Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Demand Info On Law Enforcement's Use of Amazon Facial Recognition Tool (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: A group of Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos on Thursday saying that the company's previous explanations to Congress about its Rekognition software were inadequate. Democratic lawmakers expressed concern about the potential threat the technology poses to civil liberties in the hands of police. "Facial recognition technology may one day serve as a useful tool for law enforcement officials working to protect the American public and keep us safe," the letter reads. "However, at this time, we have serious concerns that this type of product has significant accuracy issues, places disproportionate burdens on communities of color, and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their First Amendment rights in public." In the letter on Thursday, the Democratic members requested that Amazon provide them with results from accuracy tests of the Rekognition software. They also asked again for information on their government clients and if they audited law enforcement's use of facial recognition to ensure that its not being employed in violation of civil rights law. "Customer trust, privacy, and security are our top priorities at AWS," Michael Punke, Amazon's vice president for global public policy, wrote in response. "We have long been committed to working with federal and state legislatures to modernize outdated laws to enhance the privacy and security of our customers by preventing law enforcement from accessing data without a warrant."
Michael Punke-ass?
They always have been against effective law enforcement.
We shouldn't fear the police going and looking for crime in general. We should fear the police looking at a specific person they hate for crimes. But it seems like many people are as against the former as the latter, likely due to believing that they do not or should not have to obey certain laws (see also: the thieving jerks from r/shoplifting and such who got banned a while ago).
Granted, that isn't always as bright a line as we might like.
to get criminals who once expected to get away with years of crimes.
The criminal will get caught and the community is made safe.
Seen by CCTV and reported. Identified. Less illegal migrants using city/state/federal services that US tax payers pay for.
Less crime and the community is cleaned up. Investment returns and good people get well paying jobs.
Clean streets without trash and junk. No parked RV. No tent cities. No trash blocking streets. No open drug use.
Good communities can get on with education, working, faith, sport and enjoying been productive.
Having the tools of your trade protected by police from criminals.
No street crime. No burglaries. No trash from open drug use.
To allow the pursuit of happiness for every US community protected from decades of criminals.
For that police all over the USA need the tools to remove criminals holding back once great communities all over the USA.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
... it's their face.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I'm not willing to allow the police to seek a warrant based upon any companies facial recognition software until that bull roar is long in the past. Like, decades. Sending people with guns to someone's home, in the wee hours, gets folks killed. It's bad enough that no-knock raids happen at the wrong address occasionally, lets not add to the problem.
"Customer trust, privacy, and security are our top priorities at AWS," Michael Punk
This is a lie. None of those thing are priorities if it does not turn a profit. Only AFTER they can make a profit are any of those things considered a priority.
Just remember kids, global corporations only care about getting your money. The fact that you are involved in the process is entirely secondary.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What the fuck about top-down, authoritarian controlled, dystopian panopticon government is "liberal"?
Yet that's what these dumbasses are touting...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
interesting that the senate are relying on a private company to uphold the law rather than trust the law enforcement agencies which are their customers "They also asked again for information on their government clients and if they audited law enforcement's use of facial recognition to ensure that its not being employed in violation of civil rights law" - it looks like event the senate can't trust the law enforcement.
They afraid that it will be used to find democrats perpetuating voter fraud?
There's no privacy in public.
Why are we calling people "colored" again? Have people forgotten or just not learned of the history of these words?
Everyone has a color, there are no invisible people. Calling someone "colored" was for the purposes of segregation and separation.
I think a more accurate term with a less disgusting history would just simply be "non-white"
"places disproportionate burdens on communities of color"
"However, at this time, we have serious concerns that this type of product has significant accuracy issues, places disproportionate burdens on communities of color, and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their First Amendment rights in public."
As usual, if not for hypocrisy and propaganda they'd have nothing at all.
The letter goes on to specifically mention concern about immigration enforcement using this technology. Well, doesn't this dovetail nicely with opposition to voter ID and enacting 'sanctuary' states, and calls to abolish immigration enforcement entirely.
Doing the right thing, but for all the wrong reasons. Chess is not played for the sake of pawns like Molly Tibbets. Maintaining respect for the rule of law, and equal protection thereof, means nothing compared to the importance of staying in power.