It's a bunch of commentary on the subject mostly. I spoke my piece in that thread. So I won't go into it again here.
Long story short, basically what a previous poster said. People spent so much time trying to find out if they could, no one seemed to stop and think about whether they should.
How is selling to law enforcement any worse than selling facial recognition tech to companies that are also use it to invade my privacy and use the technology to try and squeeze money out of me?
Where do you draw the line on ethical usage?
In my mind, if you're concerned about the ethics of facial recognition tech, you shouldn't be working in that field at all. It's fundamentally anti-privacy.
Is it? I don't think it would be. In fact, extortion and coercion are fairly easy because there are no rules (this I can attest to from both sides of the equation). The easiest weakness to exploit is always going to be the humans involved, especially in a legitimate business. The only true way to protect data like this is to have it not exist in the first place. Once the data is created - forget it, you might as well assume if Big Bro really wants it, they're going to get it -- because they will, if they don't already have it. It's not a case of if, but when.
Indeed, and there are a number of tech companies who have fought back against those things (I can think of notable examples where Apple and Google have pushed back against LE/government pressure/attack), and the ubiquity of suing the government to not disclose information compelled by an NSL suggests they aren't the only ones.
That's not to say that that's a perfect situation, but (if your threat model is the government) a government which has to take data from unwilling companies is weaker than one that need not do so, because they have the capability to collect the data themselves.
"How is selling to law enforcement any worse than selling facial recognition tech to...?" is the template of whataboutism. Start somewhere. Go ahead and criticize where they started, but do so by telling us what you think will be more effective start.
Otherwise the message is "don't oppose the surveillance state."
It would be more correct to say "a small but vocal subset of software engineers" are controlling the conversation. That is, if they do manage to "control" it in Amazon's case, which I highly doubt. This is completely politically motivated knee jerk.
If you do not like surveillance and would like to have less of it, the proper way to deal with the problem is to get your lawmaker to ban it at the federal level, not to shift the implementation to some other company just because you don't like Trump.
But that's not the issue here, is it? "Resistance" is. Time and time again it is uncovered that the Obama administration did the same exact things the Trump administration is being panned for, and everyone just nodded in agreement. If someone's moral compass turns opposite depending on whether their candidate wins or loses, that's not a "moral compass" at all, that's just a political dog whistle.
A small but active group has been the way large scale social changes have always worked. The people who wanted independence in the US revolution was a minority. Have you ever heard "be the change in the world you want to see?" They cannot guarantee that politicians will listen to even majority supported. policies but they can choose who they work for and make demanda accordingly. It is no different than requesting a raise with the implied threat "or I will leave to work someplace else that will". The user of a technology is also a large component. Nobody objects to Soviet engineers making rockets when von Braun was also slammed for doing so.
Putting aside the "Obama did it" false equivalency
I do not see why following ones conscience and using their right to choose to take a stand in a nondamaging way is so offensive to some people. I would guess from it highlighting their own moral abdications but I am not the best at understanding people.
I don't see anywhere in the article where it says it's s/w engineers that are doing that - or even how representative is this group among Amazon workers and whether there are other opinions. So far the press seems to be controlling the conversation by choosing one voice and presenting it as the only opinion inside Amazon. Or at least the only worth reporting about.
I love the sentiment, but seriously... who did you think you were building this for? It's absurd to believe you were helping anything other than the big brother character from 1984. Who else would this help? Foreign secret services? Maybe you believed it would help stream line the automation process? Thereby making humans irrelevant? I'd love to hear a legitimate - non-big brother implementation of this. And please don't be so coy as to say this helps automate person to person sales. I can already review all purchases made through big box hardware stores thanks to them identifying me through my credit card number and the email address I associated with it.
This is not the same thing as Face ID. First Face ID requires special cameras. Second it only on device. Third, classifying something that is novel is much different than identifying a previously registered person. (This difference is somewhat akin to transcription versus recognizing ‘Hey Siri’)
Streamlining the criminal / judicial process would be a plus for me. Use webcam feeds to record filesharer, illegal activites passively. Capture known criminals anywhere because you have a real time facial recognition. Cross reference the evidence, and avoid long drawn out court time.
If anything this will make court time longer - you better believe lawyers are going to challenge every aspect of the face recognition software and it's validity in courtroom identification
There are myriad positive applications of facial recognition. My iPhone uses it to categorize people by faces and can make me a video just of my daughter. An app I have can actually make a time lapse where all the photos have been registered to the center of her face so I can get a video of her growing up.
This bring up an unrelated question. Where is Las Vegas in facial recognition? Before the big players like AMZ, GOOG et al got into it, they had the best civilian systems. Have they all migrated to the GOOGs and AMZs of the world?
Given that tech earned millions of dollars vs this tech earning billions, I'm gonna guess the old tech is now underwhelming.
Retailers. I've seen multiple working demos of retailers using facial recognition to flag repeat customers, allowing the retailer to streamline the experience for their repeat customer -- show them something new they might like based on previous purchases, start cooking their usual order before they get to the front of the line so it's ready right when they order, etc.
If you don't like what Amazon is building, just wait until all those contracts start going to Raytheon and Northrop! I appreciate the moral quandary these engineers are faced with, but there is something to be said for being a responsible steward of technology. I've met quite a few MIT Ph.D.s who nonchalantly mention their roles as, what sounds like to me like "Program manager for raining fire and destruction on third-world countries systems." Someone is going to write the code, I kind of hope it's done at companies like Amazon where there is some ability to publicly pressure management vs. defense contractors who are largely unaccountable to the masses.
This really aligns with my thoughts too. I was sad to see Google pull out, because I know that with the ideology of many of the people there, the whistle is far more likely to be blown when things go too far. Having worked for big defense contractors, that whistle is not likely to get used there.
I get nervous as hell thinking about AI and ML in the hands of governments, but it's gonna happen anyway. I'd rather it be Google than Northrop.
So would many of us here, but not Google itself.
It is just terrible PR for any company that wants a decent public image. It is one thing to get grilled by senators, but entirely another for your average user to start believing you’re part of a war-machine, and thus something to be avoided. And the bulk of Google/Amazon’s profits come (directly/indirectly) from B2C markets, which makes their image/brand-value a significant intangible asset that cannot be compromised. Contractors don’t have this quandary.
>It is one thing to get grilled by senators, but entirely another for your average user to start believing you’re part of a war-machine
Tides can and do change though. And anyone working on anything that can be weaponized (see also self driving cars) and has heard of Alfred Nobel is just fooling themselves if they think they can control their creations.
> ...
the whistle is far more likely to be blown when things go too far
In your admiration for a Google employees, you’re projecting your own beleifs and norms.
The whistle was blown; Project Maven is too far.
> I get nervous as hell thinking about AI and ML in the hands of governments
Me too, but a cleaner way to deal with it might be to demand better transparency and accountability from the government. Beleif that large corporations will act in your unstated best-interests (and not their own) seems pretty noisy.
It's definitely fair to point out that Google and their employees aren't likely to be the perfect representation of what I would hope for, but all I really meant to convey was that as an institution I trust them more than I do the big defense contractors. TBF, it's not a high bar to leap.
But isn't Maven and Rekognition people at these companies blowing the whistle? If they just did what was asked of them, then there would be no difference to other companies.
The reason we're hearing about this right now is that a lot of whistles are blown. The question is whether this will be effective in any way.
That's a very good point. The logical conclusion of what I said is that at some point the whistle gets blown (or already has as you've pointed out) at which point Google backs off and Northrop (or another defense co) takes over, and we're right back here.
The pressure at Amazon, Google, etc. will be to not provide those tools to law-enforcement or government entities, though, which means that the contracts will wind up at defense contractors who don't operate with the same ethical beliefs. It's a Catch-22.
Ethical use doesn't matter once the government has their hands on it - government doesn't have ethics, it has politics.
Exactly. I don't understand the rationale behind these kinds of "protests". It's not like the buyer can't go elsewhere to get the tech. To potentially far less scrupulous suppliers at that.
I’ve never seen the rationale behind not going out drinking with my buddy, just because he beats his wife when he gets home. Whether I come to the bar or not, he’ll do it anyway!
Those who don’t come out with us any more are clearly doing it with the same intentions as everyone else that disagree with me; the wrong ones.
You guys understand that Amazon and Google do not necessarily get access to these DOD projects, right? As in: if these protests keep recurring, these companies will simply not be invited to participate –– the classic defense contractors will. The large tech companies don't have as much agency as some of us seem to be assuming.
Amazon built it to recognize staff as they walk in and customers at their physical stores so they wouldn't have to carry a wallet. It's like GPS. Many legitimate civilian uses, but also very useful to use in orchestrating government force.
Amazon is about to effectively receive a sole source DOD contract for 10 billion for "cloud services". They have been supplying AWS to intelligence agencies for years. Why outrage over this and not that?
Because politics. It’s an election year and people are manoeuvering for position. Obama had children in these detention camps, Feinstein and just about any democrat in government more than ten years has had tough stances on illegal immigration, but, now of course with Trump it’s different.
Snowden, Assange both shed light on massive surveillance and the outrage lasted a week. Now Assange and Snowden are seen in a less positive light as well by the same people who hailed them as defenders of freedom and transparency.
Under Obama, occasionally we had a few children seperated from their parents and placed in detention camps. In the last 6 weeks we had over 2000 children seperated.
There was a change in policy from: we don't generally presecute parents with children, to: prosecute all parents with children.
You don't think that change could have had anything to do with people's outrage?
Because a data center for the DOD is largely invisible.
The suggestion that facial recognition cameras are pointed in the faces of ordinary Americans, just in case they do something the cops don’t like, is a pretty extraordinary proposition for a US consumer company to make.
The Rekognition pitch is encouraging the use of a specific controversial practice, rather than abstractly aiding the general compute capabilities of a large (if controversial to some) government department.
Don't they understand their own platform? AWS is self service. Anyone with a credit card can set up an account and consume Rekognition or any other service. It's not as if it has to be sold to the police by a sales person under some licensed/contract. No special software is being developed for ICE or the Orlando police.Forbes recently put together a face recognition system using AWS components under 30 dollars. WTF are these employees on about. Anyone is free to build on AWS. What's next? Ban police from purchasing stuff on Amazon retail? If you disagree with your govt, go tell your congressman instead of irritating everyone at work
But, as we found out with Signal[0], in addition to the UI and the law, there's a whole other world of what is and isn't possible with AWS, called policy.
Anyone with a credit card can get an AWS account, but it's against the ToS to use it to offend the DMCA, host a crawler (whoops!), run an open mail relay, or store bestiality, for the simple reason that Amazon have decided that they don't want that to happen on AWS.
Mass surveillance of the population via facial recognition is an offensive proposition to a great many million Amazon Prime members!
Er, explain how the law enforcement is violating any terms and conditions. Domain fronting is illegal. Mass surveillance is what the NSA does for a living. If it is offensive to prime members, they have found the wrong tree to bark up
> ... explain how the law enforcement is violating any terms and conditions
I’m not saying that they are, just that Amazon are within their right to stipulate that there are certain uses of their technology which they just don’t like, as they see fit.
> Domain fronting is illegal.
First I’ve heard. Where? Why?
> ...NSA... If it is offensive to prime members, they have found the wrong tree to bark up
This story is not about the NSA. The Rekognition controversy arose regarding local police departments, who are very much not tasked with mass surveillance. Amazon used local police departments as example deployments, and for marketing copy as an idealized use-case.
I would personally stop shopping at a local store, if by supporting them I was supporting their objectionable side-business. Consumer boycotts are pretty common, as are changes to corporate policy due to the bad press boycotts generate.
The police cannot do any mass surveillance with AWS Recognition. For that they need access to huge amount of video feeds.IF they already have access to such video and use primitive techniques to sift through them for identifying criminals, then Rekognition makes it cheap and value for money for the taxpayers. Sifting through data to identify people is police work. Why hobble it by mandating that they use expensive outdated slow technology?
If the police has no access to streaming video feeds on a mass scale, the tool can't help. If they are accessing the feeds illegally, then they are breaking laws - AWS can terminate accounts. Any proof that they are doing this illegal activity?
I really don't think the DRPA needs Amazon/Google to militarize AI.
It already happened, years ago it is a random forests/SVM, now it is a neural network. Weapons are machines, should we just go and ban research machine learning as a whole?
Seriously? All the proclaimed freedom in country is built on the backs of soldiers/police. And we are worried about helping them? If we cant trust the govt then boot them. I am more worried about big companies which are accountable to small set of shareholders more than big govt accountable to najority.
Seeing, in the press, actual technologists' opinions on what is and isn't a good use for their technologies is extremely refreshing, and something that that many on HN have grumbled about for a long time.
Along with the similar actions at Google and Microsoft[0,1], I hope that this represents a bit more of the decision-making power of tech companies coming back towards technologists, and away from the money-men.
I have a feeling that one of these cloud companies is going to have a mass firing of employees that are protesting against government contracts. People underestimate just how much money the US government spends. Just DoD spending is more than 600 Billion per year. Microsoft and Google have annual revenue of 100 Billion. The $10 Billion Pentagon cloud contract immediately gives a huge boost to any cloud provider. As can be seen by most of these companies dealings with very repressive governments (China, Saudi Arabia, etc), they will talk a good game, but when serious money is on the line, they will do what they need to do to get the money.
I bet that in back rooms, high level cloud execs at Hear companies are hearing an earful about how they need to control their employees and part of getting the big contracts requires controlling your employees. Just look at how the NFL caved in when Trump accused them of not supporting soldiers. Will these companies stay the line when Trump starts saying that these companies are hurting American soldiers and police officers? I am not confident they will.
I imagine many very large companies internally view themselves as above politics. Most peoples' political views wax and wane as a reflection of whatever is happening at a given moment in time and especially whatever is trending in the media and social media. By contrast consider individuals like Jeff Bezos. He wants to advance humanity into a commercial space age and is working extensively and at great cost to do just that. And that change will radically shift society in ways that would make many of our current issues seem quite trite, and even render others completely obsolete.
So what various political leaders or even nations are doing is not necessarily material to his goal. I wouldn't see it as a double-faced 'talking a good game', but rather understanding that what companies say in any region is little more than a product of their public relations teams, if not only because of apathy.
I also don't think they would ever fire individuals in large quantities over anything like this. There's a much easier solution. Turnover in tech companies is huge. All they need to do is change their hiring preferences and in a decade the company could have almost entirely shifted the ethos of their workforce without having had to fire a single person.
I doubt that will happen or if it does it will end poorly for them. DOD contracts are very diffuse and Lockheed Martin made only $36B in revenue and they are the top with expenses from "the game" like offices in every district they need for political support.
The fact that the hot areas have absurd cost of living and companies keep paying it instead of moving to cheaper locales and attempts to do so have failed is quite telling.
I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, they will have to get worse software from likely more expensive vendors (less market competition for the contract). Which will make ICE less efficient in its goal to criminalize, separate and deport immigrants.
The fight isn't whether or not ICE should have facial recognition software. The fight is to make ICE act in accordance with our values. Some agency (ICE or whatever replaces it) will still need to protect the borders, and that protection will require facial recognition software.
If you hate ICE, you should also probably hate defense contractors more, because they have very little moral qualms about accepting contracts from the government, even ones that may violate human rights. And that's where that money is going to go now.
Not sure if the parent expressed anything approaching either anger or hate.
> ... that protection will require facial recognition software.
Why?
Lots of things are effective, but life in a free country means that we don’t do some of them.
We could put cameras in every home, make them illegal to disable. Ban encryption. Censor the web. Ban cars that can’t be remotely disabled.
Free societies are free because there is slack in the system. This freedom is how norms evolve. Gay sex could put you in jail when my parents were teenagers. Supporting Nelson Mandela when he was in jail was supporting the leader of a terrorist organization. Heaven forbid smoking a joint. The status quo is not divined.
My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Even if you think it might swing things in your favor today, there are no guarantees that it will tomorrow.
If you were an honest debater, you would have discussed the pros and cons of facial recognition software instead of labeling my position as somehow inherently evil without argument.
I didn't realize you have the PhD to diagnose me as paranoid as well.
Again, if you want an honest debate, I'm willing to have one. But I think in your quest to make a popular rhetorical argument, you've lost the moral high ground.
No object ever in society is "inherently authoritarian".
Authoritarianism is a behavior of a country's leaders, not a label on some unwanted technology.
E.g. Sniper rifles are not authoritarian in an of themselves. The use of sniper rifles to snuff out dissent is.
And that's why this debate is dishonest. Because if you support facial recognition software for the police as another tool for the good guys, you get smeared as supporting authoritarianism.
When in fact, if you deeply wanted to remove authoritarian behaviors, you would add more checks and balances to the system to prevent unchecked behavior from our leaders.
The founding father's knew that and designed the constitution that way.
I mean, it's pretty clear given tweets given to us today by the US president that he'd LIKE to use it in an authoritarian manner. He literally said he wants to remove all courts and judges from the immigration process and have ICE be able to exercise deportation options unilaterally and with 0 tolerance or oversight.
So right now: yeah it's probably an authoritarian system. But in the long term, we need a better understand of the legal and social implications of facial recognition before we can really trust governments at scale to use the technology within a framework that preserves our values.
ICE does not "criminalize immigrants" and can't do that. ICE ignores legal immigrants, as it should, and prosecutes illegal immigrants, according to laws passed by Congress. ICE is executive branch, it has no legislative powers and can't "criminalize" anything.
I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime.
Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine):
It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question has little to do with ICE as these conditions are written in law, not ICE policies.
Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example
NYT is not exactly a neutral arbiter of correct word usage, especially in highly politicized matter in which NYT is fully engaged. Additionally, if you do read the article, right from the start it points out that the change from criminal handling to civil is a target of a future reform, not a current state of affairs:
A bedrock premise of smart immigration reform is the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting. While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization, not by the police and prisons.
Nobody would need a "reform" if the above would already be the case.
In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters, beyond very narrow band of operative focus (i.e. how to allocate prosecutorial and prevention resources, etc.) - if something is criminal, ICE can not "decriminalize" it, and if something is not, ICE can not "criminalize" it. That's why the very article you quoted talks about "bills" - i.e. legislative actions - that can do exactly that.
You're wrong. The use of the term "criminalization" here is correct. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime [1].
You then deliberately try to conflate this with border crossing but note that irregular border crossing is also not a crime when individuals are seeking asylum. The US law here is actually quite muddy here (several lawsuits are in the air [2]) but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane [3].
The criminalization effort (especially part where ICE agents get decked out with body armor and assault weapons to detain restaurant cooks) is precisely a propaganda effort to make it look like these people are all criminals when they're mostly just poor desperate people refuge from failed countries. (Of particular irony: many of these failed countries are so mostly because of US policy. In the case of Honduras the US decision to back the right-wing coup in 2009 led directly to the total collapse of law and order in that country. [4])
> In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters
Not sure if this is deliberate or you're just very naieve but ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties. (Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police though they love to dress up in the "POLICE ICE" jackets while terrorizing people.) There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own.
> The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime
Being is not. Crossing the border not via border control is.
> but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane
We are not discussing what is humane according to some international treaty, we are discussing what is the US law and whether ICE has any power to change it. US law is illegal border crossing is a crime and ICE must enforce it.
> ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties
It does. Changing the law about what is criminal and what is not is not part of it. It can, if directed by the head of the executive, refuse to uphold the law and prosecute behavior which is criminal by law, but that won't change the fact it is criminal - it'd be just criminal behavior that is not prosecuted. They way to make it not criminal is to change the law that makes it criminal. And, also, they can not just decide something is criminal and start prosecuting it without the law already having it as a crime - it's just not in their powers.
> Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police
Whose popular belief? ICE is a separate law enforcement agency, just as FBI, DEA, CBP or Secret Service are. The fact that they are not police does not change their powers as an executive agency.
> There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own.
There is, but it doesn't change anything about criminality.
First of all, I am an immigrant. I am not sure why you think that ICE criminalize anybody? How is this even possible? People violate the law are criminals. Trying to enter the US illegally is a crime. Pretty plain simple. I do not like the ICE but I had pleasant experience with them even when I tried to enter the US (unknowingly) illegally once. They helped me through the process, fined me (following the law) and I was pretty ok with that.
For some reason, the conversation here and in some other places is dominated by people who want open borders, and therefore don’t believe entering a country without permission is illegal. Such an argument would never fly in real life, so I don’t know why so much time is wasted arguing with them. It feels like some kind of elaborate trolling, saying something super crazy and waiting for answers (baiting).
Most people appalled at what's going on aren't arguing for open borders. They do want borders, and some degree of border security. What they're saying is that at some point, the amount of suffering you have to cause to reach that level of security is simply morally unacceptable.
Until recently it was a federal misdemeanor of minor import. There really is no reason to run excessive immigration centers from a logistical standpoint in a modern society. It's a legacy concept from days when things like air travel were not readily available to the masses.
You assume that there NEEDS to be some kind of border enforcement. It's not clear why that needs to include detention camps, armed guns, tent cities for children, no logistical support for reuniting asylum seekers with their children, or intimidation tactics.
That is, unless you think South Americans are fundamentally different and less worthy than their North American cousins in some axiomatic way that says, "Only the top N% of you are worthy of joining our society." This is especially true because the US really doesn't have substantial social services (or those that we do have are teetering on the edge of collapse) to fund compared to other first world countries who proportionally spend much more of their budget on entitlements.
Seriously? What makes YOU more entitled to be here than someone else? The answer is: there are probably many people who'd like to be here that would have similar positive (or negative) impacts on society. It's only because of implicit exceptionalism in American culture that we assume there is chaff to filter out.
> No we have to filter people because if we did not there would be chaos, and everything that makes America a great place to live would disappear.
Prove it.
> You seem to not understand how the world works at a fundamental level.
You seem to believe in magic and suggest it's essential to the world. You think America is fundamentally different. It's really not. It's rich, that's the difference, and a difference that's fading over time as its imperialism is curbed by progress elsewhere. It's largest ideological plurality is Christian, which is just as violent and hate-prone as any other religions.
It's not special. It's already chaotic. We could trivially improve the immigration process to make the waits less than 10x. We could even tax immigrants more than legacy citizens to offset that cost, if we wanted.
But what people actually want is to pretend that they're special. That only the best of the rest of the world match up with their mediocre life. It'd be funny if it wasn't leading to scaled human rights abuses and mass child trafficking by the human government.
In order for the United States to remain united, its people must share basic elements of culture.
While immigrants are an integral part of American culture - something that is itself unique to America - successive waves of immigrants have over the past 200 years integrated into the broader American culture over the generations. Immigrants bring their cultures with them and enrich the broader culture but ultimately they become American.
Mass illegal immigration threatens this dynamic because in order for integration to happen, immigrants must be surrounded by people from outside of their culture. But if they continually pool into a few pockets of the country, they don't have an opportunity to integrate.
Persistant linguistic and cultural differences represent fault lines along which the country could fracture. It's a risk that's not worth taking.
Not only that, the current economic situation is one in which the gap between rich and poor is growing. If we let in massive amounts of poor illegal migrants, they will probably remain poor, unlike in the past when there were abundant factory jobs available to migrants that would have enabled them to join the middle class. Persistent poverty leads to unrest.
We need to let immigrants in slowly so they can be gradually integrated into the economy, especially because studies show that most migrants are on welfare, placing a large burden on an already stressed social safety net.
Not only that, open borders encourage drug smuggling, human trafficking and other criminal activity, and we cannot tolerate that.
You don't recognize the threat to stability mass immigration causes and the critical importance of stability to national unity.
The greatest threat to America is disunity from within, so we must do everything we can to encourage unity and unify the country.
Mass immigration will lead to an unstable and fractured nation.
If ICE has to get worse software that just means you and everyone else need to pay more in taxes. The government has the means to get what it wants usually
Usually that just translates to more and better Potemkin villages. Ultimately, knowledge and skills are a limited resource, and money is not a replacement for it.
Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. Free college education for every American would cost 50-60. Why should I value criminals more than my fellow Americans. What legal obligation do I have to have the money I work for used to pay for illegal immigrants?
We could educate every american and have another 60 billion to spare to help the African-American community.
> Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually.
This is such a ridiculous number that it should be discounted out of hand. It also sounds like you're not counting the benefits of, work done by, and taxes paid by, these people.
Immigration enforcement is never going to get you free college. That's not how the politics works.
If you read the source provided you would see the net loss is still 113 billion to the US government.
As for myself I got a full ride scholarship based on test scores and makes 200k in my early 20s, I just don't like seeing my taxes pay for people who cheat the system.
I don't know why I'm bothering to engage with an anti-immigration "think tank" that's obviously going to be a pit of dishonesty, but I had a look at the linked PDF:
"The overall population that we analyze, for the purposes of determining the costs of illegal immigration,
also includes about 4.2 million American-born minor children of illegal aliens. Although, the U.S.-
born children of illegal aliens are, under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution,
de jure
U.S. citizens, they are also typically “targeted low-income children,” who are eligible
for a variety of federal benefits. While not counted as illegal aliens, these children are a signifi
cant part of
illegal immigration’s
fi
scal impact on the U.S. taxpayer. Because they would not be present in the United
States but for their parents violation of American immigration law, we consider them to be appropriately
considered part of the cost of illegal immigration. "
Right. So they're counting US-born children, who they admit are constitutionally Americans, as part of the cost of illegal immigration.
So I guess the next step is finding a way to deport or cage those US-born American children of illegal immigrants?
> Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data.
ICE is removing illegal immigrants from the US. If it was removing legal citizens or legal immigrants for some arbitrary reason then people would be much more sympathetic to your position.
In reality however, because ICE is not rounding up "immigrants" as you say in an intentional effort to obscure the truth by avoiding the necessary word "illegal", most people in the US are in support of ICE's mission.
ICE will continue to carry out that just and necessary mission with or without the assistance of some naive and privileged ideaologues that work at tech companies.
Your position on this issue is rooted firmly on the wrong side of history.
If people do not want a public organization to use facial recognition software, then energy should be directed towards that action of the public organization - not towards the vendors supplying the technology. They will get the technology whether or not Amazon or Google or whoever else provide it. The one and only thing that might stop this from happening is if our political representatives chose to take action against facial recognition. And as opposed to mass surveillance of digital communications, I think this is something that would have pull with the masses as well. People's faces being automatically processed and scanned is something much more visibly dystopic than the NSA archiving your digital communications.
116 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 200 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17341742
Long story short, basically what a previous poster said. People spent so much time trying to find out if they could, no one seemed to stop and think about whether they should.
Where do you draw the line on ethical usage?
In my mind, if you're concerned about the ethics of facial recognition tech, you shouldn't be working in that field at all. It's fundamentally anti-privacy.
One can put me in a box. The other one can’t.
That's not to say that that's a perfect situation, but (if your threat model is the government) a government which has to take data from unwilling companies is weaker than one that need not do so, because they have the capability to collect the data themselves.
I’m not saying one side is good and the other is not. But if we’re drawing lines, the side that can punch me is the one I’m more scared of.
Uber put someone in a box in Phoenix recently.
Otherwise the message is "don't oppose the surveillance state."
If you do not like surveillance and would like to have less of it, the proper way to deal with the problem is to get your lawmaker to ban it at the federal level, not to shift the implementation to some other company just because you don't like Trump.
But that's not the issue here, is it? "Resistance" is. Time and time again it is uncovered that the Obama administration did the same exact things the Trump administration is being panned for, and everyone just nodded in agreement. If someone's moral compass turns opposite depending on whether their candidate wins or loses, that's not a "moral compass" at all, that's just a political dog whistle.
Putting aside the "Obama did it" false equivalency I do not see why following ones conscience and using their right to choose to take a stand in a nondamaging way is so offensive to some people. I would guess from it highlighting their own moral abdications but I am not the best at understanding people.
FaceID users. Just because something has downsides doesn’t mean it has no upsides.
Given that tech earned millions of dollars vs this tech earning billions, I'm gonna guess the old tech is now underwhelming.
I get nervous as hell thinking about AI and ML in the hands of governments, but it's gonna happen anyway. I'd rather it be Google than Northrop.
So would many of us here, but not Google itself. It is just terrible PR for any company that wants a decent public image. It is one thing to get grilled by senators, but entirely another for your average user to start believing you’re part of a war-machine, and thus something to be avoided. And the bulk of Google/Amazon’s profits come (directly/indirectly) from B2C markets, which makes their image/brand-value a significant intangible asset that cannot be compromised. Contractors don’t have this quandary.
Tides can and do change though. And anyone working on anything that can be weaponized (see also self driving cars) and has heard of Alfred Nobel is just fooling themselves if they think they can control their creations.
In your admiration for a Google employees, you’re projecting your own beleifs and norms.
The whistle was blown; Project Maven is too far.
> I get nervous as hell thinking about AI and ML in the hands of governments
Me too, but a cleaner way to deal with it might be to demand better transparency and accountability from the government. Beleif that large corporations will act in your unstated best-interests (and not their own) seems pretty noisy.
The reason we're hearing about this right now is that a lot of whistles are blown. The question is whether this will be effective in any way.
Ethical use doesn't matter once the government has their hands on it - government doesn't have ethics, it has politics.
The whole thing seems like virtue signaling.
Those who don’t come out with us any more are clearly doing it with the same intentions as everyone else that disagree with me; the wrong ones.
It's not like GPS, because GPS doesn't invade my privacy. I'm not sure that being identified everywhere I go is "legitimate", though it is common.
Snowden, Assange both shed light on massive surveillance and the outrage lasted a week. Now Assange and Snowden are seen in a less positive light as well by the same people who hailed them as defenders of freedom and transparency.
People are fickle.
There was a change in policy from: we don't generally presecute parents with children, to: prosecute all parents with children.
You don't think that change could have had anything to do with people's outrage?
The suggestion that facial recognition cameras are pointed in the faces of ordinary Americans, just in case they do something the cops don’t like, is a pretty extraordinary proposition for a US consumer company to make.
The Rekognition pitch is encouraging the use of a specific controversial practice, rather than abstractly aiding the general compute capabilities of a large (if controversial to some) government department.
But, as we found out with Signal[0], in addition to the UI and the law, there's a whole other world of what is and isn't possible with AWS, called policy.
Anyone with a credit card can get an AWS account, but it's against the ToS to use it to offend the DMCA, host a crawler (whoops!), run an open mail relay, or store bestiality, for the simple reason that Amazon have decided that they don't want that to happen on AWS.
Mass surveillance of the population via facial recognition is an offensive proposition to a great many million Amazon Prime members!
[0]: https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-on-the-front/
I’m not saying that they are, just that Amazon are within their right to stipulate that there are certain uses of their technology which they just don’t like, as they see fit.
> Domain fronting is illegal.
First I’ve heard. Where? Why?
> ...NSA... If it is offensive to prime members, they have found the wrong tree to bark up
This story is not about the NSA. The Rekognition controversy arose regarding local police departments, who are very much not tasked with mass surveillance. Amazon used local police departments as example deployments, and for marketing copy as an idealized use-case.
I would personally stop shopping at a local store, if by supporting them I was supporting their objectionable side-business. Consumer boycotts are pretty common, as are changes to corporate policy due to the bad press boycotts generate.
It already happened, years ago it is a random forests/SVM, now it is a neural network. Weapons are machines, should we just go and ban research machine learning as a whole?
If those employees were really against this type of work, they should have come out against it years ago.
Well then, how do you feel when the two cooperate, one enabling the other to screw us more efficiently?
Along with the similar actions at Google and Microsoft[0,1], I hope that this represents a bit more of the decision-making power of tech companies coming back towards technologists, and away from the money-men.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project...
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/technology/tech-companies...
I bet that in back rooms, high level cloud execs at Hear companies are hearing an earful about how they need to control their employees and part of getting the big contracts requires controlling your employees. Just look at how the NFL caved in when Trump accused them of not supporting soldiers. Will these companies stay the line when Trump starts saying that these companies are hurting American soldiers and police officers? I am not confident they will.
They’re a pretty famous name in US labor history!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/16/silicon-v...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)
So what various political leaders or even nations are doing is not necessarily material to his goal. I wouldn't see it as a double-faced 'talking a good game', but rather understanding that what companies say in any region is little more than a product of their public relations teams, if not only because of apathy.
I also don't think they would ever fire individuals in large quantities over anything like this. There's a much easier solution. Turnover in tech companies is huge. All they need to do is change their hiring preferences and in a decade the company could have almost entirely shifted the ethos of their workforce without having had to fire a single person.
The fact that the hot areas have absurd cost of living and companies keep paying it instead of moving to cheaper locales and attempts to do so have failed is quite telling.
The fight isn't whether or not ICE should have facial recognition software. The fight is to make ICE act in accordance with our values. Some agency (ICE or whatever replaces it) will still need to protect the borders, and that protection will require facial recognition software.
If you hate ICE, you should also probably hate defense contractors more, because they have very little moral qualms about accepting contracts from the government, even ones that may violate human rights. And that's where that money is going to go now.
> ... that protection will require facial recognition software.
Why?
Lots of things are effective, but life in a free country means that we don’t do some of them.
We could put cameras in every home, make them illegal to disable. Ban encryption. Censor the web. Ban cars that can’t be remotely disabled.
Free societies are free because there is slack in the system. This freedom is how norms evolve. Gay sex could put you in jail when my parents were teenagers. Supporting Nelson Mandela when he was in jail was supporting the leader of a terrorist organization. Heaven forbid smoking a joint. The status quo is not divined.
My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Even if you think it might swing things in your favor today, there are no guarantees that it will tomorrow.
Are there benefits of facial recognition cameras for law enforcement which can’t be said of other mass surveillance techniques?
Are there specific pros you want to be acknowledged?
Again, if you want an honest debate, I'm willing to have one. But I think in your quest to make a popular rhetorical argument, you've lost the moral high ground.
Your assumption that this software would be used for authoritarian ends is exactly the problem the OP was trying to point out.
Authoritarianism is a behavior of a country's leaders, not a label on some unwanted technology.
E.g. Sniper rifles are not authoritarian in an of themselves. The use of sniper rifles to snuff out dissent is.
And that's why this debate is dishonest. Because if you support facial recognition software for the police as another tool for the good guys, you get smeared as supporting authoritarianism.
When in fact, if you deeply wanted to remove authoritarian behaviors, you would add more checks and balances to the system to prevent unchecked behavior from our leaders.
The founding father's knew that and designed the constitution that way.
And sure, I didn't make it explicit, so let me make it explicit now: the use of the software to identify real people is authoritarian.
If you use it to classify random cat pictures then that's obviously not authoritarian.
But saying two things are equivalent doesn't make it so.
My phone tags people in them. Are you saying that is authoritarian? Because to me, it seems like a really nice tool to tag people in photos.
So right now: yeah it's probably an authoritarian system. But in the long term, we need a better understand of the legal and social implications of facial recognition before we can really trust governments at scale to use the technology within a framework that preserves our values.
Right now, it's best to deny them access to it.
Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine):
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html
US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf
It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question has little to do with ICE as these conditions are written in law, not ICE policies.
Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example
NYT is not exactly a neutral arbiter of correct word usage, especially in highly politicized matter in which NYT is fully engaged. Additionally, if you do read the article, right from the start it points out that the change from criminal handling to civil is a target of a future reform, not a current state of affairs:
A bedrock premise of smart immigration reform is the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting. While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization, not by the police and prisons.
Nobody would need a "reform" if the above would already be the case.
In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters, beyond very narrow band of operative focus (i.e. how to allocate prosecutorial and prevention resources, etc.) - if something is criminal, ICE can not "decriminalize" it, and if something is not, ICE can not "criminalize" it. That's why the very article you quoted talks about "bills" - i.e. legislative actions - that can do exactly that.
You're wrong. The use of the term "criminalization" here is correct. The Supreme Court has stated multiple times that being on US soil without proper documentation is not a crime [1].
You then deliberately try to conflate this with border crossing but note that irregular border crossing is also not a crime when individuals are seeking asylum. The US law here is actually quite muddy here (several lawsuits are in the air [2]) but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane [3].
The criminalization effort (especially part where ICE agents get decked out with body armor and assault weapons to detain restaurant cooks) is precisely a propaganda effort to make it look like these people are all criminals when they're mostly just poor desperate people refuge from failed countries. (Of particular irony: many of these failed countries are so mostly because of US policy. In the case of Honduras the US decision to back the right-wing coup in 2009 led directly to the total collapse of law and order in that country. [4])
> In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters
Not sure if this is deliberate or you're just very naieve but ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties. (Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police though they love to dress up in the "POLICE ICE" jackets while terrorizing people.) There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own.
[1] http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/dec/01/ka...
[2] https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-right...
[3] https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/report-docume...
[4] https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/us-role-honduras-c...
Being is not. Crossing the border not via border control is.
> but international treaties (to which the US is party) make it quite clear that criminal prosecution of asylum seekers and refugees is both illegal and inhumane
We are not discussing what is humane according to some international treaty, we are discussing what is the US law and whether ICE has any power to change it. US law is illegal border crossing is a crime and ICE must enforce it.
> ICE has a lot of leeway in how it carries out its mostly administrative duties
It does. Changing the law about what is criminal and what is not is not part of it. It can, if directed by the head of the executive, refuse to uphold the law and prosecute behavior which is criminal by law, but that won't change the fact it is criminal - it'd be just criminal behavior that is not prosecuted. They way to make it not criminal is to change the law that makes it criminal. And, also, they can not just decide something is criminal and start prosecuting it without the law already having it as a crime - it's just not in their powers.
> Contrary to popular belief ICE are not police
Whose popular belief? ICE is a separate law enforcement agency, just as FBI, DEA, CBP or Secret Service are. The fact that they are not police does not change their powers as an executive agency.
> There's a big difference, for example, whether ICE chooses to pre-emptively detain individuals awaiting processing in Immigration Court or it lets people show up on their own.
There is, but it doesn't change anything about criminality.
You assume that there NEEDS to be some kind of border enforcement. It's not clear why that needs to include detention camps, armed guns, tent cities for children, no logistical support for reuniting asylum seekers with their children, or intimidation tactics.
That is, unless you think South Americans are fundamentally different and less worthy than their North American cousins in some axiomatic way that says, "Only the top N% of you are worthy of joining our society." This is especially true because the US really doesn't have substantial social services (or those that we do have are teetering on the edge of collapse) to fund compared to other first world countries who proportionally spend much more of their budget on entitlements.
Seriously? What makes YOU more entitled to be here than someone else? The answer is: there are probably many people who'd like to be here that would have similar positive (or negative) impacts on society. It's only because of implicit exceptionalism in American culture that we assume there is chaff to filter out.
You seem to not understand how the world works at a fundamental level.
Prove it.
> You seem to not understand how the world works at a fundamental level.
You seem to believe in magic and suggest it's essential to the world. You think America is fundamentally different. It's really not. It's rich, that's the difference, and a difference that's fading over time as its imperialism is curbed by progress elsewhere. It's largest ideological plurality is Christian, which is just as violent and hate-prone as any other religions.
It's not special. It's already chaotic. We could trivially improve the immigration process to make the waits less than 10x. We could even tax immigrants more than legacy citizens to offset that cost, if we wanted.
But what people actually want is to pretend that they're special. That only the best of the rest of the world match up with their mediocre life. It'd be funny if it wasn't leading to scaled human rights abuses and mass child trafficking by the human government.
While immigrants are an integral part of American culture - something that is itself unique to America - successive waves of immigrants have over the past 200 years integrated into the broader American culture over the generations. Immigrants bring their cultures with them and enrich the broader culture but ultimately they become American.
Mass illegal immigration threatens this dynamic because in order for integration to happen, immigrants must be surrounded by people from outside of their culture. But if they continually pool into a few pockets of the country, they don't have an opportunity to integrate.
Persistant linguistic and cultural differences represent fault lines along which the country could fracture. It's a risk that's not worth taking.
Not only that, the current economic situation is one in which the gap between rich and poor is growing. If we let in massive amounts of poor illegal migrants, they will probably remain poor, unlike in the past when there were abundant factory jobs available to migrants that would have enabled them to join the middle class. Persistent poverty leads to unrest.
We need to let immigrants in slowly so they can be gradually integrated into the economy, especially because studies show that most migrants are on welfare, placing a large burden on an already stressed social safety net.
Not only that, open borders encourage drug smuggling, human trafficking and other criminal activity, and we cannot tolerate that.
You don't recognize the threat to stability mass immigration causes and the critical importance of stability to national unity.
The greatest threat to America is disunity from within, so we must do everything we can to encourage unity and unify the country.
Mass immigration will lead to an unstable and fractured nation.
IBM and other companies helping the nazis used that argument.
We could educate every american and have another 60 billion to spare to help the African-American community.
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-b...
This is such a ridiculous number that it should be discounted out of hand. It also sounds like you're not counting the benefits of, work done by, and taxes paid by, these people.
Immigration enforcement is never going to get you free college. That's not how the politics works.
As for myself I got a full ride scholarship based on test scores and makes 200k in my early 20s, I just don't like seeing my taxes pay for people who cheat the system.
"The overall population that we analyze, for the purposes of determining the costs of illegal immigration, also includes about 4.2 million American-born minor children of illegal aliens. Although, the U.S.- born children of illegal aliens are, under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, de jure U.S. citizens, they are also typically “targeted low-income children,” who are eligible for a variety of federal benefits. While not counted as illegal aliens, these children are a signifi cant part of illegal immigration’s fi scal impact on the U.S. taxpayer. Because they would not be present in the United States but for their parents violation of American immigration law, we consider them to be appropriately considered part of the cost of illegal immigration. "
Right. So they're counting US-born children, who they admit are constitutionally Americans, as part of the cost of illegal immigration.
So I guess the next step is finding a way to deport or cage those US-born American children of illegal immigrants?
Because that's literally what you're arguing here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ICE is removing illegal immigrants from the US. If it was removing legal citizens or legal immigrants for some arbitrary reason then people would be much more sympathetic to your position.
In reality however, because ICE is not rounding up "immigrants" as you say in an intentional effort to obscure the truth by avoiding the necessary word "illegal", most people in the US are in support of ICE's mission.
ICE will continue to carry out that just and necessary mission with or without the assistance of some naive and privileged ideaologues that work at tech companies.
Your position on this issue is rooted firmly on the wrong side of history.