4 ms·

Microsoft and Amazon stating that they will not allow their facial recognition technology to be used by the police makes me wonder if the tech world wants arson

Microsoft and Amazon stating that they will not allow their facial recognition technology to be used by the police makes me wonder if the tech world wants arsonists and looters to be caught.

wolfd 6y ago
Not wanting A doesn't mean that someone supports B.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Arsonists and looters have been caught and prosecuted without the use of facial recognition. Your stance seems to be a common one when new laws and technology are proposed for the stated purpose of fighting crime, as if new thing is analogous to a silver bullet; without it they're essentially powerless, and arguing against is cast as arguing on the side of criminality. In the specific example of facial recognition, what amused me since the pandemic started gaining pace, is that face masks render facial recognition far less useful than in the few days / weeks prior. So, whilst it may appear that Microsoft and Amazon are 'listening the people's privacy concerns', it might just be that there's so little to gain from it right now, due to the prevalence and increasing social acceptability of face masks, that the social credit they get for abandoning or delaying it is worth more than the potential contracts and social shaming they'd get for continuing to pursue it.
- masonic 6y ago
  Arsonists and looters have been caught and prosecuted without the use of facial recognition. Rogue police officers have been caught and prosecuted without the use of body cams. That doesn't mean that body cams aren't beneficial.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    Can't argue with that in a vacuum. It's the subtleties of implementation, application, and scope that I would argue with in comparing the introduction of facial recognition with the introduction of body cams, in addition to the policies around access to, and retention of, the data captured by either. On "beneficial": the panopticon would be beneficial in both cases. In a vacuum.

Microsoft and Amazon stating that they will not allow their facial recognition technology to be used by the police makes me wonder if the tech world wants arsonists and looters to be caught.

wolfd 6y ago

Not wanting A doesn't mean that someone supports B.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

Arsonists and looters have been caught and prosecuted without the use of facial recognition. Your stance seems to be a common one when new laws and technology are proposed for the stated purpose of fighting crime, as if new thing is analogous to a silver bullet; without it they're essentially powerless, and arguing against is cast as arguing on the side of criminality. In the specific example of facial recognition, what amused me since the pandemic started gaining pace, is that face masks render facial recognition far less useful than in the few days / weeks prior. So, whilst it may appear that Microsoft and Amazon are 'listening the people's privacy concerns', it might just be that there's so little to gain from it right now, due to the prevalence and increasing social acceptability of face masks, that the social credit they get for abandoning or delaying it is worth more than the potential contracts and social shaming they'd get for continuing to pursue it.

masonic 6y ago
Arsonists and looters have been caught and prosecuted without the use of facial recognition. Rogue police officers have been caught and prosecuted without the use of body cams. That doesn't mean that body cams aren't beneficial.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Can't argue with that in a vacuum. It's the subtleties of implementation, application, and scope that I would argue with in comparing the introduction of facial recognition with the introduction of body cams, in addition to the policies around access to, and retention of, the data captured by either. On "beneficial": the panopticon would be beneficial in both cases. In a vacuum.