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

Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 295 posts

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#141

Post by tw04 »

joemag wrote: post #132
ahelwer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very, very few moral applications of facial recognition. Logging into your phone/laptop or assisting people with prosopagnosia, I guess. Everything else basically enables mass surveillance. It is frankly astonishing, and an exemplar of technologist naivete, that so much effort was (and continues to be) dumped into developing this technology.

Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members. Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.

>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.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#142

Post by cle »

tw04 wrote: post #141
joemag wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members. Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.

>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.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#143

Post by jrochkind1 »

plandis wrote: post #52

In my mind selling facial recognition seems no different than selling a hammer. It’s amoral, it can be used for good or bad. Id much rather see laws to limit when and how the technology can be applied.

Sure, anything can be used for good or evil, uranium, an ICBM, whatever.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#144

Post by itwasntandy »

joemag wrote: post #132
ahelwer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very, very few moral applications of facial recognition. Logging into your phone/laptop or assisting people with prosopagnosia, I guess. Everything else basically enables mass surveillance. It is frankly astonishing, and an exemplar of technologist naivete, that so much effort was (and continues to be) dumped into developing this technology.

Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members. Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.

While I agree with the aspiration, I don’t see how it’s possible to use facial recognition to flag “america’s Most wanted” or to look for missing children without mass surveillance though?

It only works if it scans _everyone_ .

Additionally what happens when the technology isn’t perfect and innocent people get mistakenly flagged as persons of interest?

The other thing is once it’s installed and in operation, what’s to stop it being used for other purposes? - being used to target people peacefully protesting against the government or whatever.

It’s a slippery path from there into a surveillance state - China is already pretty much there with their social credit system - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

I for one don’t want to wake up someday soon and discover it’s 1984...

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#145

Post by tjpnz »

tty2300 wrote: post #138
Vordax wrote: post #39

What I really wanted was facial recognition in Google Glasses. I hate it when I am in the store and someone comes up and says Hi hows the wife and kids, and I am like "who is this....". Would be great to say "Hey Bob, doing good" :)

Soon you will also be able to see a rating next to their name showing their social credit score so you will know how much interacting with them will affect your score.

Hello Black Mirror.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#146

Post by jrochkind1 »

ahelwer wrote: post #91
plandis wrote: post #52

In my mind selling facial recognition seems no different than selling a hammer. It’s amoral, it can be used for good or bad. Id much rather see laws to limit when and how the technology can be applied.

There are very, very few moral applications of facial recognition. Logging into your phone/laptop or assisting people with prosopagnosia, I guess. Everything else basically enables mass surveillance. It is frankly astonishing, and an exemplar of technologist naivete, that so much effort was (and continues to be) dumped into developing this technology.

Some of the developers may be naive, as people often willfully are for the preservation of their paychecks. The governments and corporations funding the development know exactly what they're doing.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#147

Post by maroonblazer »

joemag wrote: post #132
ahelwer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very, very few moral applications of facial recognition. Logging into your phone/laptop or assisting people with prosopagnosia, I guess. Everything else basically enables mass surveillance. It is frankly astonishing, and an exemplar of technologist naivete, that so much effort was (and continues to be) dumped into developing this technology.

Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members. Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.

Agree. And to take it even further, consider Bostrom's "Vulnerable World Hypothesis" where technology could arise that makes it trivial for individual actors to cause mass destruction. From the abstract:

"A general ability to stabilize a vulnerable world would require greatly amplified capacities for preventive policing and global governance."

https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#148

Post by aeturnum »

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 as a small player or having a small impact. Dismissing the importance of what they choose seems myopic. To return to your frame, I'd say that if Amazon stuck to its decision not to work on the technology it would be more meaningful than any national ban outside of, probably, the US or China.

In general - it seems like, if we don't like something, we should celebrate it not being done. Even if it's not done in some limited context. In fact, outside of a world government with effective law enforcement - all choices not to do things are limited. So it's really all we have!

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#150

Post by anigbrowl »

plandis wrote: post #52

In my mind selling facial recognition seems no different than selling a hammer. It’s amoral, it can be used for good or bad. Id much rather see laws to limit when and how the technology can be applied.

And yet you can't buy hand grenades at 7-11 even though that would be insanely useful.
Post reply on HN