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

Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#71

Post by confounded »

smsm42 wrote: post #66
gasull wrote: post #54

I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, they will have to get worse software from likely more expensive vendors (less market competition for the contract). Which will make ICE less efficient in its goal to criminalize, separate and deport immigrants.

ICE does not "criminalize immigrants" and can't do that. ICE ignores legal immigrants, as it should, and prosecutes illegal immigrants, according to laws passed by Congress. ICE is executive branch, it has no legislative powers and can't "criminalize" anything.

I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime.

Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine):

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#72

Post by jedberg »

makewavesnotwar wrote: post #6

I love the sentiment, but seriously... who did you think you were building this for? It's absurd to believe you were helping anything other than the big brother character from 1984. Who else would this help? Foreign secret services? Maybe you believed it would help stream line the automation process? Thereby making humans irrelevant? I'd love to hear a legitimate - non-big brother implementation of this. And please d…

Retailers. I've seen multiple working demos of retailers using facial recognition to flag repeat customers, allowing the retailer to streamline the experience for their repeat customer -- show them something new they might like based on previous purchases, start cooking their usual order before they get to the front of the line so it's ready right when they order, etc.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#73

Post by smsm42 »

confounded wrote: post #71
smsm42 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE does not "criminalize immigrants" and can't do that. ICE ignores legal immigrants, as it should, and prosecutes illegal immigrants, according to laws passed by Congress. ICE is executive branch, it has no legislative powers and can't "criminalize" anything.

I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine): https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html

Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime.

US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf

It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question has little to do with ICE as these conditions are written in law, not ICE policies.

Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example

NYT is not exactly a neutral arbiter of correct word usage, especially in highly politicized matter in which NYT is fully engaged. Additionally, if you do read the article, right from the start it points out that the change from criminal handling to civil is a target of a future reform, not a current state of affairs:

A bedrock premise of smart immigration reform is the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting. While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization, not by the police and prisons.

Nobody would need a "reform" if the above would already be the case.

In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters, beyond very narrow band of operative focus (i.e. how to allocate prosecutorial and prevention resources, etc.) - if something is criminal, ICE can not "decriminalize" it, and if something is not, ICE can not "criminalize" it. That's why the very article you quoted talks about "bills" - i.e. legislative actions - that can do exactly that.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#74

Post by pandem »

gasull wrote: post #54

I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, they will have to get worse software from likely more expensive vendors (less market competition for the contract). Which will make ICE less efficient in its goal to criminalize, separate and deport immigrants.

If ICE has to get worse software that just means you and everyone else need to pay more in taxes. The government has the means to get what it wants usually

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#75

Post by dnomad »

smsm42 wrote: post #73
confounded wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine): https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html

Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question…

> US legal system seems to disagree with you.

You're wrong. The use of the term "criminalization" here is correct. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime [1].

You then deliberately try to conflate this with border crossing but note that irregular border crossing is also not a crime when individuals are seeking asylum. The US law here is actually quite muddy here (several lawsuits are in the air [2]) but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane [3].

The criminalization effort (especially part where ICE agents get decked out with body armor and assault weapons to detain restaurant cooks) is precisely a propaganda effort to make it look like these people are all criminals when they're mostly just poor desperate people refuge from failed countries. (Of particular irony: many of these failed countries are so mostly because of US policy. In the case of Honduras the US decision to back the right-wing coup in 2009 led directly to the total collapse of law and order in that country. [4])

> In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters

Not sure if this is deliberate or you're just very naieve but ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties. (Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police though they love to dress up in the "POLICE ICE" jackets while terrorizing people.) There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own.

[1] http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/dec/01/ka...

[2] https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-right...

[3] https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/report-docume...

[4] https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/us-role-honduras-c...

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#76

Post by wencha »

StreamBright wrote: post #70
gasull wrote: post #54

I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, they will have to get worse software from likely more expensive vendors (less market competition for the contract). Which will make ICE less efficient in its goal to criminalize, separate and deport immigrants.

First of all, I am an immigrant. I am not sure why you think that ICE criminalize anybody? How is this even possible? People violate the law are criminals. Trying to enter the US illegally is a crime. Pretty plain simple. I do not like the ICE but I had pleasant experience with them even when I tried to enter the US (unknowingly) illegally once. They helped me through the process, fined me (following the law) and I w…

For some reason, the conversation here and in some other places is dominated by people who want open borders, and therefore don’t believe entering a country without permission is illegal. Such an argument would never fly in real life, so I don’t know why so much time is wasted arguing with them. It feels like some kind of elaborate trolling, saying something super crazy and waiting for answers (baiting).

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#77

Post by derping_hacker »

gasull wrote: post #54

I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, they will have to get worse software from likely more expensive vendors (less market competition for the contract). Which will make ICE less efficient in its goal to criminalize, separate and deport immigrants.

Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. Free college education for every American would cost 50-60. Why should I value criminals more than my fellow Americans. What legal obligation do I have to have the money I work for used to pay for illegal immigrants?

We could educate every american and have another 60 billion to spare to help the African-American community.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-b...

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#78

Post by bb88 »

confounded wrote: post #61
bb88 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your anger is misdirected. The fight isn't whether or not ICE should have facial recognition software. The fight is to make ICE act in accordance with our values. Some agency (ICE or whatever replaces it) will still need to protect the borders, and that protection will require facial recognition software. If you hate ICE, you should also probably hate defense contractors more, because they have very little moral qual…

Not sure if the parent expressed anything approaching either anger or hate. > ... that protection will require facial recognition software. Why? Lots of things are effective, but life in a free country means that we don’t do some of them. We could put cameras in every home, make them illegal to disable. Ban encryption. Censor the web. Ban cars that can’t be remotely disabled. Free societies are free because there is…

If you were an honest debater, you would have discussed the pros and cons of facial recognition software instead of labeling my position as somehow inherently evil without argument.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#79

Post by pjc50 »

derping_hacker wrote: post #77
gasull wrote: post #54

I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, they will have to get worse software from likely more expensive vendors (less market competition for the contract). Which will make ICE less efficient in its goal to criminalize, separate and deport immigrants.

Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. Free college education for every American would cost 50-60. Why should I value criminals more than my fellow Americans. What legal obligation do I have to have the money I work for used to pay for illegal immigrants? We could educate every american and have another 60 billion to spare to help the African-American community. http…

> Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually.

This is such a ridiculous number that it should be discounted out of hand. It also sounds like you're not counting the benefits of, work done by, and taxes paid by, these people.

Immigration enforcement is never going to get you free college. That's not how the politics works.

Re: Amazon employees protest sale of facial recognition tech to law enforcement

#80

Post by pjc50 »

maroonblazer wrote: post #50
confounded wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never seen the rationale behind not going out drinking with my buddy, just because he beats his wife when he gets home. Whether I come to the bar or not, he’ll do it anyway! Those who don’t come out with us any more are clearly doing it with the same intentions as everyone else that disagree with me; the wrong ones.

Wrong. Law enforcement and abusive husbands are not the same thing.

They're just correlated: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
Post reply on HN