3 ms·

One of the things that blows my mind about the current tech landscape is that Microsoft now appears to occupy the moral high ground with its stance calling for

One of the things that blows my mind about the current tech landscape is that Microsoft now appears to occupy the moral high ground with its stance calling for regulation on facial recognition. I grew up with a profound distaste for Microsoft's anti-competitive business culture under Gates. But now I have to give credit where it's due. Even Apple, which has come out with strong statements on privacy, is lagging behind MSFT in this area as far as I can tell.

harry8 7y ago
The sad thing is that Microsoft really haven't improved. The competition got more successful and took the ethics down much lower than the bar set by Microsoft. They only look good because their power diminished and others are more effective at being utterly horrible. Apple are but one example. Can you imagine if Microsoft had tried to take 30% of your sales revenue for selling software that runs on windows? Apple did it, got away with it and took that bar down lower. Google followed and got right in there. Privacy concerns? Race to the bottom with facebrick, goog and everyone else seeing who can fk everyone over with a bait and switch strategy, deeper, faster and more profoundly. Microsoft haven't really competed there but I'm pretty sure it's not because they've taken a moral position anymore than IBM did about competitive practises in the 90s. Microsoft probably haven't got a lot of my data under false pretenses and without my explicit consent but it's unlikely because they chose that - they just don't have much I'd want to use as a lever to rip me off. At least yet. IBM look ok now, right? Whodathunk they literally provided the infrastructure for Nazi death camps? [1] Did their investors bless that moral position in those days too? There go Amazon claiming the right to sell facial recognition services to assist despots destroying the lives of humans. How much money is enough Bezos? Does your toy rocket make you feel better about it? He probably wasn't so bad at one time. It can happen to any of us even without masses of money to lubricate the process. Nonbinding resolution saying "Don't sell this stuff to evil bastards." Non-binding. Can't even have that as an "ideal" to aspire to. Get rid of that, could be money in it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
didibus 7y ago
I'm pretty sure Microsoft sells facial recognition to government and military. They have opposed some bills which imposed too strict restrictions on its use as well if I reckon. And Amazon has similarly suggested that there should be regulation put in place. Here's the thing, regulation is good in this case, as long as it doesn't prevent Microsoft or Amazon from still selling the tech. That's why Microsoft opposed certain proposed bans, but recommend for regulation. Things like, having to get a warrant are good, because Microsoft still sells the tech, but they don't get blamed when its use wrongly.
- mindgam3 7y ago
  Do you have a source? I’m aware of Microsoft military contracts ie HoloLens, but have no knowledge of facial recognition contracts. Also source for amazon suggesting regulation?
  - didibus 7y ago
    For Amazon, I think that's what I'm thinking of: https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-joins-microsofts-call-rules-facial-recognition/ https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-joins-microsofts-call-rul... For Microsoft, I can't seem to find what I had read anymore, all Google result seem overshadowed by articles of them "calling for regulation". I did find these: https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-wants-rules-facial-recognition-just-not-these/ https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-wants-rules-facial-rec... https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-cruel-to-stop-government-using-facial-recognition-2019-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-cruel-to-stop-gove... https://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-china-muslim-crackdown-ai-partnership-complicit-2019-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-china-muslim-cr...
    - mindgam3 7y ago
      Interesting. Thanks for the context.

harry8 7y ago

The sad thing is that Microsoft really haven't improved. The competition got more successful and took the ethics down much lower than the bar set by Microsoft. They only look good because their power diminished and others are more effective at being utterly horrible. Apple are but one example. Can you imagine if Microsoft had tried to take 30% of your sales revenue for selling software that runs on windows? Apple did it, got away with it and took that bar down lower. Google followed and got right in there. Privacy concerns? Race to the bottom with facebrick, goog and everyone else seeing who can fk everyone over with a bait and switch strategy, deeper, faster and more profoundly. Microsoft haven't really competed there but I'm pretty sure it's not because they've taken a moral position anymore than IBM did about competitive practises in the 90s. Microsoft probably haven't got a lot of my data under false pretenses and without my explicit consent but it's unlikely because they chose that - they just don't have much I'd want to use as a lever to rip me off. At least yet. IBM look ok now, right? Whodathunk they literally provided the infrastructure for Nazi death camps? [1] Did their investors bless that moral position in those days too? There go Amazon claiming the right to sell facial recognition services to assist despots destroying the lives of humans. How much money is enough Bezos? Does your toy rocket make you feel better about it? He probably wasn't so bad at one time. It can happen to any of us even without masses of money to lubricate the process. Nonbinding resolution saying "Don't sell this stuff to evil bastards." Non-binding. Can't even have that as an "ideal" to aspire to. Get rid of that, could be money in it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

didibus 7y ago

I'm pretty sure Microsoft sells facial recognition to government and military. They have opposed some bills which imposed too strict restrictions on its use as well if I reckon. And Amazon has similarly suggested that there should be regulation put in place. Here's the thing, regulation is good in this case, as long as it doesn't prevent Microsoft or Amazon from still selling the tech. That's why Microsoft opposed certain proposed bans, but recommend for regulation. Things like, having to get a warrant are good, because Microsoft still sells the tech, but they don't get blamed when its use wrongly.

mindgam3 7y ago
Do you have a source? I’m aware of Microsoft military contracts ie HoloLens, but have no knowledge of facial recognition contracts. Also source for amazon suggesting regulation?
- didibus 7y ago
  For Amazon, I think that's what I'm thinking of: https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-joins-microsofts-call-rules-facial-recognition/ https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-joins-microsofts-call-rul... For Microsoft, I can't seem to find what I had read anymore, all Google result seem overshadowed by articles of them "calling for regulation". I did find these: https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-wants-rules-facial-recognition-just-not-these/ https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-wants-rules-facial-rec... https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-cruel-to-stop-government-using-facial-recognition-2019-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-cruel-to-stop-gove... https://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-china-muslim-crackdown-ai-partnership-complicit-2019-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-china-muslim-cr...
  - mindgam3 7y ago
    Interesting. Thanks for the context.