18 ms·

Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants

239 points by rayvy 8y ago

tinktank 8y ago
It's just another use-case for them I suppose. Interesting to see how, as tech companies become bigger, they go the same way as companies in all the other industries. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.
- alexnewman 8y ago
  Stupid question. I actually am a big fan of no borders but what's wrong with this? Seems like America entering the new millennium. Edited also why was this downvoted?
  - stonecraftwolf 8y ago
    Because constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, activists, political opponents. That is extremely frightening coming from an administration that is increasingly using violent and elimitionist language to levy completely made up charges at immigrants, LGBT, and particularly political opponents.
    - Bahamut 8y ago
      Something that doesn’t get publicized but is as onerous is that Amazon is recruiting engineers to work on facial recognition tech that was implied to be used for their warehouse workers[0]. [0] Amazon recruiter emails that coworkers and I have gotten from Amazon. These emails had a very heavy implication that that particular group was using the facial recognition tech for this purpose.
      - alexnewman 8y ago
        Why does it matter that this is automated? Is your issue the automation?
    - noobermin 8y ago
      Do people have a right to not be identified in public? In public, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from having your picture being taken. Then, what if someone identifies you from your picture? How about if they use a CV system to speed it up? What's the argument here? BTW, as I expand upon below, I'm against surveillance of private communications, I think we all are. As far as I understand it, this is not surveillance, this is identification technology, which is different.
      - taurath 8y ago
        It’s one thing for you to go out in public, it’s another thing when “public” follows you around like a private investigator snapping photos of you everywhere. The right to privacy is the right to be able to go about your business unimpeded. It’s a core idea on which the bill of rights was founded. It’s not written of course, but I’d argue it’s a fundamental human right.
        philwelch 8y ago
        The Bill of Rights was written in an era when most Americans lived in small towns where everyone was recognized everywhere. The anonymity of urban and metropolitan life is perhaps a happy accident, but it wouldn’t have been perceived as a fundamental right to people living in a predominantly rural country.
        m741 8y ago
        The Bill of Rights was also written in an era without systematic government ID or national police system, when you could live or travel in near perfect anonymity if you just left the small town where everyone knew you. So I think the perception goes both ways.
        amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        Additionally, the bill of rights was written in an era when there were no laws about immigration to the US at all. The US had completely open borders at that time, anybody could move there if they chose.
    - alexnewman 8y ago
      Guess what this is happening every time you walk into a big store , casino or mall. Americans live in a fantasy where they allow large corporations unlimited power but want to keep law enforcement stuck in the 90s because of this administration. Enjoy your fantasy
      - jkestner 8y ago
        That's a broad assertion about a whole country. Plenty of us don't want any large institutions with unchecked surveillance power. Up to a point you can choose not to patronize such places, but where do we draw the line? I'm curious as to any legal arguments other than "You don't have a right to privacy in public." You can't opt out of society.
        alexnewman 8y ago
        I agree it sucks,but this is everywhere and trivial to implement . These cameras were already in the airports and borders under obama
    - TuringNYC 8y ago
      Also, because false positives dont matter when it affects "other people"
      - noobermin 8y ago
        If this technology is worse than ICE agents indiscriminately asking latinx people for their papers then it adds no value. The hope is it is better at identifying people.
      - TuringNYC 8y ago
        I see I need to start adding /sarcasm tags. Apparently scare quotes dont work. To clarify...I definitely think false positives are a big issue, though decision makers will often think otherwise as decisions are often not made by minorities.
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      > ...constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused... I'm interested in how you would define systematic abuse vs. just plain abuse. Police forces have adopted new technology for many decades now (e.g. radio, high-speed police cars, helicopters with search lights, RDBMSs, body armor, DNA sampling and matching, speed measuring radar, tasers ...) and, while it is probably true that all of these technologies have been abused by the police at times, can we also say that they have been "systematically abused?" What does that mean?
  - tinktank 8y ago
    I'd be less opposed to it if it was equally applied to everyone and not just immigrants. It becomes another tool to disenfranchise, disable and disadvantage a subset of society.
    - paxys 8y ago
      Government monitoring everyone via facial recognition isn't cool either.
    - _iyig 8y ago
      Illegal immigrants are by definition disenfranchised. They are not citizens, so they do not get the franchise, which is the right to vote. That’s as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, and the basic law of (nearly?) every democracy.
      - noobermin 8y ago
        Every human has rights under the law and international law. Just because someone can't vote doesn't mean they have inalienable rights that states can disrespect.
      - AngryData 8y ago
        Where does it say that foreigners can't vote in the constitution? Up until the 20th century the only requirement to vote in most states was residency, not citizenship. Many places only required 6 months stay to vote no matter who or where you were from, others required a commitment to long-term residency. It wasn't until women's and black's voting rights started becoming a popular issue that voting was redefined to mean only citizens. And the only purpose of such a thing was to suppress the voice of these people for the benefit of those already in power.
        tinktank 8y ago
        Wow, that's an interesting point. The UK will still allow commonwealth and EU citizens to vote in some elections but the Turdy's (Tory's) are trying to get the laws changed to prevent that for precisely the same reason you state.
  - sergiotapia 8y ago
    I downvoted because open-borders is one of the stupidest mainstream ideas I ever heard. Right up there with flat earth. Of course you want to keep people that don't share your value system out of your country.
    - rorykoehler 8y ago
      That statement is incoherent. I know for a fact that 90% of the population of my country don't share my values in a material way. I am perfectly happy sharing my country with them.
      - alexnewman 8y ago
        Was just about to say this
    - alexnewman 8y ago
      I also think nations and tribes are outdated. Glad to know people will down vote because they differ politically. May I ask why you support nations?
  - elejo 8y ago
    Nobody here will ever complain about illegal aliens because they are wealthy programmers, etc and won't be affected by their unfair competition. Just look at this tweet I saw a few hours ago from the editor of boingboing: https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1054816681699139584 https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1054816681699139584 Imagine her shock when she learns that most people can't afford to hire someone to mow their lawns, mop their floors, or raise their kids! Talk about living in a bubble. Some people here are like her and would never understand the troubles of the working class. And others are terrified of being called racist.
    - danenania 8y ago
      Speaking of fairness, why exactly should we have more concern about the job prospects of someone who happens by random chance to be born on one side of a border than someone who happens to be born on the other? If anything, isn’t it less fair if the person who previously lucked into being born in the wealthier country gets the job? My point isn’t to diminish the very real problems facing the US working class. I just don’t see why working class people from Mexico or El Salvador are any less deserving of my sympathy.
      - elejo 8y ago
        Being born here or there is an act of random chance. The fact that some countries are developed while others aren't is not random chance. Especially in the new world where all countries have had exactly the same amount of time to develop.
        danenania 8y ago
        What does that have to do with anything?
        lexs 8y ago
        Doesn't this statement ignore a huge amount of context?
      - michaelt 8y ago
  - rsync 8y ago
    "Edited also why was this downvoted?" I downvoted you because you talked about your downvotes. Please don't interrupt the discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system.
- profalseidol 8y ago
  Horray for Free market!
  - ohthehugemanate 8y ago
    So this means you're gonna start voting with your wallet? You can always host on Azure; Microsoft takes an ethical stance against this stuff. They have an AI ethics review board that vetoes projects like this.
mohammedbin 8y ago
I am not an American and I obviously have no right to meddle in your affairs. But only today Trump tweeted out Obama being against immigration and then from their the rabbit hole went deeper and there was a video of gasp, bernie sanders calling open borders a "Koch brother" conspiracy. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone high up in America really has any integrity? I fail to see anyone who is consistent in their views and actions. Google cooperating with Chinese censors knowing fully well how China persecutes Muslims (and that is something I do get emotional over), and Schmidt talking about bifurcation of internet soundbyte to make a case when its clear that the so called bifurcation is because of language. It just all seems so staged at this point. And I don't mean to insult my America brothers here but I just want to know who actually is on the "right" side? Edit: I see that the person who replied "politics I'd cesspool of.." Has his comment deleted. I understand that this is defeatist attitude and we are all smart people but better to talk than to silence him. Silencing is the reason I never saw this 10 year old video.
- alexnewman 8y ago
  Politics is dirty pool and is mostly a distraction. Show me the incentives and I'll show you the result.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > but I just want to know who actually is on the "right" side? What is the “right” side? Trump is quintessentially American and a nationalist. Is that good? I guess it depends on who you are and what you want.
  - orev 8y ago
    The “right” side is the one supported by evidence. There are some things maybe people can never agree on, but for the vast majority of issues, there is evidence that supports one side more than the other.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > but for the vast majority of issues, there is evidence that supports one side more than the other. I’m not so sure that is true. In my experience there is propaganda everywhere and politicians are trying to build a narrative instead of trying to find the truth.
throwawaymanbot 8y ago
Truly a scummy thing to do. Something just spiritually wrong about a mega capitalistic entity doing this. Capitalism is about freedom... right?
FilterSweep 8y ago
Yikes. I’ve heard of some American citizens being mistaken for illegal immigrants and being detained with no recuse[0], I could only imagine how bad it could get if the machine errors. [0] https://nypost.com/2018/04/27/ice-wrongfully-detained-nearly-1500-americans-report/ https://nypost.com/2018/04/27/ice-wrongfully-detained-nearly...
- crististm 8y ago
  According to some of my team mates, a computer is never wrong. And they would gladly replace the justice system with AI ones. They program computers and they should know better but I am lost wondering at what level they are thinking to even go down this road.
  - gowthamgts12 8y ago
    Always remember its really hard to get 100% accuracy on AI.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      But is it more accurate than human judgement?
      - gowthamgts12 8y ago
        Well, it certainly depends on the person doing that, like accuracy of AI depends on the programmer.
  - arvinsim 8y ago
    AI does not remove bias since AI will reflect the biases of their creators
  - Novashi 8y ago
    Right/wrong for immigration is decided by the political landscape anyway, so they're a bit dim and AI is a bad tool for the job.
nodesocket 8y ago
Unrelated, but when, and if Bloomberg is found guilty of pushing the fake Supermicro China story there should be a penalty for publishing clickbait headlines that are, for lack of a better term, fake news. I know for a fact HN blacklists conservative news outlets such as Breitbart across the board. It seems a little biased and double standard to just let Bloomberg continue to push outrage and in some cases baseless stories and have them make the front page of HN. /rant
- exabrial 8y ago
  You will be downvoted for speaking your mind, but well said. Hn doesn't claim to be free speech forum which is quite unfortunate, as most of the discussion here is usually academic.
- colmvp 8y ago
  Yeah isn’t there a named phenomenon when an expert reads an article from a source, realizes it’s full of factual errors, dismisses the article only to continue reading the rest of the articles from the exact same source?
ozgurozkan 8y ago
Don’t Worry!!! Face recog startup founder here. Amazon’s tech only allows them to monitor a specific people list in real time. So search period should be limited. Otherwise it’s so expensive to do that. It only tracks for specific target list on real time cameras or photos. When it comes to searching on archives Amazon is so expensive to do it. As Reminisce Inc we are a photo delivery company. We have a face search tech ( similar to face recog but different, ours is exponentially faster than existing ones). Our tech is the only solution that allows us to search for specific list in archives. However we use our tech only to deliver souvenir photography to event attendees. We will not sell it to government. You can check for your photos in our db here it gives you the result in 15 seconds https://www.reminis.app https://www.reminis.app
- mLuby 8y ago
  Kudos for the principled stance. Hope you can maintain that in the face of investor pressure. Are you saying it's prohibitively expensive to archive footage to later recog against (storage), or is the recog itself the expensive part (compute)?
  - illiac_1962 8y ago
    That data is not regulated. Basically an open book. Try again.
  - ozgurozkan 8y ago
    The first thing we tell to investors is we are not building a security or surveillance product and we don't have a vision like that. Storing and indexing (computation but not search) is expensive on AWS. Practically 1000 face metadata is not more than 4MB's of data in practice. 4MB face data is 1$ on AWS. Just one surveillance camera output archive + real time recognition costs 400$ / month according to my calculation. Search part can be extremely fast with postgres in a special setting. It's kinda instant.
- Operyl 8y ago
  .... what? This reads a lot more like an advertisement than a comment about the story, with a bit of sarcasm?
makewavesnotwar 8y ago
Sure and while you're at it why not implement cameras all over every roadway to automatically ticket you every time you break the speed limit. Or better yet, why not devise a real time geolocation device to be embedded in cars and then lobby for it to be nationally adopted so people literally can't speed? The reality is that very few people want to live in that world and even if we do fully adopt technologies like this, it doesn't necessarily make us any safer. A car traveling 30 mph is absolutely as lethal as a car traveling 10 mph faster than that. And I'm much more likely to be killed by a random traffic accident (only time I've been hit on my bike was by a white women driving a Ford) or domestic terrorist/psychopath than an immigrant. So you're pitching huge lifestyle and diplomatic costs without any obvious benefit... Please count me as a no.
- hkjayakumar 8y ago
  > Sure and while you're at it why not implement cameras all over every roadway to automatically ticket you every time you break the speed limit. This actually exists in many cities around the world like Dubai. Probably not every roadway, but almost all major ones.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Yeah, I never got that particular argument. Speeding isn't like, my favorite hobby or anything, and it's accounted for when setting the speeding limits, so if the police suddenly became extreme sticklers, they'd also likely raise the limits. Even if they didn't, it'd probably save lives. Fatalities are so much more common at higher speeds, we could all stand to slow down a bit on the road.
  - fyfy18 8y ago
    The traffic cameras used in the UAE are pretty tame compared to other countries. The police there are quite open about what new technologies they adopt (it's a form of propaganda to make it look like they are on par with Western countries) so maybe that's why you think it's something new. London has had ANPR throughout the city for 15 years, and shortly after it went live in London, the system started being rolled out across the country. Now most police cars have real time ANPR systems, and all police forces have access to track cars in real time across the country. [0] Recently the police have been 'trialing' facial recognition devices in public locations, however given people are more concerned about privacy than they were 10 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a much more active system than they make out. [1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recog... [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recognition-london-police-accuracy-human-rights-crime-database-a8422056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recog...
wangyjx 8y ago
If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do and already done. It is just business.
- hardwaresofton 8y ago
  So I'm not sure 100% where I stand morally on the "if not us then someone else" argument as whole but I'm pretty sure it's better to just not let that person/entity be you (in this case Amazon), and figuring it out from there. Even if the world is lacking in your brand of ethics/morals doesn't mean you need to stoop to the same level as someone who doesn't hold the same brand of ethics/morals.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do. > It is just business. Guns are a mature technology, and pretty easy to use. If I don't do the hit for Vinny, some other hitman will, so I might as well make some cash. It is just business. The fact that someone else may perform a morally dubious action if you don't does not provide any justification for you to perform that action.
  - wangyjx 8y ago
    gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. (another privacy vs safety argument) Needless to say this technology can only deploy in public places. If someone appear in public places, why you think he would like to become invisible to all others. In the meanwhile, I agree that no gov employee can be authorized to access the data without limitation. There must be some laws to regulate its usage.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. Guns don't attack people either. There's a saying: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
josecyc 8y ago
Amazon needs a manifesto
- biocomputation 8y ago
  Well, it's clear they already have one.
godzillabrennus 8y ago
Makes sense. Jeff Bezos wants to provide the tech that lets Washington form the first pre-crime unit. What they didn’t tell us in the movie was that the precogs were AI.
hnaccy 8y ago
More evidence that the invention of the transistor marked the doom of individual liberty. By the time I die I assume we'll all be tracked at all times or well on the way to that.
- illiac_1962 8y ago
  Yeah. Completely fuck this trend in totalitarian thinking. It seems like all these big tech executives are precumming at the thought of joining hands with China to bring on the brave new world. I have a feeling things are not going to go down the way anyone thinks they will.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > By the time I die I assume we'll all be tracked at all times or well on the way to that. If you have a smartphone this is already the case.
AckSyn 8y ago
Nothing good will come of this.
jhabdas 8y ago
> ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations has used facial recognition in the past to assist during the course of criminal investigations related to fraudulent activities Post 9/11 USA is nothing short of Orwellian and this is the kind of stuff I saw some HN peeps indirectly rooting for after the Amazon employee letter was released last week. If you want to be link China so bad why keep all the nukes? Your privacy protection now? The right to wear a bandana while driving your car until pulled over for not wearing your seatbelt. Click it or ticket buddy.
themistokl1k 8y ago
anybody can elaborate on why amazonians can't pull a Google and make them drop the contract?
- sharcerer 8y ago
  No company employees other than Google are known to be as vocal about business decisions,AFAIK. Culture matters. The culture which Larry,Sergey and others started is reaping benefits today. I might be wrong,but if we look at companies in general, Google is the closest to having a democracy-type of vibe.
  - gowthamgts12 8y ago
    Couldn't agree more. I don't think Amazon listens to its employees on how to run a business.
- kkarakk 8y ago
  "amazonians" isn't even a thing. there are various articles about how toxic their work culture is(as ordered from bezos downward). right now i'd say they're like how Microsoft used to be under ballmer except with employees actually treated like kept pets. they argue against each others ideas constantly but anything from the top is taken as sacred law. bezos probably said "I want to get into the surveillance game" and all the poor employees got to work arguing about how best to get there http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/08/former-amazon-employees-detail-brutal-workplace.html?gtm=bottom&gtm=top http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/08/former-amazon-employe...
dawidw 8y ago
1984 is coming...
alaxsxaq 8y ago
Regarding speed cameras. I was driving around the Netherlands and saw speed cameras for the first time (I'm from the US) in Apeldoorn. There were signs that warned drivers about them. In the US, in several rural areas have electronic signs at the edge of town, just outside of the limit change, which warn you when you are exceeding the limit through town. I would have no problem at all with permanent enforcement systems provided they were accompanied by advance warnings. If I am so inattentive to my driving that I miss the warnings and get a ticket, so be it. It is much safer (and should be much cheaper) than randomly placed patrol cars performing radar/laser speed enforcement.
- avaika 8y ago
  I believe speed cameras might be good if they're installed in dangerous areas to enforce lower speed limit to decrease accidents number. When they're installed in good spots to increase fine collection and the speed limit is also lowered (e.g. 60km/h on a highway just because the nearby town border crosses 500m on the map, but no pedestrian ever shows up close to the highway) for the same reason it is abusive usage of technology. Unfortunately in my home country the second scenario is the most common.
- philipodonnell 8y ago
  Speed cameras are one of those things that seems good as a concept but are always abused in practice. We seem to be unable to remove the profit motive from local governments so the only real recourse is to deny them the ability to profit from an activity that will always be abused. > It is much safer (and should be much cheaper) than randomly placed patrol cars performing radar/laser speed enforcement. The fact that it has a lower ROI to post an officer+radar than the ROI from a speed camera is a feature, not a bug. It helps control abusive revenue seeking behavior.
  - Faark 8y ago
    > We seem to be unable to remove the profit motive from local governments As in, "such changes would be hard to achieve currently in the current US", or not possible in principle? I'd disagree with the later one. Redirect those funds to the federal budget and I'd expect such abuse to plummet. Tragedy of the commons can sometimes work in our favor as well, at least if we manage to set up system accordingly.
RadiconCDF 8y ago
So because certain media seems unwilling to draw the necessary distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, I must ask, is this project intended to track legal or illegal immigrants? It's not clear from the article. I have no problem with this if it's illegal immigrants.
transpy 8y ago
It's like Amazon and Google are competing on evilness.
jimwormoldy 8y ago
FACE recognition. Unless you want to recognise whether someone has had a facial!
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
Could websites use all the data they collect about their users to determine when it's a good idea to auto-play videos, and when not? Because I, for once, would sure like this functionality implemented on Bloomberg, among others.

239 points by rayvy 8y ago

It's just another use-case for them I suppose. Interesting to see how, as tech companies become bigger, they go the same way as companies in all the other industries. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

alexnewman 8y ago
Stupid question. I actually am a big fan of no borders but what's wrong with this? Seems like America entering the new millennium. Edited also why was this downvoted?
- stonecraftwolf 8y ago
  Because constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, activists, political opponents. That is extremely frightening coming from an administration that is increasingly using violent and elimitionist language to levy completely made up charges at immigrants, LGBT, and particularly political opponents.
  - Bahamut 8y ago
    Something that doesn’t get publicized but is as onerous is that Amazon is recruiting engineers to work on facial recognition tech that was implied to be used for their warehouse workers[0]. [0] Amazon recruiter emails that coworkers and I have gotten from Amazon. These emails had a very heavy implication that that particular group was using the facial recognition tech for this purpose.
    - alexnewman 8y ago
      Why does it matter that this is automated? Is your issue the automation?
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Do people have a right to not be identified in public? In public, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from having your picture being taken. Then, what if someone identifies you from your picture? How about if they use a CV system to speed it up? What's the argument here? BTW, as I expand upon below, I'm against surveillance of private communications, I think we all are. As far as I understand it, this is not surveillance, this is identification technology, which is different.
    - taurath 8y ago
      It’s one thing for you to go out in public, it’s another thing when “public” follows you around like a private investigator snapping photos of you everywhere. The right to privacy is the right to be able to go about your business unimpeded. It’s a core idea on which the bill of rights was founded. It’s not written of course, but I’d argue it’s a fundamental human right.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        The Bill of Rights was written in an era when most Americans lived in small towns where everyone was recognized everywhere. The anonymity of urban and metropolitan life is perhaps a happy accident, but it wouldn’t have been perceived as a fundamental right to people living in a predominantly rural country.
        m741 8y ago
        The Bill of Rights was also written in an era without systematic government ID or national police system, when you could live or travel in near perfect anonymity if you just left the small town where everyone knew you. So I think the perception goes both ways.
        amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        Additionally, the bill of rights was written in an era when there were no laws about immigration to the US at all. The US had completely open borders at that time, anybody could move there if they chose.
  - alexnewman 8y ago
    Guess what this is happening every time you walk into a big store , casino or mall. Americans live in a fantasy where they allow large corporations unlimited power but want to keep law enforcement stuck in the 90s because of this administration. Enjoy your fantasy
    - jkestner 8y ago
      That's a broad assertion about a whole country. Plenty of us don't want any large institutions with unchecked surveillance power. Up to a point you can choose not to patronize such places, but where do we draw the line? I'm curious as to any legal arguments other than "You don't have a right to privacy in public." You can't opt out of society.
      - alexnewman 8y ago
        I agree it sucks,but this is everywhere and trivial to implement . These cameras were already in the airports and borders under obama
  - TuringNYC 8y ago
    Also, because false positives dont matter when it affects "other people"
    - noobermin 8y ago
      If this technology is worse than ICE agents indiscriminately asking latinx people for their papers then it adds no value. The hope is it is better at identifying people.
    - TuringNYC 8y ago
      I see I need to start adding /sarcasm tags. Apparently scare quotes dont work. To clarify...I definitely think false positives are a big issue, though decision makers will often think otherwise as decisions are often not made by minorities.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    > ...constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused... I'm interested in how you would define systematic abuse vs. just plain abuse. Police forces have adopted new technology for many decades now (e.g. radio, high-speed police cars, helicopters with search lights, RDBMSs, body armor, DNA sampling and matching, speed measuring radar, tasers ...) and, while it is probably true that all of these technologies have been abused by the police at times, can we also say that they have been "systematically abused?" What does that mean?
- tinktank 8y ago
  I'd be less opposed to it if it was equally applied to everyone and not just immigrants. It becomes another tool to disenfranchise, disable and disadvantage a subset of society.
  - paxys 8y ago
    Government monitoring everyone via facial recognition isn't cool either.
  - _iyig 8y ago
    Illegal immigrants are by definition disenfranchised. They are not citizens, so they do not get the franchise, which is the right to vote. That’s as it should be according to the U.S. Constitution, and the basic law of (nearly?) every democracy.
    - noobermin 8y ago
      Every human has rights under the law and international law. Just because someone can't vote doesn't mean they have inalienable rights that states can disrespect.
    - AngryData 8y ago
      Where does it say that foreigners can't vote in the constitution? Up until the 20th century the only requirement to vote in most states was residency, not citizenship. Many places only required 6 months stay to vote no matter who or where you were from, others required a commitment to long-term residency. It wasn't until women's and black's voting rights started becoming a popular issue that voting was redefined to mean only citizens. And the only purpose of such a thing was to suppress the voice of these people for the benefit of those already in power.
      - tinktank 8y ago
        Wow, that's an interesting point. The UK will still allow commonwealth and EU citizens to vote in some elections but the Turdy's (Tory's) are trying to get the laws changed to prevent that for precisely the same reason you state.
- sergiotapia 8y ago
  I downvoted because open-borders is one of the stupidest mainstream ideas I ever heard. Right up there with flat earth. Of course you want to keep people that don't share your value system out of your country.
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    That statement is incoherent. I know for a fact that 90% of the population of my country don't share my values in a material way. I am perfectly happy sharing my country with them.
    - alexnewman 8y ago
      Was just about to say this
  - alexnewman 8y ago
    I also think nations and tribes are outdated. Glad to know people will down vote because they differ politically. May I ask why you support nations?
- elejo 8y ago
  Nobody here will ever complain about illegal aliens because they are wealthy programmers, etc and won't be affected by their unfair competition. Just look at this tweet I saw a few hours ago from the editor of boingboing: https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1054816681699139584 https://twitter.com/xeni/status/1054816681699139584 Imagine her shock when she learns that most people can't afford to hire someone to mow their lawns, mop their floors, or raise their kids! Talk about living in a bubble. Some people here are like her and would never understand the troubles of the working class. And others are terrified of being called racist.
  - danenania 8y ago
    Speaking of fairness, why exactly should we have more concern about the job prospects of someone who happens by random chance to be born on one side of a border than someone who happens to be born on the other? If anything, isn’t it less fair if the person who previously lucked into being born in the wealthier country gets the job? My point isn’t to diminish the very real problems facing the US working class. I just don’t see why working class people from Mexico or El Salvador are any less deserving of my sympathy.
    - elejo 8y ago
      Being born here or there is an act of random chance. The fact that some countries are developed while others aren't is not random chance. Especially in the new world where all countries have had exactly the same amount of time to develop.
      - danenania 8y ago
        What does that have to do with anything?
      - lexs 8y ago
        Doesn't this statement ignore a huge amount of context?
    - michaelt 8y ago
- rsync 8y ago
  "Edited also why was this downvoted?" I downvoted you because you talked about your downvotes. Please don't interrupt the discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system.
profalseidol 8y ago
Horray for Free market!
- ohthehugemanate 8y ago
  So this means you're gonna start voting with your wallet? You can always host on Azure; Microsoft takes an ethical stance against this stuff. They have an AI ethics review board that vetoes projects like this.

mohammedbin 8y ago

I am not an American and I obviously have no right to meddle in your affairs. But only today Trump tweeted out Obama being against immigration and then from their the rabbit hole went deeper and there was a video of gasp, bernie sanders calling open borders a "Koch brother" conspiracy. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone high up in America really has any integrity? I fail to see anyone who is consistent in their views and actions. Google cooperating with Chinese censors knowing fully well how China persecutes Muslims (and that is something I do get emotional over), and Schmidt talking about bifurcation of internet soundbyte to make a case when its clear that the so called bifurcation is because of language. It just all seems so staged at this point. And I don't mean to insult my America brothers here but I just want to know who actually is on the "right" side? Edit: I see that the person who replied "politics I'd cesspool of.." Has his comment deleted. I understand that this is defeatist attitude and we are all smart people but better to talk than to silence him. Silencing is the reason I never saw this 10 year old video.

alexnewman 8y ago
Politics is dirty pool and is mostly a distraction. Show me the incentives and I'll show you the result.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> but I just want to know who actually is on the "right" side? What is the “right” side? Trump is quintessentially American and a nationalist. Is that good? I guess it depends on who you are and what you want.
- orev 8y ago
  The “right” side is the one supported by evidence. There are some things maybe people can never agree on, but for the vast majority of issues, there is evidence that supports one side more than the other.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > but for the vast majority of issues, there is evidence that supports one side more than the other. I’m not so sure that is true. In my experience there is propaganda everywhere and politicians are trying to build a narrative instead of trying to find the truth.

throwawaymanbot 8y ago

Truly a scummy thing to do. Something just spiritually wrong about a mega capitalistic entity doing this. Capitalism is about freedom... right?

FilterSweep 8y ago

Yikes. I’ve heard of some American citizens being mistaken for illegal immigrants and being detained with no recuse[0], I could only imagine how bad it could get if the machine errors. [0] https://nypost.com/2018/04/27/ice-wrongfully-detained-nearly-1500-americans-report/ https://nypost.com/2018/04/27/ice-wrongfully-detained-nearly...

crististm 8y ago
According to some of my team mates, a computer is never wrong. And they would gladly replace the justice system with AI ones. They program computers and they should know better but I am lost wondering at what level they are thinking to even go down this road.
- gowthamgts12 8y ago
  Always remember its really hard to get 100% accuracy on AI.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    But is it more accurate than human judgement?
    - gowthamgts12 8y ago
      Well, it certainly depends on the person doing that, like accuracy of AI depends on the programmer.
- arvinsim 8y ago
  AI does not remove bias since AI will reflect the biases of their creators
- Novashi 8y ago
  Right/wrong for immigration is decided by the political landscape anyway, so they're a bit dim and AI is a bad tool for the job.

nodesocket 8y ago

Unrelated, but when, and if Bloomberg is found guilty of pushing the fake Supermicro China story there should be a penalty for publishing clickbait headlines that are, for lack of a better term, fake news. I know for a fact HN blacklists conservative news outlets such as Breitbart across the board. It seems a little biased and double standard to just let Bloomberg continue to push outrage and in some cases baseless stories and have them make the front page of HN. /rant

exabrial 8y ago
You will be downvoted for speaking your mind, but well said. Hn doesn't claim to be free speech forum which is quite unfortunate, as most of the discussion here is usually academic.
colmvp 8y ago
Yeah isn’t there a named phenomenon when an expert reads an article from a source, realizes it’s full of factual errors, dismisses the article only to continue reading the rest of the articles from the exact same source?

ozgurozkan 8y ago

Don’t Worry!!! Face recog startup founder here. Amazon’s tech only allows them to monitor a specific people list in real time. So search period should be limited. Otherwise it’s so expensive to do that. It only tracks for specific target list on real time cameras or photos. When it comes to searching on archives Amazon is so expensive to do it. As Reminisce Inc we are a photo delivery company. We have a face search tech ( similar to face recog but different, ours is exponentially faster than existing ones). Our tech is the only solution that allows us to search for specific list in archives. However we use our tech only to deliver souvenir photography to event attendees. We will not sell it to government. You can check for your photos in our db here it gives you the result in 15 seconds https://www.reminis.app https://www.reminis.app

mLuby 8y ago
Kudos for the principled stance. Hope you can maintain that in the face of investor pressure. Are you saying it's prohibitively expensive to archive footage to later recog against (storage), or is the recog itself the expensive part (compute)?
- illiac_1962 8y ago
  That data is not regulated. Basically an open book. Try again.
- ozgurozkan 8y ago
  The first thing we tell to investors is we are not building a security or surveillance product and we don't have a vision like that. Storing and indexing (computation but not search) is expensive on AWS. Practically 1000 face metadata is not more than 4MB's of data in practice. 4MB face data is 1$ on AWS. Just one surveillance camera output archive + real time recognition costs 400$ / month according to my calculation. Search part can be extremely fast with postgres in a special setting. It's kinda instant.
Operyl 8y ago
.... what? This reads a lot more like an advertisement than a comment about the story, with a bit of sarcasm?

makewavesnotwar 8y ago

Sure and while you're at it why not implement cameras all over every roadway to automatically ticket you every time you break the speed limit. Or better yet, why not devise a real time geolocation device to be embedded in cars and then lobby for it to be nationally adopted so people literally can't speed? The reality is that very few people want to live in that world and even if we do fully adopt technologies like this, it doesn't necessarily make us any safer. A car traveling 30 mph is absolutely as lethal as a car traveling 10 mph faster than that. And I'm much more likely to be killed by a random traffic accident (only time I've been hit on my bike was by a white women driving a Ford) or domestic terrorist/psychopath than an immigrant. So you're pitching huge lifestyle and diplomatic costs without any obvious benefit... Please count me as a no.

hkjayakumar 8y ago
> Sure and while you're at it why not implement cameras all over every roadway to automatically ticket you every time you break the speed limit. This actually exists in many cities around the world like Dubai. Probably not every roadway, but almost all major ones.
- diminoten 8y ago
  Yeah, I never got that particular argument. Speeding isn't like, my favorite hobby or anything, and it's accounted for when setting the speeding limits, so if the police suddenly became extreme sticklers, they'd also likely raise the limits. Even if they didn't, it'd probably save lives. Fatalities are so much more common at higher speeds, we could all stand to slow down a bit on the road.
- fyfy18 8y ago
  The traffic cameras used in the UAE are pretty tame compared to other countries. The police there are quite open about what new technologies they adopt (it's a form of propaganda to make it look like they are on par with Western countries) so maybe that's why you think it's something new. London has had ANPR throughout the city for 15 years, and shortly after it went live in London, the system started being rolled out across the country. Now most police cars have real time ANPR systems, and all police forces have access to track cars in real time across the country. [0] Recently the police have been 'trialing' facial recognition devices in public locations, however given people are more concerned about privacy than they were 10 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a much more active system than they make out. [1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recog... [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recognition-london-police-accuracy-human-rights-crime-database-a8422056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facial-recog...

wangyjx 8y ago

If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do and already done. It is just business.

hardwaresofton 8y ago
So I'm not sure 100% where I stand morally on the "if not us then someone else" argument as whole but I'm pretty sure it's better to just not let that person/entity be you (in this case Amazon), and figuring it out from there. Even if the world is lacking in your brand of ethics/morals doesn't mean you need to stoop to the same level as someone who doesn't hold the same brand of ethics/morals.
ardy42 8y ago
> If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do. > It is just business. Guns are a mature technology, and pretty easy to use. If I don't do the hit for Vinny, some other hitman will, so I might as well make some cash. It is just business. The fact that someone else may perform a morally dubious action if you don't does not provide any justification for you to perform that action.
- wangyjx 8y ago
  gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. (another privacy vs safety argument) Needless to say this technology can only deploy in public places. If someone appear in public places, why you think he would like to become invisible to all others. In the meanwhile, I agree that no gov employee can be authorized to access the data without limitation. There must be some laws to regulate its usage.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. Guns don't attack people either. There's a saying: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

josecyc 8y ago

Amazon needs a manifesto

biocomputation 8y ago
Well, it's clear they already have one.

godzillabrennus 8y ago

Makes sense. Jeff Bezos wants to provide the tech that lets Washington form the first pre-crime unit. What they didn’t tell us in the movie was that the precogs were AI.

hnaccy 8y ago

More evidence that the invention of the transistor marked the doom of individual liberty. By the time I die I assume we'll all be tracked at all times or well on the way to that.

illiac_1962 8y ago
Yeah. Completely fuck this trend in totalitarian thinking. It seems like all these big tech executives are precumming at the thought of joining hands with China to bring on the brave new world. I have a feeling things are not going to go down the way anyone thinks they will.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> By the time I die I assume we'll all be tracked at all times or well on the way to that. If you have a smartphone this is already the case.

AckSyn 8y ago

Nothing good will come of this.

jhabdas 8y ago

> ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations has used facial recognition in the past to assist during the course of criminal investigations related to fraudulent activities Post 9/11 USA is nothing short of Orwellian and this is the kind of stuff I saw some HN peeps indirectly rooting for after the Amazon employee letter was released last week. If you want to be link China so bad why keep all the nukes? Your privacy protection now? The right to wear a bandana while driving your car until pulled over for not wearing your seatbelt. Click it or ticket buddy.

themistokl1k 8y ago

anybody can elaborate on why amazonians can't pull a Google and make them drop the contract?

sharcerer 8y ago
No company employees other than Google are known to be as vocal about business decisions,AFAIK. Culture matters. The culture which Larry,Sergey and others started is reaping benefits today. I might be wrong,but if we look at companies in general, Google is the closest to having a democracy-type of vibe.
- gowthamgts12 8y ago
  Couldn't agree more. I don't think Amazon listens to its employees on how to run a business.
kkarakk 8y ago
"amazonians" isn't even a thing. there are various articles about how toxic their work culture is(as ordered from bezos downward). right now i'd say they're like how Microsoft used to be under ballmer except with employees actually treated like kept pets. they argue against each others ideas constantly but anything from the top is taken as sacred law. bezos probably said "I want to get into the surveillance game" and all the poor employees got to work arguing about how best to get there http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/08/former-amazon-employees-detail-brutal-workplace.html?gtm=bottom&gtm=top http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/08/former-amazon-employe...

dawidw 8y ago

1984 is coming...

alaxsxaq 8y ago

Regarding speed cameras. I was driving around the Netherlands and saw speed cameras for the first time (I'm from the US) in Apeldoorn. There were signs that warned drivers about them. In the US, in several rural areas have electronic signs at the edge of town, just outside of the limit change, which warn you when you are exceeding the limit through town. I would have no problem at all with permanent enforcement systems provided they were accompanied by advance warnings. If I am so inattentive to my driving that I miss the warnings and get a ticket, so be it. It is much safer (and should be much cheaper) than randomly placed patrol cars performing radar/laser speed enforcement.

avaika 8y ago
I believe speed cameras might be good if they're installed in dangerous areas to enforce lower speed limit to decrease accidents number. When they're installed in good spots to increase fine collection and the speed limit is also lowered (e.g. 60km/h on a highway just because the nearby town border crosses 500m on the map, but no pedestrian ever shows up close to the highway) for the same reason it is abusive usage of technology. Unfortunately in my home country the second scenario is the most common.
philipodonnell 8y ago
Speed cameras are one of those things that seems good as a concept but are always abused in practice. We seem to be unable to remove the profit motive from local governments so the only real recourse is to deny them the ability to profit from an activity that will always be abused. > It is much safer (and should be much cheaper) than randomly placed patrol cars performing radar/laser speed enforcement. The fact that it has a lower ROI to post an officer+radar than the ROI from a speed camera is a feature, not a bug. It helps control abusive revenue seeking behavior.
- Faark 8y ago
  > We seem to be unable to remove the profit motive from local governments As in, "such changes would be hard to achieve currently in the current US", or not possible in principle? I'd disagree with the later one. Redirect those funds to the federal budget and I'd expect such abuse to plummet. Tragedy of the commons can sometimes work in our favor as well, at least if we manage to set up system accordingly.

RadiconCDF 8y ago

So because certain media seems unwilling to draw the necessary distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, I must ask, is this project intended to track legal or illegal immigrants? It's not clear from the article. I have no problem with this if it's illegal immigrants.

transpy 8y ago

It's like Amazon and Google are competing on evilness.

jimwormoldy 8y ago

FACE recognition. Unless you want to recognise whether someone has had a facial!

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

Could websites use all the data they collect about their users to determine when it's a good idea to auto-play videos, and when not? Because I, for once, would sure like this functionality implemented on Bloomberg, among others.