Amazon has made a cruel “take it or leave it” demand to its 75,000 delivery drivers: submit to face surveillance or lose your job. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/dystopia-prime-amazon-subjects-its-drivers-biometric-surveillance
🇳🇱
@eff I'm ok with this being used on employees, opposed on the general public.
You seem to miss the point... when you are at work it should be perfectly legal for your company to use facial recognition on you. When your not at work it should be illegal without consent.
Understand now?
@freemo
And the Facial recognition AI is going to MAGICALLY lose the ability to recognize you when you're off the clock? No they won't. And the Data they get through Facial Recognition? That kinda tech can already tell your emotional responses to whatever stimulus. Let people use facial recognition on their employees, and it's only a matter of time until someone gets fired because a computer program outed them or the like.
@eff
Obviously the AI wont forget your face when your off the clock. But as long as it is illegal to **use** that AI on you when your off the clock, and as long as the law is enforced, I am perfectly ok with that.
If the law isnt enforced then they are already using pictures of your face off the clock anyway that learned what you look like so its a moot point to argue they might break the law.
@freemo
There's a substantial difference between secretly using facial recognition on people you shouldn't and secretly using it in general. If facial recognition is illegal to use on both the general public and employees, and you find out they have the tech, there's no question about what they're doing. If it's legal to use on employees?
"Oh no that was due to a computer error we would never intentionally add the faceprints of non-employees/continue tracking our employees off the clock"
@eff
Wrong, since people can opt-in to facial recognition then simply having the means to do it, and even actively doing it, would in no way suggest illegal activity.
Only employees, not the general public.. as I said I'm ok with that. I am not ok if it is used on the general public or outside of work hours, however, and would support any move to codify that in the law.
gotta nip that shit in the bud
Never heard that logic used before. No one seems to think that if something is ok if your paid to do it that therefore it must be fine to force you to do it for free
because we live in a society where shit-op arguments are very effective.
if Ted Cruz says wearing bowler hats is now mandatory apropos of nothing then people go what the fuck
if a plurality of businesses say “bowler hats mandatory” and people go “oh well they get to do that” then inevitably someone will argue “well everyone is already wearing bowler hats everywhere, so we might as well just codify it”
normalcy biases don’t care how you get there only that’s people think it has become normal and you’re the odd one not wanting it
yes we do... yet ive never heard that or an argument of that nature used. In fact usually the opposite of it is used
