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 "We have long been committed to working with federal and state legislatures to modernize outdated laws to enhance the privacy and security of our customers by preventing law enforcement from accessing data without a warrant."
Problem is that we have too many laws against victimless crimes like jaywalking, smoking pot, having a beer under 21, and too many scum who are willing to put on a uniform and enforce them without any sort of flexibility.
Get rid of laws against victimless crimes, THEN maybe we can talk about giving bullies in blue more power. Till then, enforcement is best done inefficiently.
Youre not entirely wrong. The police in my area are pretty good people, generally (I live in a rural are). My truck broke down when I was in high school once and an officer hopped under the hood with me to fix it. My brother is currently a state police officer.
All that said, there is some seriously messed up racial stuff going on in many areas, and have a militarized police force is unacceptable. We dont even have a swat unit in my county, but crime is pretty low.
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.
Law enforcement is not being done any more inefficiently than friendly fire in Afghanistan or Iraq (insert all wars).
Statistics demands imperfection.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The problem with "victimless crimes" is that it adds up in terms of tax money needed, insurance costs, repair work.
The cost of emergency medical care. The cost of car insurance for everyone. The cost to a city to keep streets clean and free of waste and trash.
Once a city gets a reputation as criminal, filled with trash and corrupt then new investment stops.
Trashed lined streets, waste in the open, vandalism, open drug use, tent cities and crime do not attract jobs.
The "'victims" are the people who have to pay tax, pay for cleaning up trash and waste, pay for repair work.
All that is paid for by new costs to a city, the state and federally. The tax rates.
To the cost of insurance every year.
To people having to spend money on repair work after a crime rather than expanding their business.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This is where you tax drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes to account for medical costs created by them. Same with disposable packaging -- taxes to pay for environmental cleanup costs. Also, I don't count things like vandalism and pollution as "victimless."
I recently bid on a contract for public street cameras... I have loads of experience in the healthcare industry where audit trails are a huge deal, so I played up the regulatory vigor of our systems including every query to the facial rec portion... they went instead with the (more expensive less featured) system that has no audit trail.
A community cannot just keep letting trash pile up. Letting criminals do crime down every street. Let waste flow down streets in once nice communities.
The tax collected to clean up the results will use up all collected tax. The health costs of related medical conditions. The workers needed to clean the streets every day.
The new tax rate will make anyone with money move to another state, city to escape further city tax increases.
The city then needs more money to clean streets as more trash and waste builds up every day. Ask the federal government for medical funding to prevent disease transmission from waste in the open streets?
A city cannot keep on adding to its debt every year so random people can place waste and trash in the streets every day.
Crime cannot just expand deeper into good parts of a city as taxes fail to keep a city safe.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Other than things that harm others, "crime" is often a matter of definition. Dancing in clubs used to be criminal. Marrying someone of a different race used to be a crime.
"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.
How many crimes per street should police allow?
What kind of crimes? How much property damage to what cost of repair is still not a "crime"?
Who pays for such proper damage? The city? The owner? The people in a community who pay for a service from that business pay extra to cover the result of decades crime?
How party political should police get with their policing and reporting of crimes?
How sick should workers trying to get to work every day get when moving around a city?
Whats a low count of vermin in the trash of a normal city in an advanced nation?
How blocked can streets be with tent cities and parked RV?
Keep going until the city totally fails? Epidemic? Go for a full pandemic as a city fails?
Who wants to create jobs in such low quality city conditions in a "modern" nation?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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!!!
"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.