under themselves (buckle over the empty seat and then sit on it) or have a buckle (yes, just a buckle) to trick the sensor into thinking all is well. I’ve seen taxi drivers do this to avoid having to actually buckle up; I guess it’s uncomfortable to them? I wonder if wearing a shirt with an image of a seatbelt would be enough to trick the camera…