Amazon Extends Moratorium On Police Use of Facial Recognition Software (reuters.com) 56
Amazon said on Tuesday it is extending a moratorium on police use of its facial recognition software. The company imposed the ban last year after the murder of George Floyd by law enforcement in June 2020. Reuters reports: Civil liberties advocates have long warned that inaccurate face matches by law enforcement could lead to unjust arrests, as well as to a loss of privacy and chilled freedom of expression. Amazon's extension, which Reuters was first to report, underscores how facial recognition remains a sensitive issue for big companies. The world's largest online retailer did not comment on the reason for its decision. Last year, it said it hoped Congress would put in place rules to ensure ethical use of the technology, though no such law has materialized. Amazon also faced calls this month from activists who wanted its software ban to be permanent.
What does facial recognition software have to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Life in the nuclear reactor. Nasty and short. (Score:2)
[Does anyone smell a herd of sock puppets? Ignoring them...]
We are living in a kind of nuclear reactor that is in a runaway state. It's already overheating, and soon it will explode.
Have a nice day and hope it isn't your last.
Why? Because corporate cancers like Amazon are running amok. The cancers are bribing the politicians to rig the game so they can continue to grow without limit. The creation of massive private surveillance networks like Amazon Ring is just one of many "unanticipated consequences" on th
Let me translate this for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations and government engage in certain types of signaling. For example when a politician in a powerful positions says that a certain politician "Has my full support" it translates to "You're on your own" and other politicians will isolate them. It's a behavior used by personality disordered people called "Triangulation". Government and business twist language to increase the cognitive effort required to understand what they are really saying, to manipulate the populous.
So let's look at this and read the subtext:
Last year, it said it hoped Congress would put in place rules to ensure ethical use of the technology, though no such law has materialized.
First Amazon is signaling it's willingness to sell access to the technology to law enforcement, however it is not prepared to wear the consequences of something going wrong. If government want to use it then they will have to regulate it's use so that the company can say "We have an obligation to follow the law"
Next:
Nathan Freed Wessler, a deputy project director at the American Civil Liberties Union, expressed support for Amazon's move and called on federal and state governments to ban law enforcement's use of the software.
Notice that this fellow knows the game, so he has turned the subtext around for the government and Amazon. He's basically saying "What a load of bollocks, I'm calling you both out"
Finally:
Due to Amazon's prominence and prior defense of facial recognition, its moratorium has carried significance. Rival Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) said shortly after Amazon's announcement last June that it would await U.S. federal regulation before selling its face recognition software to police.
So Microsoft realizes that Amazon has a point, but they don't want to miss out on the action either so they're signaling hey you can by our stuff too, but were not interested in the liability either so yeah, you'd better regulate so we can make money and you guys can further screw over the populous the way we all so love.
Psychopaths and sociopaths all speak this way and once you recognise the patterns you can never unsee them. The hardest thing to do is control your disgust so that they don't see you.
Especially if they are a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice comment and even nicely modded (as Insightful at this time). I mostly concur.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, I hope more people start seeing it too, that way the manipulators will be denied the use of language to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you will find it helpful, but when you start talking about the abuse of language, I think it's important to consider how lies are constructed. I use this ontology to classify them:
Level 0: Self-contradiction. Stupid and obviously false without checking anything. Includes hypocrisy, but sometimes you need to consider the time factor carefully.
Level 1: Counterfactual. Any fool can check the facts.
Level 2: Partial truth. Lawyers and politicians love this level, but it takes some work to underst
Re: (Score:1)
Simple. If Amazon's face recognition software had been used on George Floyd, it would have unjustly identified him as George Floyd. Thereupon, an attempt would have been made to arrest him, he would have fought with police, and ended up dead. Therefore, Amazon must put a moratorium.
Re: What does facial recognition software have to (Score:1)
BLM protesters were at risk of having their identities revealed while looting during the Floyd protests.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an invasion of privacy if you are in a public place, so your virtue signaling makes even less sense. Of course most virtue signaling doesn't make sense anyway, so that's not surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
What does facial recognition software have to do with George Floyd?
You don't remember the protests that followed?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Guess (Score:2)
There might be "technical reasons" for this - for example the camera may use image-focusing technology that produces less effective results with darker skin tones.
The lack of focus might result in a reduction in match accuracy and that could result in
WTF our government (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Amazon the guard for our freedom? Shouldn't that be the role of our citizen run government?
The citizens don't run the government.
That corporations are thrust (unwillingly in this case) into the role of protecting the citizenry from the government says much about the flaws in our society.
Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I think we need to be asking much more challenging, demanding questions. Like: "Why did Amazon feel there was a market for them to go and develop facial recognition software for in the first place?" What, exactly, was their purpose that prompted them to develop facial recognition at all? It's not like it's even related to any of their core competencies [retail, logistics, cloud].
There's a broader question, however, around the use of facial recognition software by law enforcement [and in the live monitoring of CCTV feeds, etc.] which is this:-
Citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy and to be treated, in the eyes of the law, as innocent until proven guilty.
The problem with facial recognition and identification based on facial recognition is that everyone gets swept up in the dragnet. If federal officers set up a road-block on a highway somewhere and pulled over every single vehicle to establish the identity of the driver, any passengers, the start and end points for the journey and the purpose of the journey and cheerfully stuffed that in some hidden database, there would rightly be outrage. But if the same federal officers put cameras on highways and used cell phone towers alongside highways to capture details of passing cell phones, they could pretty soon dragnet most of the people using the road.
The overt, visible and obvious dragnet would immediately cause public outcry. Just because CCTV and facial recognition isn't so obvious doesn't make it any less unreasonable.
There's another, much more serious reason to be wary of this sort of thing. Mistakes. On July 22nd, 2005, Brazilian citizen Jean Charles de Silva e de Menezes was shot and killed [wikipedia.org] by unidentified officers on an underground train in London, UK.
An on-duty officer had compared photographs taken from CCTV from a previous attempted bombing and determined [incorrectly] that Mr. de Menezes was a suspect in an attempted bombing in the British capitol. Because of the nature of the incident, the response Team were armed, boarded an underground train, then shot Mr. de Menezes seven times in the head at point blank range, without giving any warning or any form of identification.
The point here is not to condemn the actions of the Security Team that responded - they had been told that there was credible evidence that their suspect was a bomber - but to point out the inherent dangers of relying on CCTV and facial recognition systems as a precursor to significant (i.e. life-or-death) decisions.
The problem we face as a society is that we typically don't get to decide, as a society, whether "use of facial recognition in dealing with a suspected bomber" is OK, while "use of facial recognition in dealing with a suspected ticket cheat" is not. Law enforcement, trying to do the best they can, will use any resources they can, even if, in some cases, those resources can be unreliable.
That's the conversation we're not having. These are the sorts of things that really need a broader public discourse, to help us understand what is societally acceptable and what is not. Today, far too many of those decisions are being made without consultation or engagement, anonymously, with no recourse to correct mistakes. At the moment, it is only the relative obscurity of these practices [i.e. like FISA warrants] that protects them and allows them to continue. Proponents will argue that too much openness can reveal details of operational intelligence capabilities. That's almost certainly true. But there has to be a better approach than just keeping all this under wraps.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I think we need to be asking much more challenging, demanding questions. Like: "Why did Amazon feel there was a market for them to go and develop facial recognition software for in the first place?" What, exactly, was their purpose that prompted them to develop facial recognition at all? It's not like it's even related to any of their core competencies [retail, logistics, cloud].
Amazon did this for data collection and advertising purposes, the police would be a secondary market.
Re: (Score:2)
They're avoiding prohibitive legislation that would restrict their technology even further.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a common principle in data protection laws that "Data collected for one purpose cannot be used for another purpose without first obtaining the permission of the Data Subject". The common approach companies take to this is to bundle what *they* want to do with your data alongside what *you* want to do with your data, such that you can't separate out the unsavoury parts and either have to agree to the
Re: (Score:2)
Which is risky, because I don't know if the following theory is correct. I'm guessing.
But if you had asked me, "Why did Amazon develop facial recognition technology", then my answer would have been "Amazon Grocery Stores"... I thought the idea [I have never used one] was that you could walk in, pick up what you want, then walk out without having to stop or pay. In order for Amazon to be able to do that, they would have had to recognize your face and associa
Re: Hmm.. (Score:2)
Citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy
Not in public. And certainly not on my property. So smile for my security cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really clear where people get the idea that they have the "right" to be anonymous whenever they want in a public space, it's an absurd assumption.
The whole modern concept of "privacy" is an aberration anyway, it wasn't until the advent of cities with populations exceeding 100,000 or so that you could ever even **BE** anonymous in public. My grandparents were related by blood or marriage to 1/3 of the rural county they grew up in, and that was the situation for almost all of human history.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to privacy was imputed by the US Supreme Court. It originates from the 5th and 9th Amendments (Although you'd have to read their actual decisions. I'm relying on 3rd party law school web pages.) Lots of other privacy rights are assumed by rights to schooling, medical treatment, etc. But since those aren't done on the sidewalk in front of my house, I don't think my Ring camera has any bearing on them. One might make an argument that a right to abortion includes the freedom from being photographed e
Re: (Score:2)
That corporations are thrust (unwillingly in this case) into the role of protecting the citizenry from the government says much about the flaws in our society.
Sir, please calmly put down the Brush of Holy Divinity. It was decreed long ago that such use is illegal against an entity like Amazon.
Besides, the Donor Class likes their oily sheen of corruption.
TL; DR - Wake up. Amazon can afford to look like the good guy for quite a while longer with an audience this gullible. In the meantime, more and more Ring cameras will go on sale at far below cost...just in time to quietly turn all this shit back on by Christmas.
(This corporations are "thrust" in by their own f
Re: (Score:2)
Below cost? Have you never seen the price of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Below cost? Have you never seen the price of them?
Don't have to. When Amazon wants to drive a product, we know their tactics.
We also know they can easily afford to underprice the competition at a loss, for a damn long time.
Besides, it's only a loss if you're dumb enough to not demand government subsidies...
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon doesn't get subsidies for Ring doorbells or any of their other hardware.
The only real competition is Google's Nest, which is even more expensive. (Amusingly enough, most of the cheap doorbells are hosted on AWS.)
Look at the guts of one of their doorbells, there are a ton of breakdowns online. There's a tiny mainboard, a power controller and depending on the model a battery plug, and the camera CCD. The actual hardware can't cost more than $30-$40 including the box, if anything they're overcharging
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the other side of the loop. "The citizens don't run the government" because the corporations (like Amazon) run the government.
The corporations are bribing the cheapest politicians to rig the game for more profit. Only insane because no amount of profit is sufficient.
Worth annotating the differences between the bribes? I actually think there are substantial differences between the parties and the kinds of corporate money the politicians receive. Most donations to so-called Republicans are transact
Re: (Score:1)
It's a good question. Governments serving their populations is much like children having two parents, or humans having two genders with distinct physiology, psychology, and social rules. It gets violated a lot, and violating those standards has led to a great deal of destructive strife, even if it's part of the freedom of choice for the individuals involved.
Re: (Score:2)
I say we let cops use it, let someone sue them fo
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Amazon the guard for our freedom?
Because their employees stood up for us, then Amazon's investors followed. This was happening while the last administration was going "Law and Ordurrrr".
No moral superiority (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon are in no position to play the paladin of citizens' privacy here.
You can't hold back the tide unfortunately (Score:3)
While I agree with their stance , it'll probably only be 10 years or so until the technology to do real time face recognition along with a stored database of 10s millions of faces will fit into something the size of a body camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the future. It's exciting while at the same time being scary as hell. Nuralink is going to be an order of magnitude leap forward, the Singularity is near.
The fuckbags behind Ring cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
are suddenly concerned about the chilling effects of facial recognition? LOL.
There is an ulterior profit motive - maybe being shielded from class action or something. They have never had even a shred of morality. What a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
are suddenly concerned about the chilling effects of facial recognition
What about the fuckbags in front of the Ring cameras?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, is this seriously an "only guilty people want privacy" argument? On /.?
You know that they actively solicit police and invite them to freely peruse anything they want without a warrant right? Maybe you'd be better off in North Korea - they put cameras inside your house there.
Re: (Score:2)
I put my Ring camera up to record police beating colored people on the street in front of my house. Got a problem with that?
Is it coincidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it coincidence that Amazon stops this *after* the FBI arrested 500 Jan 6 rioters based mostly on facial recognition?
Re: (Score:1)
"You wouldn't secretly use our software... (Score:2)
... if you were a cop, right? You have to tell us if you're a cop, right?"
Re: (Score:2)
Rekognition is an AWS service, and not free (except to certain nonprofits that are looking for sex-trafficked children). Unlikely that anyone is surreptitiously using it on their body cam.
Are they saying it doesn't work? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only other explanation is that they forgot that it is the Constitution that protects our rights, not the legislature. Though I guess it could be that they caved to pressure from groups that had forgotten that basic fact, or for their own motives, didn't care if what they were saying was true.
Re: (Score:2)
For the first decade of facial recognition software the only way they could get it to work semi-reliably was with perfectly consistent lighting of faces that were being viewed straight on. Shadows are particularly problematic, since the computer has no understanding of what they are. One of the problems with identifying black faces is that many black people have darker areas of their face which the system identifies as shadows or lighter areas that it identifies as projecting (thus better lit) areas. (Th
Re: (Score:2)
You've got a lot of competition. So far a couple of Chinese companies seem to be the leaders, with 95% accuracy of people even if they're wearing masks (I don't think they've tested against a lot of black faces though.)
Stop (Score:2)
Last year, it said it hoped Congress would put in place rules to ensure ethical use of the technology, though no such law has materialized.
I wouldn't hold my breath unless there is extreme pressure. It's tough to get politicians to reign in developments of the panopticon. Aside from pressure from law enforcement, when another terrorist incident happens, no politician wants to be accused of not doing everything possible to have stopped it.
But if you want to remain free, stop building tools of tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that.
So... (Score:2)
So, Amazon is admitting that its software is crap? Not a problem, other suppliers have better software.
Re: (Score:2)
95% successful identification is crap? My how times change.