There was a shareholder revolt in Amazon for selling their latest facial recognition technology to police. It got less that 3% votes in the yearly general meeting of the firm. The tech giant mentioned that they have regarded the concerns of civil rights. However, they have not yet received any complaints of their clients intervening in people’s privacy and misusing the Rekognition device. In fact, the system would soon receive more security updates.
Previous week, members from both Democrat and Republican parties of House Oversight Committee voiced worries. They said that Amazon’s facial recognition technology as well as others of the kind was installed. A congressman from Democrat party, Jimmy Gomez said that his office had conducted 9 meetings with people from Amazon. They have asked various questions and could not help but be afraid every passing day. Shareholders did not attempt to put a ban on Rekognition and he feels that Congress should take some important decision. Amazon has said that legislators should be in-charge of deciding upon the limitations to put on the technology rather than companies.
In fact, Amazon has also added that there might be prolonged confusions and ambiguities regarding how to apply the current laws on facial recognition technology. However, the company would be helping out the legislators and policymakers in indicating areas where such laws could be introduced. There would also be proper guidance to understand the functioning of the laws.
In the independent vote that was conducted, there were 8.3 million votes to stop governments from using Rekognition. However, that was defeated by 327 million votes supporting the idea. Another vote was also conducted keeping in mind the privacy rights of public. Again, there were 94.2 million votes casted to expel the technology while 239.6 million to keep it intact. Human Rights Watch has recently said that the technology is being used by Chinese police to repress a Muslim ethnic group in China. Megvii said that clients are strictly instructed beforehand not to use it for intervening human rights.