Amazon Shareholders To Jeff Bezos: Stop Marketing Facial Recognition Tool (nbcnews.com) 68
A group of Amazon shareholders are calling on the company to stop pitching its facial recognition tool to local law enforcement agencies, writing in a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos that the technology could pose a privacy threat and a financial risk. From a report: The letter comes amid mounting criticism of the tool, called Rekognition, from privacy activists and civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union. The groups have raised concerns that the tool could be used to build a system to automate the widespread identification and tracking of anyone. Rekognition is already being used by at least one law enforcement agency, the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Oregon, according to a customer testimonial page. "While Rekognition may be intended to enhance some law enforcement activities, we are deeply concerned it may ultimately violate civil and human rights," the shareholders said in the letter to Bezos, a copy of which was provided to NBC News by the ACLU.
Re: (Score:1)
If a child's parents are criminals, then removing that child from their custody to ensure her safety is moral and good.
The problem is that in this case also refuges seeking asylum are by default assumed to be criminals.
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Does it mean that "all people are equal, but some are more equal"?
Re: (Score:1)
That's incorrect, an asylum seeker can do so at any official port of entry, not sneak into the country, get caught then claim asylum.
Furthermore, an asylum seeker should seek asylum in the FIRST country they arrive when seeing refuse from their country of origin. IE you don't seek asylum after passing through multiple countries in which you are not at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is there is one case of a person who was seeking asylum and followed the rules were the kid was separated, that was resolved in under a week with them being rejoined.
Also of the 2000 kids(2700 by other accounts) the majority of them are kids who arrived with out parents.
Re: (Score:1)
Still seems to me an unusually cruel punishment considering the non violent nature of the crime, especially for innocent children.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
We have been conditioned not too.
We have been taught from a young age that 'no matter what your classmates and teachers believe' that is there business and their freedom of religion no one has any right to 'judge' what anyone else believes or treat them differently (aka discriminate) because what they believe conflicts with what you believe. So , logically, if you believe nothing and are 'an evil greedy bastard' what you believe is just as good as everyone else, and we shouldn't 'judge' you
Re: Greedy bastards ... (Score:1)
Dude I've been on Slashdot since something like 96 and I know the crowd as well as any. I don't have anything to sell it only call it like I see it. I don't have an obligation to make you happy by saying other than what I believe.
Re: Greedy bastards ... (Score:1)
Love and a sincere desire for the truth are most important. After that any judgement is between you and God.
The problem with the atheistic hypothesis is that as you explained your only guide to ethics is what you happen to feel so you are at a loss to know if what you want is moral or just what you want. That makes it impossible to form a cogent argument for what is or isn't evil other then just calling people names and saying you don't like it. That is useless for building a consensus or effective argui
Re: Greedy bastards ... (Score:2)
You have readily proved my point. The only argument you were able to make against slavery us basically. I don't feel it is right and I'm sure other people who aren't bad all agree.
As you pointed out therearly were thousands of supporters of slavery and there empathy didn't change there minds.
People who were willing to dieverything for what they thought washe right changed that situation, but I feel it is bad and you should too isn't a reason to stand up to anybody about anything. Had the bulk of the nor
That is not the problem (Score:2)
The problem is that the majority of US sheepsumers don't care whether the companies they buy from are greedy and/or evil.
It's not that they don't care. It's that most have no sources they can buy from that are not greedy or evil in some way.
When all you can choose between are different evils you stop considering that aspect in your choices.
I have a better suggestion (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop flooding your entire Store with counterfeit goods. Also stop bundling everything with the now "more expensive than ever" Prime service. Does almost a 200 billion dollar a year company that has 40% of all e-commerce need to keep constantly raising its monthly charges? 40% freaking percent, please take a minute to think about that. When is enough enough and how big is too big. * I like my 2 day shipping and Fire TV but it doesn't mean I can't point out their issues.
It's their business plan. (Score:2)
Operate at a (near) loss until you have a near monopoly (or at least a huge barrier to entry) and run out all of the competitors then raise the prices and boil that frog slowly.
It's just the new-ish way of doing things, uber, walmart, etc, etc. They all play this shitty game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a bunch of people figured out that when their ballots offer bungee or death by bungee, their best bet before getting the pitchforks and torches out is to try exerting control over the corporations themselves.
Major shareholders or 2 guys with a couple? (Score:3)
If this was somebody with, say, more than $25 million in Amazon shares it'd have more resonance, and if was someone or some group with in excess of $100 million in shares it would have even more.
My guess is that the big money isn't at all opposed to this, in fact, they probably love it, although they would probably prefer it be developed for more consumer-friendly purposes so that it seems benign (ala Alexa) rather than immediately being turned into a dystopian police state tool.
Re: (Score:1)
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com]
That is who 'owns' amazon. Rando group that owns 500 shares does not 'own' amazon any more than my 300 shares of intel give me any influence on them.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that the big money isn't at all opposed to this, in fact, they probably love it, although they would probably prefer it be developed for more consumer-friendly purposes so that it seems benign (ala Alexa) rather than immediately being turned into a dystopian police state tool.
Their only objection is the publicity.
First Be Evil (Score:1)
All your corporate ethics are belong to stuff we fought against during WW II.
Freedom, Equality, Privacy.
This is what America stands for, and Amazon needs to do the same.
Why not? (Score:2)
If he doesn't sell them one someone else will. What possible difference does it make who it is? If I was a shareholder I'd want a piece of that very profitable action. If they really don't like it what they should do is OUTLAW the technology's use in the USA. I'm all for that. Plus the repeal of the fucking "Patriot" Act with it's FISA secret warrant secret court bullshit. Under a strict interpretation of the US Constitution it's not even legal but Judges like to interpret the Constitution the way they thi
Off-topic considered normal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that so many of the responses here are addressed to the standing of the group requesting this rather than on the merits of the request itself. It's almost as if the moral dimensions of technology are invisible to most Slashdot posters.
Slashdot has been a haven for pseudo intellectuals and the middle brow for a long time, post 2005/2006 the site became no different than any other major news site. Nerds theoretically should be skeptical about concentrations of power and be able to see through the bullshit. But tragically many slashdotters are no different then the american public.
George carlin said it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Headling lies.. (Score:2)