7 ms·

What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of i

What is the difference between this and having cctv in a factory building? Companies impose more work control over more people. If a company makes good use of it then it becomes a regular practice. If not then employees select another employer. We are lucky that we work in a creative field, most occupancies require just good, repetitive work. There should be a legal framework to destroy archive recordings, liability for misusing them, because there is a room for real abuse. Not in the work control.

beckman466 6y ago
[deleted]
- agsamek 6y ago
  Agree. But this is a different story...
mft_ 6y ago
Because Amazon + cameras + AI + sensationalism = clicks? To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriately) seems like a fundamentally good move. And makes basic sense in any vehicle still piloted by a human. The issue is that (of course) people being watched by a camera opens the potential of misuse, and so (as ever) people jump to worse-case scenarios and start using emotionally-loaded words like ‘dystopian’. Of course, we don’t know for sure if it will be misused, and/or dystopian, until it’s actually implemented and we have observed results... but people do like to get upset and sensationalise just about anything that’s a new idea, these days.
- EarlKing 6y ago
  So you're going to be perfectly OK with people monitoring your vehicle 24/7 for how much you actually use the public roads, right? Because that won't be abused either. And that, by the way, is a perennial suggestion that got floated again recently. How about setting aside whether this is useful and consider that maybe it's blatantly anti-labor? They can already monitor who's wearing a seatbelt or not with vehicle telemetry. Adding this on top of their existing monitoring apparatus is sociopathic.
  - mft_ 6y ago
    > So you're going to be perfectly OK with people monitoring your vehicle 24/7 for how much you actually use the public roads, right? Because that won't be abused either. And that, by the way, is a perennial suggestion that got floated again recently. Well, I'm not sure that that's got anything to do with this particular issue, but since you asked... I think payment of road tax according to road usage is eminently sensible, and much fairer than a flat tax applied to people irrespective of whether they drive 5k or 50k miles per year. So yes, I'd be fine with GPS monitoring of my road usage, if the end was sensible and it wasn't abused by the governmental apparatus that would (probably) implement it. > How about setting aside whether this is useful and consider that maybe it's blatantly anti-labor? Is it, fundamentally? Is it any worse than making people clock in or out of a workplace, or setting performance goals? I don't know - I'd be interested to hear your argument. > They can already monitor who's wearing a seatbelt or not with vehicle telemetry. Sure... but not tiredness, or inattention, or other risky behaviours like eating or texting at the wheel. > Adding this on top of their existing monitoring apparatus is sociopathic. What are you referring to, here?
    - alacombe 6y ago
      > I think payment of road tax according to road usage is eminently sensible That's what fuel taxes were for
- developer92 6y ago
  The trouble with waiting to see is that once you've discovered that it is being abused, the system is already in place and hard to remove. Additionally, it's a kind of frog boiling situation where the more such systems you have the more acceptable further such systems and abuses are both in the comment and socially.
- oceanplexian 6y ago
  > To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriately) seems like a fundamentally good move. And makes basic sense in any vehicle still piloted by a human. I have a counter proposal. How about instead of trying to micromanage employees, companies raise the hiring bar? If you don't want people working for you who break the rules, pay them well, and create a culture of inclusion and safety. I hear exactly the same complaints from friends involved in manufacturing where employees are constantly doing drugs on shift, showing up late, and abusing the system. Well what the heck did you expect? You pay them $10-15 per hour and treat them like they are replaceable robots rather than people. Of course they are going to screw you over.
  - mft_ 6y ago
    (Late coming back to this, but) I totally agree with you. My original comment was addressing the sensationalism applied to an idea... because it was associated with Amazon and/or AI and/or cameras, etc. I wasn't for a moment intending to support Amazon's overall approach to its employees. That said, it doesn't have to either/or: I still think that such algorithms (if they work sufficiently well) make sense to be used in any vehicle (commercial or private, Amazon or otherwise) piloted by a human, given obvious human weaknesses & variability, and the damage that badly-driven vehicles can do.
- AniseAbyss 6y ago
  Honestly at some point a tired Amazon driver is going to mow down a bunch of innocent schoolgirls and the issue will be settled. Its how driving intoxicated became a felony.
eloisant 6y ago
Having cctv in a factory is one thing, having one camera pointed to the face of each employee with AI to detect what they're doing is something else.
- agsamek 6y ago
  And what about having cctv on every work station in a factory? This is regularly used in a high cost scenarios for quality assurance/tracking. And it will be used much more when technology is cheaper / easier to deploy. Is this kind of supervision ok?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    What is the fundamental problem it is trying to fix? Does it work? Can it be done better by other means?
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    Presumably the camera is aimed at the assembly line, not at the individual member of staff.
- mypalmike 6y ago
  How are they different? Jane is found to be falling asleep on the factory floor. Or Jane is found to be falling asleep while delivering packages. In both cases the feed might be recorded, abused in terms of privacy expectations, sent to an AI algorithm... And in both cases she may get reprimanded.
- adontz 6y ago
  Exactly the situation in any cashdesk, for instance at banks. One or even multiple cameras per cashier.
hibbelig 6y ago
They made sure that the employees cannot select a different employer because they are in a small town in the middle of nowhere with no other employers.
lucb1e 6y ago
Rather than a difference, I can mention a similarity (at least for my region: EU) between CCTV constantly watching employees work and this system constantly watching employees work: They're both illegal. You can have cameras film employees, for example when they take things out of a safe. Or if there has been theft and you monitor the area where this took place. There has to be a purpose, you can't simply film people do their work as a blanket measure all day long, that's invasive, unethical with the ethics I was brought up with, and illegal in any country where the GDPR applies and perhaps also the European Convention on Human Rights since this might be based on article 8 (privacy) (fun fact: Russia signed the ECHR, though I rather doubt they'd care if they were actually sued in the ECHR). It's similar on public roads: you can't simply film anyone who dares to walk over a sidewalk or drive over a road near you. But you can if there have recently been cars set on fire and there is a direct reason to film your car that is parked on the street. There just has to be a reason that trumps the right to go about your own damn business without constantly being watched. Amazon honestly might have a case if it truly improves safety by a lot, or if they employ this for particular drivers in some higher risk class perhaps. But it's also invasive, so they have to have a good reason and apply the least-invasive measure that achieves the same effect.
brutal_chaos_ 6y ago
Abuse potential, because policies can change on a whim. The AI may only track a couple things now, but down the line that can change drastically, now the day's feed (or more!) is available to Amazon because you sneezed.

beckman466 6y ago

[deleted]

agsamek 6y ago
Agree. But this is a different story...

mft_ 6y ago

Because Amazon + cameras + AI + sensationalism = clicks? To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriately) seems like a fundamentally good move. And makes basic sense in any vehicle still piloted by a human. The issue is that (of course) people being watched by a camera opens the potential of misuse, and so (as ever) people jump to worse-case scenarios and start using emotionally-loaded words like ‘dystopian’. Of course, we don’t know for sure if it will be misused, and/or dystopian, until it’s actually implemented and we have observed results... but people do like to get upset and sensationalise just about anything that’s a new idea, these days.

EarlKing 6y ago
So you're going to be perfectly OK with people monitoring your vehicle 24/7 for how much you actually use the public roads, right? Because that won't be abused either. And that, by the way, is a perennial suggestion that got floated again recently. How about setting aside whether this is useful and consider that maybe it's blatantly anti-labor? They can already monitor who's wearing a seatbelt or not with vehicle telemetry. Adding this on top of their existing monitoring apparatus is sociopathic.
- mft_ 6y ago
  > So you're going to be perfectly OK with people monitoring your vehicle 24/7 for how much you actually use the public roads, right? Because that won't be abused either. And that, by the way, is a perennial suggestion that got floated again recently. Well, I'm not sure that that's got anything to do with this particular issue, but since you asked... I think payment of road tax according to road usage is eminently sensible, and much fairer than a flat tax applied to people irrespective of whether they drive 5k or 50k miles per year. So yes, I'd be fine with GPS monitoring of my road usage, if the end was sensible and it wasn't abused by the governmental apparatus that would (probably) implement it. > How about setting aside whether this is useful and consider that maybe it's blatantly anti-labor? Is it, fundamentally? Is it any worse than making people clock in or out of a workplace, or setting performance goals? I don't know - I'd be interested to hear your argument. > They can already monitor who's wearing a seatbelt or not with vehicle telemetry. Sure... but not tiredness, or inattention, or other risky behaviours like eating or texting at the wheel. > Adding this on top of their existing monitoring apparatus is sociopathic. What are you referring to, here?
  - alacombe 6y ago
    > I think payment of road tax according to road usage is eminently sensible That's what fuel taxes were for
developer92 6y ago
The trouble with waiting to see is that once you've discovered that it is being abused, the system is already in place and hard to remove. Additionally, it's a kind of frog boiling situation where the more such systems you have the more acceptable further such systems and abuses are both in the comment and socially.
oceanplexian 6y ago
> To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriately) seems like a fundamentally good move. And makes basic sense in any vehicle still piloted by a human. I have a counter proposal. How about instead of trying to micromanage employees, companies raise the hiring bar? If you don't want people working for you who break the rules, pay them well, and create a culture of inclusion and safety. I hear exactly the same complaints from friends involved in manufacturing where employees are constantly doing drugs on shift, showing up late, and abusing the system. Well what the heck did you expect? You pay them $10-15 per hour and treat them like they are replaceable robots rather than people. Of course they are going to screw you over.
- mft_ 6y ago
  (Late coming back to this, but) I totally agree with you. My original comment was addressing the sensationalism applied to an idea... because it was associated with Amazon and/or AI and/or cameras, etc. I wasn't for a moment intending to support Amazon's overall approach to its employees. That said, it doesn't have to either/or: I still think that such algorithms (if they work sufficiently well) make sense to be used in any vehicle (commercial or private, Amazon or otherwise) piloted by a human, given obvious human weaknesses & variability, and the damage that badly-driven vehicles can do.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
Honestly at some point a tired Amazon driver is going to mow down a bunch of innocent schoolgirls and the issue will be settled. Its how driving intoxicated became a felony.

eloisant 6y ago

Having cctv in a factory is one thing, having one camera pointed to the face of each employee with AI to detect what they're doing is something else.

agsamek 6y ago
And what about having cctv on every work station in a factory? This is regularly used in a high cost scenarios for quality assurance/tracking. And it will be used much more when technology is cheaper / easier to deploy. Is this kind of supervision ok?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  What is the fundamental problem it is trying to fix? Does it work? Can it be done better by other means?
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  Presumably the camera is aimed at the assembly line, not at the individual member of staff.
mypalmike 6y ago
How are they different? Jane is found to be falling asleep on the factory floor. Or Jane is found to be falling asleep while delivering packages. In both cases the feed might be recorded, abused in terms of privacy expectations, sent to an AI algorithm... And in both cases she may get reprimanded.
adontz 6y ago
Exactly the situation in any cashdesk, for instance at banks. One or even multiple cameras per cashier.

hibbelig 6y ago

They made sure that the employees cannot select a different employer because they are in a small town in the middle of nowhere with no other employers.

lucb1e 6y ago

Rather than a difference, I can mention a similarity (at least for my region: EU) between CCTV constantly watching employees work and this system constantly watching employees work: They're both illegal. You can have cameras film employees, for example when they take things out of a safe. Or if there has been theft and you monitor the area where this took place. There has to be a purpose, you can't simply film people do their work as a blanket measure all day long, that's invasive, unethical with the ethics I was brought up with, and illegal in any country where the GDPR applies and perhaps also the European Convention on Human Rights since this might be based on article 8 (privacy) (fun fact: Russia signed the ECHR, though I rather doubt they'd care if they were actually sued in the ECHR). It's similar on public roads: you can't simply film anyone who dares to walk over a sidewalk or drive over a road near you. But you can if there have recently been cars set on fire and there is a direct reason to film your car that is parked on the street. There just has to be a reason that trumps the right to go about your own damn business without constantly being watched. Amazon honestly might have a case if it truly improves safety by a lot, or if they employ this for particular drivers in some higher risk class perhaps. But it's also invasive, so they have to have a good reason and apply the least-invasive measure that achieves the same effect.

brutal_chaos_ 6y ago

Abuse potential, because policies can change on a whim. The AI may only track a couple things now, but down the line that can change drastically, now the day's feed (or more!) is available to Amazon because you sneezed.