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

91–100 of 191 posts

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

#91

Post by mypalmike »

eloisant wrote: post #35
agsamek wrote: post #26

What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability…

Having cctv in a factory is one thing, having one camera pointed to the face of each employee with AI to detect what they're doing is something else.

How are they different?

Jane is found to be falling asleep on the factory floor. Or Jane is found to be falling asleep while delivering packages.

In both cases the feed might be recorded, abused in terms of privacy expectations, sent to an AI algorithm... And in both cases she may get reprimanded.

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

#92

Post by tomhoward »

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.

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 this outcome is achieved? Unless everyone really thinks that no amount of safety is worth any risk of breaches of worker privacy?

To be clear, I'm not making arguments or seeking responses that hinge on Amazon being virtuous and trustworthy; I've been in/around business long enough to know that's futile and that incentives are ultimately what matter.

But I welcome responses that explain what incentive Amazon has to expand this system beyond improving safety for drivers and other road users.

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

#93

Post by tomhoward »

Lendal wrote: post #63
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…

I don't think it's really about the AI at all. The article mentioned a live feed which the AI activates so that your can be berated by a real-live person. From personal experience, I feel like that's what the quitting is truly about. I have quit a job before over surveillance cameras but that was back in 1980's, long before AI. The work environment there was oppressive, and not just due to the surveillance cameras. T…

> 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 really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action?

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

#94

Post by jefftk »

EarlKing wrote: post #56
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…

The outrage is twofold: 1. It's another example of Amazon blaming drivers for what Amazon themselves could control. 2. It's another example of Amazon doing something grossly invasive and of dubious effectiveness when simply tracking the hours individual drivers work and limiting them accordingly would get the job done.

1: It seems to me that this is Amazon trying to exert control, and that is part of what people are unhappy about?

2: Since drivers can work multiple jobs and do what they want with the time when they are not working for Amazon, I don't see how Amazon limiting the hours a driver works (which they likely already do) solves this problem?

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

#95

Post by bobajeff »

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.

That's the real reason for the outrage. This isn't about safety at all this is about protecting Amazon.

The driver with face all the penalties if a accident occurs. The camera footage will only show what the drivers are doing and not what their dispatchers are doing.

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

#96

Post by adontz »

eloisant wrote: post #35
agsamek wrote: post #26

What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability…

Having cctv in a factory is one thing, having one camera pointed to the face of each employee with AI to detect what they're doing is something else.

Exactly the situation in any cashdesk, for instance at banks. One or even multiple cameras per cashier.

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

#97

Post by bostonsre »

tomhoward wrote: post #93
Lendal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's really about the AI at all. The article mentioned a live feed which the AI activates so that your can be berated by a real-live person. From personal experience, I feel like that's what the quitting is truly about. I have quit a job before over surveillance cameras but that was back in 1980's, long before AI. The work environment there was oppressive, and not just due to the surveillance cameras. T…

> 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 says. The cameras will be viewed by workers with mistrust and they will assume they are being watched constantly and the "safety" purpose is bs. Amazon probably knows this, even if they intend it to actually be used for safety. This is the same reason some convenience stores put up fake cameras.

They are a beurocratic organization with middle managers doing everything they can to squeeze productivity gains out everything and every one. There may be some good guys in there but those good guys don't have their careers grow. The managers without morals rise to the top while shit rolls down hill and the guys on the bottom get worse and worse treatment.

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

#98

Post by drdeadringer »

taylorius wrote: post #89

"Safety" is a magic abracadabra word, that is used these days to justify anything and everything someone wants to do. I don't blame the guy for quitting - sounds sinister and oppressive.

Tangentially reminds me of thoughts and theories behind the TV show "The Prisoner" regarding society.

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

#99

Post by eth0up »

erikerikson wrote: post #90
eth0up wrote: post #75

My suggestion, especially to those who strongly advocate such surveillance, is that those who support or implement it should be under an even greater measure of surveillance. A live feed of their activities 24/7 is necessary due to their participation and effecting in a tentative, unprecedented surveillance state where the watched would be extremely foolish not to keep an unblinking eye on the watchers, who bear the…

Some of us would agree. There are currently legal barriers to doing this. For example, recording audio without consent is criminal in Washington state and the basis is well argued. There are many serious issues to such a monitoring system and shifts that would be necessary in society but some potentially amazing benefits. Imagine the end of "he said, she said". The reduction of incentives for running scams. The reduc…

>Imagine the end of....

A mere beginning to the end of flagrant double standards and the plebeian concession to live under them would be a dandy start. Since we're unwaveringly barreling toward the panopticon anyway, why not do so properly and see along the way who the true believers are, those willing to make genuine examples of themselves. The world should know Jeff's shower thoughts - they'll probably be foisted on it soon enough and skull bracketed AI cameras with thought-monitoring ultrasound would do well to keep everyone informed in a timely fashion. Until we wangle that, we have smartlocks, which could integrate well into a sort of prebreakfast polygraph which scans our general intent before unleashing us into the outside world where we might stretch the truth, make mischief or think in an unutilitarianly beneficial way. A morning multiple choice questionnaire could substitute during outages or glitches. We'd carry the completed form as we do driver licences. Real ID, Real Intent, auditable by any citizen on demand.

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

#100

Post by Arainach »

tomhoward wrote: post #92
pavel_lishin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Post reply on HN