Amazon Refutes ACLU’s Claims On ‘Rekognition’ Technology

[Lucian Armasu]

Amazon attempted to refute ACLU's claims and evidence that its technology would be abused by law enforcement. However, it ultimately remains to be seen what Amazon's actions will be against those customers that do abuse it.

Amazon Refutes ACLU’s Claims On ‘Rekognition’ Technology : Read more

 

[SkyBill40]

Hmm...

This certainly has some shades of the series "Person of Interest" in it, no? If you're a fan of the show, we all saw how that AI situation turned out.

 

[redgarl]

Welcome to Mirror's Edge

 

[1_rick]

Just so everyone's clear, "[h]e then noted that the technology could aid in preventing human trafficking, inhibiting child exploitation, reuniting missing children with their families, and building educational apps for children" doesn't actually refute anything. It should be obvious that claiming your software can be used for good in no way refutes the claim that it can be used for bad.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Just so everyone's clear, "[h]e then noted that the technology could aid in preventing human trafficking, inhibiting child exploitation, reuniting missing children with their families, and building educational apps for children" doesn't actually refute anything. It should be obvious that claiming your software can be used for good in no way refutes the claim that it can be used for bad.

To be fair anything can be used for good or for evil. That doesn't mean that it is being used either way. However the assumption we should be able to make is that law enforcement will only use it for its purpose which is for good.

The only downside though are humans. There is always the chance that it will be misused like everything eventually does get.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Just so everyone's clear, "[h]e then noted that the technology could aid in preventing human trafficking, inhibiting child exploitation, reuniting missing children with their families, and building educational apps for children" doesn't actually refute anything. It should be obvious that claiming your software can be used for good in no way refutes the claim that it can be used for bad.

To be fair anything can be used for good or for evil. That doesn't mean that it is being used either way. However the assumption we should be able to make is that law enforcement will only use it for its purpose which is for good.

The only downside though are humans. There is always the chance that it will be misused like everything eventually does get.

When government is involved, it will be misused under the name of "for your good" or "for your safety" and the usual "if you have nothing to hide, you're safe." Sorry, seen it too many times in the news.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Just so everyone's clear, "[h]e then noted that the technology could aid in preventing human trafficking, inhibiting child exploitation, reuniting missing children with their families, and building educational apps for children" doesn't actually refute anything. It should be obvious that claiming your software can be used for good in no way refutes the claim that it can be used for bad.

To be fair anything can be used for good or for evil. That doesn't mean that it is being used either way. However the assumption we should be able to make is that law enforcement will only use it for its purpose which is for good.

The only downside though are humans. There is always the chance that it will be misused like everything eventually does get.

When government is involved, it will be misused under the name of "for your good" or "for your safety" and the usual "if you have nothing to hide, you're safe." Sorry, seen it too many times in the news.

I am all for smaller government but with that view we might as well have no system of government and just anarchy. While I have also seen what you are talking about it is not always that way. At some point we have to be able to trust someone in a position of authority otherwise everything is pointless.

Now I would agree that in order to utilize any data they have found there has to be some sort of warrant for that search in order for it to be admissible especially with modern technology where you can recreate most anyone on a computer and it looks nearly realistic.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Just so everyone's clear, "[h]e then noted that the technology could aid in preventing human trafficking, inhibiting child exploitation, reuniting missing children with their families, and building educational apps for children" doesn't actually refute anything. It should be obvious that claiming your software can be used for good in no way refutes the claim that it can be used for bad.

To be fair anything can be used for good or for evil. That doesn't mean that it is being used either way. However the assumption we should be able to make is that law enforcement will only use it for its purpose which is for good.

The only downside though are humans. There is always the chance that it will be misused like everything eventually does get.

When government is involved, it will be misused under the name of "for your good" or "for your safety" and the usual "if you have nothing to hide, you're safe." Sorry, seen it too many times in the news.

I am all for smaller government but with that view we might as well have no system of government and just anarchy. While I have also seen what you are talking about it is not always that way. At some point we have to be able to trust someone in a position of authority otherwise everything is pointless.

Now I would agree that in order to utilize any data they have found there has to be some sort of warrant for that search in order for it to be admissible especially with modern technology where you can recreate most anyone on a computer and it looks nearly realistic.

You're right. We do have to trust someone, and anarchy would be worse in many cases. There are some good eggs in government.