Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Shareholders To Jeff Bezos: Stop Marketing Facial Recognition Tool (nbcnews.com)
A group of Amazon shareholders are calling on the company to stop pitching its facial recognition tool to local law enforcement agencies, writing in a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos that the technology could pose a privacy threat and a financial risk. From a report: The letter comes amid mounting criticism of the tool, called Rekognition, from privacy activists and civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union. The groups have raised concerns that the tool could be used to build a system to automate the widespread identification and tracking of anyone. Rekognition is already being used by at least one law enforcement agency, the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Oregon, according to a customer testimonial page. "While Rekognition may be intended to enhance some law enforcement activities, we are deeply concerned it may ultimately violate civil and human rights," the shareholders said in the letter to Bezos, a copy of which was provided to NBC News by the ACLU.
Stop flooding your entire Store with counterfeit goods. Also stop bundling everything with the now "more expensive than ever" Prime service. Does almost a 200 billion dollar a year company that has 40% of all e-commerce need to keep constantly raising its monthly charges? 40% freaking percent, please take a minute to think about that. When is enough enough and how big is too big. * I like my 2 day shipping and Fire TV but it doesn't mean I can't point out their issues.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Not if you leave the phone at home and/or live in a rural area with crap-all for phone reception. Contrary to popular belief, a cell phone isn't a vital organ.
I came to say the same thing. Which shareholders are these? Does this group represent any of the big institutional shareholders that actually hold real sway? That's what determines if this is a real, credible challenge or simply a high profile publicity stunt.
Operate at a (near) loss until you have a near monopoly (or at least a huge barrier to entry) and run out all of the competitors then raise the prices and boil that frog slowly.
It's just the new-ish way of doing things, uber, walmart, etc, etc. They all play this shitty game.
Either way, it's good. The American public needs to be educated on how scummy some of their largest companies are.
Sounds like a bunch of people figured out that when their ballots offer bungee or death by bungee, their best bet before getting the pitchforks and torches out is to try exerting control over the corporations themselves.
If this was somebody with, say, more than $25 million in Amazon shares it'd have more resonance, and if was someone or some group with in excess of $100 million in shares it would have even more.
My guess is that the big money isn't at all opposed to this, in fact, they probably love it, although they would probably prefer it be developed for more consumer-friendly purposes so that it seems benign (ala Alexa) rather than immediately being turned into a dystopian police state tool.
All your corporate ethics are belong to stuff we fought against during WW II.
Freedom, Equality, Privacy.
This is what America stands for, and Amazon needs to do the same.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If he doesn't sell them one someone else will. What possible difference does it make who it is? If I was a shareholder I'd want a piece of that very profitable action. If they really don't like it what they should do is OUTLAW the technology's use in the USA. I'm all for that. Plus the repeal of the fucking "Patriot" Act with it's FISA secret warrant secret court bullshit. Under a strict interpretation of the US Constitution it's not even legal but Judges like to interpret the Constitution the way they think it should have been written. This fake ass outrage over Amazon is ignoring the real problem which is that we have given way too much power to people in the federal government. They have been showing us for almost 2 decades that they are unworthy of our trust.
It's interesting that so many of the responses here are addressed to the standing of the group requesting this rather than on the merits of the request itself. It's almost as if the moral dimensions of technology are invisible to most Slashdot posters.
If a child's parents are criminals, then removing that child from their custody to ensure her safety is moral and good.
The problem is that in this case also refuges seeking asylum are by default assumed to be criminals.
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Does it mean that "all people are equal, but some are more equal"?
The problem is that the majority of US sheepsumers don't care whether the companies they buy from are greedy and/or evil.
It's not that they don't care. It's that most have no sources they can buy from that are not greedy or evil in some way.
When all you can choose between are different evils you stop considering that aspect in your choices.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's incorrect, an asylum seeker can do so at any official port of entry, not sneak into the country, get caught then claim asylum.
Furthermore, an asylum seeker should seek asylum in the FIRST country they arrive when seeing refuse from their country of origin. IE you don't seek asylum after passing through multiple countries in which you are not at risk.
Some Amazon Shareholders perhaps. If it was a majority of them, or even a 30% of the shareholders maybe this headling could pass the BS test. Whatever.
if they were asylum seekers then why are they avoiding the border guards and not acting like actual people who are seeking asylum. Traffickers are now telling people to say they are asylum seekers.
The truth is there is one case of a person who was seeking asylum and followed the rules were the kid was separated, that was resolved in under a week with them being rejoined.
Also of the 2000 kids(2700 by other accounts) the majority of them are kids who arrived with out parents.
Still seems to me an unusually cruel punishment considering the non violent nature of the crime, especially for innocent children.
You have readily proved my point. The only argument you were able to make against slavery us basically. I don't feel it is right and I'm sure other people who aren't bad all agree.
As you pointed out therearly were thousands of supporters of slavery and there empathy didn't change there minds.
People who were willing to dieverything for what they thought washe right changed that situation, but I feel it is bad and you should too isn't a reason to stand up to anybody about anything. Had the bulk of the north been atheist during the Civil War slavery would still be legal today.
Do I think all atheist are bad evildoers, absolutely not that is some you made up in your irrational over emotional reaction not me.
You stated that the previous post probably used reason to arrive at his moral conclusions and then attempted to support your argument with nothing bur irrational emotionalism.
Simple , logic, if there is no universal cause of ethics that is greater then human beings,then you cannot expect anyone to agree with what you feel is right unless there experience gives them the same feeling.
So you have no right to be down on rapist and slavery just because they feel differently then you do.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.