[wangyjx]

If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do and already done. It is just business.

[ardy42]

> If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do.

> It is just business.

Guns are a mature technology, and pretty easy to use. If I don't do the hit for Vinny, some other hitman will, so I might as well make some cash. It is just business.

The fact that someone else may perform a morally dubious action if you don't does not provide any justification for you to perform that action.

[wangyjx]

gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. (another privacy vs safety argument)

Needless to say this technology can only deploy in public places. If someone appear in public places, why you think he would like to become invisible to all others.

In the meanwhile, I agree that no gov employee can be authorized to access the data without limitation. There must be some laws to regulate its usage.

[ardy42]

> gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases.

Guns don't attack people either. There's a saying: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

[skummetmaelk]

And they kill each other much more the easier it is to do so...

[illiac_1962]

Data is truth, it wants to be free. It will be free. It is impossible to control. I have tons of confidential data under my control and I can do what I like with it. At a company/government with controls that are nothing less than stellar in comparison to most.

[HillaryBriss]

> ...do the hit for Vinny...

Why did you choose that name?

[hardwaresofton]

So I'm not sure 100% where I stand morally on the "if not us then someone else" argument as whole but I'm pretty sure it's better to just not let that person/entity be you (in this case Amazon), and figuring it out from there.

Even if the world is lacking in your brand of ethics/morals doesn't mean you need to stoop to the same level as someone who doesn't hold the same brand of ethics/morals.