Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy Technology

Amazon Is Writing Its Own Facial Recognition Laws To Pitch To Lawmakers (vox.com) 25

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Vox: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos says his company is developing a set of laws to regulate facial recognition technology that it plans to share with federal lawmakers. In February, the company, which has faced escalating scrutiny over its controversial facial recognition tech, called Amazon Rekognition, published guidelines it said it hoped lawmakers would consider enacting. Now Amazon is taking another step, Bezos told reporters in a surprise appearance following Amazon's annual Alexa gadget event in Seattle on Wednesday.

"Our public policy team is actually working on facial recognition regulations; it makes a lot of sense to regulate that," Bezos said in response to a reporter's question. The idea is that Amazon will write its own draft of what it thinks federal legislation should look like, and it will then pitch lawmakers to adopt as much of it as possible. "It's a perfect example of something that has really positive uses, so you don't want to put the brakes on it," Bezos added. "But, at the same time, there's also potential for abuses of that kind of technology, so you do want regulations. It's a classic dual-use kind of technology." He did not provide details on what's in the proposed legislation.
ACLU Northern CA Attorney Jacob Snow said in a statement: "It's a welcome sign that Amazon is finally acknowledging the dangers of face surveillance. But we've seen this playbook before. Once companies realize that people are demanding strong privacy protections, they sweep in, pushing weak rules that won't protect consumer privacy and rights. Cities across the country are voting to ban face surveillance, while Amazon is pushing its surveillance tech deeper into communities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Is Writing Its Own Facial Recognition Laws To Pitch To Lawmakers

Comments Filter:
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @08:14AM (#59242398)

    Big company dictating law to be enacted, probably is well written to have Amazons best interest in mind, including the use of its cloud services, while may be too restrictive to smaller companies to get into the game, without Amazons help.

    Or a step in regulating a Scary Technology that will invade our privacy and track us to a new level, where we can no longer opt-out by not using technology. Where use of such technology is much more regulated and controlled, where our privacy is somewhat violated, it is controlled and regulated in a way to reduce abuse.

    While this is a proposed law, I expect the law that gets passed will probably benefit Amazon, and not have enough safeguards to protect the individual. As I expect there will be the exception for the biggest threat to our privacy and liberty. Such as giving access to the Police, and Government so there job catching bad people is easier.

    While I am all for catching criminals, and supporting the services to maintain order, such entities shouldn't have a free pass, and every possible step to make their jobs easy. As how many people must you violate their rights to catch a criminal.

    • The first one.
    • The alternative is leislators writing laws, then getting donations.

      None of this happens in a vacuum. Get to Woke Level 2 and realize that is the purpose of legislation, not the sappy Jimmy Stewart stuff. By assuming honesty you've already bought into a quality eye-covering wool piece.

    • With slippery slope activities like this, companies actually do prefer stronger legal prohibitions. Otherwise they feel they have to follow the scummy behavior of the least common denominator just to remain competitive. e.g. The EPA finds and shuts down companies illegally dumping hazardous materials. If there were no laws against dumping such materials, companies which wanted to handle them safely would feel compelled to dump them just to reduce costs in order to remain competitive.

      The only question
  • Companies writing laws and their lobbyists presenting them to politicians,
    and (corrupt) politicians thankfully accepting them and waving them through the legislative process.
    Nothing new to see here - please move along.

    • Why would we expect our political representatives to be experts in everything they are to regulate and make laws for?

      Being most politicians have a Legal Degree, they think like Lawyers, which is fine, however there are problems and things going on beyond the scope of Legal discipline.

      We need specialists in the fields to help propose laws who understand the details of the problems to the representatives. Because in short while we hope or Political Representation are not idiots who cannot comprehend comple

      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Why would we expect our political representatives to be experts in everything they are to regulate and make laws for?....We need specialists in the fields to help propose laws who understand the details of the problems to the representatives.

        The problem is that the specialists are usually provided by the intended "targets"/beneficiaries of the legislation. The government rarely brings in opposing/dissenting views and even if they do they are given only a token consideration. The legislators just pass the bills they get from the lobbyists right on through because they know they'll at least get a donation out of it and at best a sweet gig on the board or as a lobbyist themselves once they decide to retire. Both sides do this, and different com

      • by BranMan ( 29917 )

        Thing is, I would HOPE that our congressmen would think like lawyers - as in parse carefully everything that is given to as a proposed law. How vague is this? How would I be able to twist this around? Can I drive a semi through the loopholes? How can this be abused (NOT is any abuse intended, as in "Oh, no one would every use this law that way") - but CAN it be, in any way?

        Now if our lawmakers were doing that, on a continuous basis, I would have a much higher regard for Congress than I do right now.

  • they write the laws which then go to the different sub-committees and then committees of both houses where they are changed and added to other laws and after months or years of work or changes it might finally be voted on for passage to be sent to the president

  • This is what lobbying companies do for big companies, they write proposed legislation that is favorable to their client and suggest it to lawmakers.

    • This is what lobbying companies do for big companies, they write proposed legislation that is favorable to their client and buy it from lawmakers.

      FTFY

  • The fact that Amazon has regulatory attorneys drafting proposed legislation that would protect their interests is hardly noteworthy. Any US Citizen or corporation is free to do the same. Industry groups and individuals often come together to either propose model legislation or comment on proposed regulations. This link explains the formal regulatory agency process: https://www.justia.com/adminis... [justia.com] So if you are pro or con for Amazon's efforts, how about being part of the process and engaging with the g
  • It is normal in the USA for the lobbyists compnaies to write the laws to regulate them, then, miraculously, the companies in question make large 'dampaign' donations, and the laws are passed. That is the USA today.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @09:08AM (#59242540)
    using the word "pitch" implies they'll try to argue the merits of them. That's not how that corporate lobbying works.

    Instead, Amazon will write the laws. Other corporations will also write laws. The lawmakers will consider whoever donated the most and pick their law. At no time will the wants and needs of the marks^X Constituents be considered.

    Large corporations have been writing our laws system verbatim for decades now. There's been dozens of exposés on it and people just shrug their shoulders and say "meh, what are you gonna do?".

    Me? I'm going to vote Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary because he's the only candidate who's completely refused their money (sadly even Liz Warren says she'll take it in the General, and Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg are positively swimming in the stuff). I'm also following the "Justice Democrats" wing of the party who make refusing corporate PAC money a condition to run with them.

    If anyone's wondering why I don't call out any GOP equivalents it's because I don't know any. Chime in if anybody does. I'd love to see them get on the no corporate cash bandwagon.
  • A crime that gets you 20 years in prison. Always did, still does.

    Or, how we call if nowadays: "Why, it's just lobbyist. Everyone's doing it, so it's legal. Why is this news?".

    • How dare you call the primary motivation for the creation of government, getting in the way of enterprise so you can get paid to get back out of the way, treason!

    • Treason, lol. Hysterical much? You are also free to write laws and propose them to your lawmakers. If they like it they may even put it forward, happens all the time.

      Lawmakers are ultimately accountable to voters. It's trendy and hip now to pretend that money just buys elections but it doesn't. People go to the ballots and vote, that's how people are elected.

  • Big companies have always written the laws for their owned government politicians and bureaucrats to enact and enforce.

    Politics is the acquisition and sale of government laws, regulations and power to the highest bidder for personal and professional profit of said government politicians and bureaucrats.

    Yesterdays noble concepts of public service have evolved into todays' public servants who are consumed with ideological/personal/professional power and wealth regardless of the effects on the public at l
  • This is the inevitable end of Capitalism, when corporations grow to the point that they have no more markets to exploit they will look to the public sector to profit from printed money. Amazon is already trying merge with the police force, now legislative bodies and next will be the central bank (like Facebook's Libra) and military. Get ready for the day when you are no longer Amazon's customer, but irrelevant and in need of surveillance and control.
  • It is unlawful to gather, store, analyze, or use the likeness of an individual in a technological system without their express written consent, which they may rescind for any reason at any point. It is prohibited from any such gathering, storage, analysis, or use of likeness of a minor. First offense is a class III felony, second offense is a class I felony punishable with life in prison.
    • by Agripa ( 139780 )

      It is unlawful to gather, store, analyze, or use the likeness of an individual in a technological system without their express written consent, which they may rescind for any reason at any point. It is prohibited from any such gathering, storage, analysis, or use of likeness of a minor. First offense is a class III felony, second offense is a class I felony punishable with life in prison.

      Now add the link to interstate commerce and the exceptions which swallow the rule.

      • by Chromal ( 56550 )
        Now add the link to the US Constitution which enshrines a civil right to privacy above petty questions of law and commerce, and then the Global Constitution, aka the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, which only doubles the force of the US Constitution on the question of a human right to privacy and protection against invasion of their privacy.
  • How long before we can load it up with fake faces and counterfeit faces? Like some of the products and reviews on other Amazon systems.

    We've seen the way they write software.

    Should be fun!

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...