It's reactions like this that make companies not want to even try. "People are going to bitch whether we sell to the police or not so there is no upside to stopping". Why not have a little positivity that AWS is finally restricting access to their technology beyond what is legally required?
We should be positive about public pressure having an effect on large corporations. We should not be positive about a large corporation making the calculated decision that a tiny drop in revenue is worth the advertisement and good press that comes with it.
What percent of AWS revenue is from Rekognition? Probably a rounding error.
because there's generally much cynicism about piecemeal measures in regard to surveillance. Over the past, it's been exceedingly common that both private firms, as well as legislators, halt some program or legislation only to bring it back a year or two later.
Arguably we need a much more principled, stronger stance on opposition to mass surveillance period. Companies that understand the ethical obligations should get out of it completely.
Go all in then. Disallow the use of the technology without independent oversight. But don't do a half hearted measure because you're unwilling to commit, or you're going to grasp for some positive PR.
> Why not have a little positivity that AWS is finally restricting access to their technology beyond what is legally required?
Because it's not enough. "Please sir, may I have some more" is not how you address the weaponization of technology by a trillion dollar org.
Why do we need to demand all or nothing? AWS is never going to allow for independent oversight - not even Google does that. Demanding this just means that AWS would never make any improvements.
Independent oversight? So .. like from a government? Cause that's the definition of independent, from the people for the people. And if the next answer is "that's not how government is in reality" neither is any other 'independent' oversight. Humans are easily corruptible. We better find a solution for this problem or all that will happen is an endless line of watchers watching other watchers.
Humans are the only solution. Rational humans are never going to rely on technology alone for enforcement, governance, and/or oversight. If you have a problem with the humans currently making decisions, find better humans. Checks and balances.
Don't like the Big Tech corporate surveillance state? Write better laws regulating them. Don't like the people writing laws currently? Vote and run against them. Still not heard? There are yet more avenues for recourse.
The idea that technology is going to fix these problems holds no basis in reality.
Seems I misunderstood your previous post, cause everything you wrote I agree with completely.
My only point here is: Currently, people do not trust independent oversight (read: government). And there are probably a few good reasons. So, I don't see how saying "Amazon should only sell this technology with independent oversight" fixes anything as long as the trust problem isn't solved.
> Independent oversight? So .. like from a government? Cause that's the definition of independent, from the people for the people.
If you do truly hold the belief that governments are "the definition of independent", and that all governments act solely in the best interests of their own citizens...well, to borrow some words from Public Enemy: Can't do nuttin' for ya man.
We're literally talking about the government using facial recognition with no oversight and little public debate and no consent from the public, so you wouldn't have an excuse for coming out with this "government is all of us working together" lorem ipsum even if you were born 30 seconds before the article was posted and didn't know anything about the way that governments actually behave in practice.
You come so very close to getting it, in that you acknowledge that this isn't how governments work in reality, and then you're like "well neither is anything else though" as if that is somehow an argument for a strategy that you kinda-acknowledge cannot work.
And FWIW: I agree, it's fucked, it needs to stop, both in the public and private sector, and anyone that works on such tech should be shunned. But your assumptions are false to fact.
Bottomless cynicism gets us nowhere. It's far from done, but unless there's some evidence that they are still selling Rekognition to the police, this is a positive development in the field of facial recognition.
It is a one year moratorium. They aren't even getting out for good. They are pausing it, hoping this issue will be forgotten about it a year, and then they will resume making money off it.
Closing a profit generating business line is all more difficult than closing an unproven one. Props to folks at Amazon, this a change for the better.
I'm wary about their competitors though. Looks like an opportunity for Microsoft to monopolise the face recognition software market. Can't think of any market force to solve this, and regulation would probably leave a lot of room to game the system.
