4 ms·

I would be on Amazon's side if their terms of service clearly stated "do not use this tool for law enforcement". Do the terms of service state that? If this is

by sgt101 8y ago

I would be on Amazon's side if their terms of service clearly stated "do not use this tool for law enforcement". Do the terms of service state that? If this is used to misidentify someone and then that someone gets shot how will the folks at Amazon feel about that? To me failing to consider that and failing to act appropriately is reckless. It's as reckless as Uber turning off the Lidar and as reckless as Tesla using the road markings as a dominant steering method. When you have to ask "how many innocent dead will it take?" do we not all think that something might just be going wrong!

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> I would be on Amazon's side if their terms of service clearly stated "do not use this tool for law enforcement". Do the terms of service state that? Why on Earth would they put something like that in their ToS? If anything, the place for that is in documentation ("this product may not be suitable for use in law enforcement"), but then again, since when Amazon does have a clue about the specific requirements of government services, to issue blanket statements like that? > It's as reckless as Uber turning off the Lidar and as reckless as Tesla using the road markings as a dominant steering method. Yes, you don't blame the Lidar company for equipping their products with an off switch, nor do you blame whoever designed the road marking detection for Tesla's decision to base their self-driving tech on it.
- sgt101 8y ago
  I think that this illustrates the challenge of this debate. I believe that your perspective is that Amazon are there to make money, provide a component and then the person using that is responsible for the outcomes. However I think that the person providing the service is responsible for who they sell it to and what for. The analogy that I would draw here is with guns; if you sell a gun to a child you should be accountable for that as a misdeed. Note - that's an analogy to try to convey the point I am making, I'm not comparing the misdeeds.
  - komali2 8y ago
    In your example though, is Smith and Wesson responsible for the store selling the gun to a child? (In this specific case yes, because they lobby against common sense gun control) For law enforcement, I assume they wouldn't be hitting the Amazon API directly, but rather using software someone sold them which as part of its service uses Amazon's API.

by sgt101 8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> I would be on Amazon's side if their terms of service clearly stated "do not use this tool for law enforcement". Do the terms of service state that? Why on Earth would they put something like that in their ToS? If anything, the place for that is in documentation ("this product may not be suitable for use in law enforcement"), but then again, since when Amazon does have a clue about the specific requirements of government services, to issue blanket statements like that? > It's as reckless as Uber turning off the Lidar and as reckless as Tesla using the road markings as a dominant steering method. Yes, you don't blame the Lidar company for equipping their products with an off switch, nor do you blame whoever designed the road marking detection for Tesla's decision to base their self-driving tech on it.

sgt101 8y ago
I think that this illustrates the challenge of this debate. I believe that your perspective is that Amazon are there to make money, provide a component and then the person using that is responsible for the outcomes. However I think that the person providing the service is responsible for who they sell it to and what for. The analogy that I would draw here is with guns; if you sell a gun to a child you should be accountable for that as a misdeed. Note - that's an analogy to try to convey the point I am making, I'm not comparing the misdeeds.
- komali2 8y ago
  In your example though, is Smith and Wesson responsible for the store selling the gun to a child? (In this specific case yes, because they lobby against common sense gun control) For law enforcement, I assume they wouldn't be hitting the Amazon API directly, but rather using software someone sold them which as part of its service uses Amazon's API.