Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#291

Post by bitlax » Thu, May 23, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

baroffoos wrote: post #171

spunker540 wrote: post #158

I feel like there are clearly ways in which facial recognition can improve a lot of systems -- ticketing (think airports, sporting events, concerts etc); automated stores (like the amazon cashierless stores); payment (imagine not needing a wallet because the combination of your face, gait, and voice is enough to verify you); security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past o…

> security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past offenders, restraining orders) So now we literally destroy the lives of anyone who has ever committed a crime in the past. Imagine a world where every single store refuses you entry because you stole something years ago.

Sounds like they'd be leaving a lot of money on the table. More likely these people would be able to shop at retailers that took that into account and took appropriate precautions. People refuse to do business with people for reasons that are much dumber or more cynical than "has previously ripped off a similar business."

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#292

Post by hutzlibu » Thu, May 23, 2019, 8:39 PM UTC

jdsully wrote: post #288

hutzlibu wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another interpretation is, that the mines cemented that border.

Yes it did. But the alternative border would have been a unified Korea with the north’s leadership in charge. Whether that is worth the trade off depends on your politics I suppose.

Or a tight border for some years and than a reunion like in my country, germany?

(even though there were mines on that border, too, but in a limited way that there are no more traces of them today)

Anyway, I am still highly sceptical to the claim, that mines prevented a total communist korea. Debating about that is not really constructive. Do you have studies for your claim?

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#293

Post by m3kw9 » Sat, May 25, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #220

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?

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.

Is case by case, in this case if they think is so bad, say selling hard drugs, should be a ban. Facial recognition banned is like AI banned under the same reasonings. Others will be doing it.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#294

Post by plandis » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

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.

It’s entirely possible I’m being naive about this I think that’s a fair criticism. I do also think that it’s equally naive to attempt to block any single company from developing this technology. As long as there is profits to be made company’s will develop facial recognition technology. This is why I mentioned regulating it’s use.

In general, once the proverbial genie is out of the bottle I don’t think you can put it back in in today’s world.

Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban

#295

Post by plandis » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

oil25 wrote: post #101

joombaga wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I googled it. pros·o·pag·no·sia /ˌpräsəpaɡˈnōZH(ē)ə/ noun PSYCHIATRY a neurological condition characterized by the inability to recognize the faces of familiar people.

"The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by neurologist Oliver Sacks is a fascinating story about visual agnosia - it was also my first introduction to artificial intelligence.

That whole book is fascinating!