Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 191 posts

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#101

Post by tw04 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #86
tomhoward wrote: post #29

Maybe it's just that I live in Australia, a country that has very strict road safety laws and practices, which are generally supported by the community, given that our road fatality figures are now very low (in 2019 we had just under 1200 road deaths in a nation of 25.3M people - a low rate by world standards, particularly given how much we drive here). But I just don't see the cause for outrage over this - as long a…

> as long as the system really is focused on the safety of drivers and other road users. That's the problem; nobody (rightfully) trusts Amazon to only have everyone's best interests at heart, or to not abuse this system. Because they have in the past, and they will in the future.

So much this. You (op) cannot tell me with a straight face that if Amazon catches wind that drivers are considering unionizing they won't accidentally set their AI to flag any conversation recorded that mentions the word union for further review.

Recording your drivers 24/7 with a camera/mic is a step too far. If you want to have a "black box recorder" that's simply recording the telemetry of the vehicle itself, that's about as far as I'm willing to accept.

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#102

Post by 14 »

Will the AI detect a driver sweating and suggest they have some water? Will AI detect that a driver needs to use the bathroom because it has be so many hours since the last bathroom stop? What other benefits could AI provide should they truly be looking to make the work safer and better?

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#103

Post by tomhoward »

bostonsre wrote: post #97
tomhoward wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> berated Where did it say "berated"?. Outside of the stance "I've already decided I distrust anything Amazon does", what facts do we have that this "live feed" is anything more then a welfare checkin to make sure the driver is OK, or something else non-malicious and sincerely focused on safety? And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it…

> And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action? They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon say…

> They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators

That makes no sense. Deeply/continually unhappy workers are less productive, especially if they leave. And action from regulators is bad for productivity, especially when laws are enforced via court action/penalties or when new laws imposed.

This line of commentary is just-so narrative to uphold the position that everything Amazon does is evil. But it doesn't demonstrate that Amazon actually has the incentive to do said evil things.

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#104

Post by Black101 »

koolba wrote: post #24
e-clinton wrote: post #20

Many blue collar workers are recorded all day long. In fact, it’d be tough finding a brick-and-mortar store that doesn’t have recording devices all over. Why is this news? Because it’s in a truck? Because it’s using AI?

Having a recording to examine when investigating an incident is different than an AI analyzes all video feeds in real time. The latter is more like each camera having a security team watching it 24/7. That may be common in some high risk environments (e.g. gambling or other large cash situations) but it’s certainly not the norm in vanilla retail. Truck drivers have historically been independent, in both corporate str…

> but it’s certainly not the norm in vanilla retail.

It will come... unless there is some major push back which is why I applaud this truck driver's actions....

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#105

Post by 14 »

pirocks wrote: post #69
PaulRobinson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the vehicle had these features built in by the manufacturer, and it was employer policy that the driver does not disable those features, would you still consider that to be a case of employers "judging" driving behaviour in real time? Or would it perhaps be a perfectly reasonable policy? This is a monitoring system that helps drivers drive safer. Why are you assuming that it's anything else? You're assuming "judge…

My understanding is that this is a system which is recording the driver for review by human management at a later date. Which is very different from anything that would come pre-installed in a vehicle.

We hear you want to unionize, unfortunately your driving record shows you were what “we” call a bad employee and are fired immediately. No you can not disputed the reasons and no we will no show you the evidence.

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#106

Post by kodah »

I think the outrage is warranted, but software engineers allowed this precedent many years ago. I can see the parallels between this and "security" software that is highly invasive. Software that installs itself in your certificate chain to decrypt all TLS communication, companies like Netskope that offer bridges with admin cloud credentials and check up on all changes you make to cloud documents, or the infinite array of software that captures every keystroke or file saved and filters it for patterns and reviews by a human. There's also software where a company can get a live capture of your desktop, though I've never discovered it in use. If you tell the average Jill/Joe about this, generally you'll see a reaction of shock, where if you tell an engineer about it they shrug it off.

When you allow the surveillance state of the government to continue to expand you can expect the nanny behaviors of corporations to expand too.

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#107

Post by text70 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #51

Well, this system will at least make it harder for Amazon to deny knowing their drivers are peeing in bottles and pooping in bags. I also can't blame the drivers for not wanting those acts immortalized.

It could be another opportunity for Amazon to diversify into paid public restrooms, that are free for drivers, but cost the public a few cents.

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#108

Post by Arainach »

tomhoward wrote: post #103
bostonsre wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action? They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon say…

> They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators That makes no sense. Deeply/continually unhappy workers are less productive, especially if they leave. And action from regulators is bad for productivity, especially when laws are enforced via court action/penalties or when new laws imposed. This line of commentary is just-so narra…

Amazon measures all of the numbers and fires its "less productive" workers. There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people, so they have a constant stream of people to work as fast as physically possible until they burn out. This is baked into their entire philosophy - it applies to warehouse workers, drivers, and software engineers.

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#109

Post by navbaker »

tomhoward wrote: post #103
bostonsre wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action? They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon say…

> They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators That makes no sense. Deeply/continually unhappy workers are less productive, especially if they leave. And action from regulators is bad for productivity, especially when laws are enforced via court action/penalties or when new laws imposed. This line of commentary is just-so narra…

I would guess, admittedly with no evidence, that for this particular job, Amazon does not have to worry about posting high numbers for retention. It’s a job without a ton of skill barriers to entry, so they don’t have to be deeply concerned about worker happiness.

Re: Amazon driver quits over AI-powered safety cameras in delivery vehicles

#110

Post by tomhoward »

Arainach wrote: post #100
tomhoward wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's their incentive to "abuse" the system, that seems so self-evident to others, but somehow escapes me? At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. From what I can see, other commenters agree that if this really is just a safety measure and doesn't transgress worker privacies in other ways, then it would be OK. So how about the critiques focus on ensuring that th…

> At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. Welcome to America, where the regulators are owned by the corporations and there's a never ending supply of hopelessly poor people desperate for jobs to replace anyone who quits. Your perspective is hopelessly naive.

[Editing this with a re-write, as the first version was snarky, which I don't want to bring to the discussion]

Your comment is unproductive as it's largely unfalsifiable ideological rhetoric (with the personal barb "hopelessly naive" thrown in to really poison the discussion).

Granted:

Corporate influence of government is a real issue;

Corporate exploitation and mistreatment of workers is a real issue;

But also:

Democracy and government oversight of companies still exists, and still has a meaningful influence on the way companies operate;

As does the fact that, whilst many people are struggling and desperate for work, there is not, in fact, a never-ending supply of workers who are both competent/capable of doing the work that Amazon needs, but also so poor and desperate for work that they will tolerate any level of maltreatment for an extended period of time. (If your whole argument hinges on that claim, which it seems to, you need to do some more work proving it, as it's a very big claim.)

It's way late where I am so I'm exiting the discussion for some sleep, thanks.

Post reply on HN