131–140 of 281 posts
Facial recognition should be expressly illegal. Period. As should license plate surveillance. And for those that think that license plate surveillance should be legal, what you do not know is that municipalities are mandating that private corporations install license tracking cameras on their facilities and report back to the municipality who is driving by that address. Menlo park is just one such municipality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If consent is not given then that can not bar you from service. What’s the reasoning for this? Shouldn’t I have the freedom to pick the conditions under which I offer my services, except for discrimination? Is it discrimination if I only offer biometric ID, say for business convenience?
What you describe is called freedom of contract, which has the problem that it's the opposite of free when you have inequal parties. For most people contracts have a take it or leave it character, so there needs to be government regulation, to ensure freedom for them.
This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology that already has huge impacts on privacy and civil society. I was in the room for one of the meetings with Microsoft's senior leadership as a representative of a Seattle-based civil liberties group. While our coalition would like to see MS go further, it was quite clear that they take their commitment to corporate responsibility and ethics…
> He also denied that Amazon had any responsibility for the negative impacts of their AI/ML technologies, or role to play in industry efforts to self-regulate. For a period of time, there was a lot of chatter about all developers having some kind of professional oath, like doctors. Many of the approaches that were taken have issues (preclude working on smart weapons program or legal surveillance). I wonder if what we…
So, by that logic, Tatu Ylönen should be held responsible for all hacks/crimes committed via ssh?
You can't blame someone for making a tool that someone else uses for evil. Should Ford be responsible for all auto-related deaths? Should Edison be responsible for all deaths where the state put someone to death via electrocution? Should Jobs be responsible because a hacker used an OSX machine to hack into another machine?
I don't get this line of thinking, although I understand the sentiment.
This is the first instance I've seen of the tech industry calling for regulation. I admire this and the idea that people running a corporation can understand that despite their best intentions, in the long run the corporation will act to maximize profit via legal means, even if an action is not in the best interest of society. And so in some cases we need to make certain things illegal. I would love to see a company…
a) Anti-AWS (conceding loss of JEDI contract)
b) Regulatory capture for the remaining big cloud playersEarlier quoted context omitted.
> This stands in stark contrast to the meeting I attended on Tuesday with Amazon's general counsel regarding their Rekognition service. And I think that cuts to the core of this: this is an anti-Amazon move. Nonetheless, I do also think it's a pro-consumer, pro-civil liberties stance. It's also a recognition that the tide is turning with respect to consumers and privacy; here, Microsoft is getting ahead of this chang…
Microsoft knows how to talk the enterprise talk. BTW, Amazon competes against Alibaba for their main business, not Microsoft.
Amazon's "main business" is AWS, not their online store. For many years their store operated at a loss. Don't get me wrong, amazon.com is a HUGE business, but it's not Bezos' breadwinner.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/all-of-amazons-2017-operating-...
Biometrics are creeping into everyday life. One of my local gyms this week switched to requiring fingerprints or you were barred from access. Another local gym uses facial recognition for entrance, although you can choose to have a member card instead if you ask for it directly, they don't list it as an option. Thankfully in the EU we have GDPR. It considers biometrics as a similar sensitivity to medical data, so unl…
One of my local gyms this week switched to requiring fingerprints or you were barred from access
This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology that already has huge impacts on privacy and civil society. I was in the room for one of the meetings with Microsoft's senior leadership as a representative of a Seattle-based civil liberties group. While our coalition would like to see MS go further, it was quite clear that they take their commitment to corporate responsibility and ethics…
>> This is a laudable first step in advocacy for real regulation of a technology... Perhaps I'm jaded, but I don't agree at all. They're trying to get it regulated so they can be creepy without fear. One of the first "good" uses listed was finding 3000 children. "Think of the children" is a common rallying cry for evil. Nothing else mentioned was really relevant. The line IMHO needs to be drawn at anything that you'd…
What will MS do when their terms of service are violated?
A regulation forbidding use of this tech for discriminating against certain people is worthless if it specifies a $10/day fine. Penalties have to be significant, and life-changing for violators.
For example, HIPAA / HITECH specifies criminal penalties, and pierces the corporate veil, for intentional violation of patient privacy.
Both are important. 1) the penalties have to be criminal, not civil. 2) natural persons (not Romney persons) who break the law must not be able to hide behind the limited liability of corporations.
A third step would be a bounty system for citizens bringing charges. The same thing made the Clean Water Act enforceable in the 1970s-1980s.
Without enforceability like this, it's all chin music. Or even greenwashing.