There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

FooBarrington ,

If the holocaust happened today, I don’t doubt for a second that IBM would throw every consultant they have at Nazis to increase efficiency.

Aggravationstation ,

Just like the old days… en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Rentlar ,

Government surveillance is totally different than “general purpose”, surveillance, I guess…

kool_newt ,

I’m an engineer and found myself working in this space and quit my job because I could not reconcile. We should be holding engineers (as well as the corporate leaders, all high ranking employees) building these dark technologies responsible for the massive harm they are doing and planning to do to humanity.

CeeBee ,

building these dark technologies responsible

Before you even consider doing that, you should be advocating holding the creators of the already existing technologies that have already caused massive immeasurable amounts of harm from cellphones. The tracking and data logging done through cellphones (precise location and time, websites visited, apps used, text conversations, phone conversations, etc) are more far reaching and intrusive than anything else we could devise.

With FR systems you have to go to the place where it’s set up. With cellphones it’s listening and watching at all times. Including when you’re at home and when you’re sleeping.

I lose hope every time someone advocates to regulate or get rid of the “dangerous and evil” FR systems as though we haven’t already completely and UTTERLY lost the fight against privacy because the tracking device lets you watch tiktok videos and cat memes.

bobman ,

Just start wearing masks.

NounsAndWords ,

Still can’t believe they gave up and extra $200,000 just for a sex number joke…

Ubermeisters ,

Elon move

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Who would have ever expected IBM to do something evil?

CookieJarObserver ,
@CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works avatar

This stuff should fall under the same laws as Arms.

NounsAndWords ,

So protected broadly under the second amendment instead of protected broadly under the first amendment?

CookieJarObserver ,
@CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works avatar

No, exporting military weapons is illigal unless the government agrees

NounsAndWords ,

Yes, yes, but this isn’t harmful speech military AI, this is simply commercial AI sold at scale. Clearly different, and if not, our lawyers will argue that it is until after we’ve made all our money.

bobman ,

Hm. So it’s okay for the US government to spy on its citizens but no one else?

Not sure why people like you ever bother talking about privacy. You clearly don’t care about it or understand it.

CookieJarObserver ,
@CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works avatar

No its not but at least the shit doesn’t get sold to whoever pays the most.

And i care very much about privacy.

bobman ,

No its not but at least the shit doesn’t get sold to whoever pays the most

Do you have evidence of this happening in China?

bobman ,

And i care very much about privacy.

Then you should know it’s not a ‘lesser evil’ scenario. Either you have privacy, or you don’t.

Choosing who you give up your privacy for is not being private.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

IBM has returned to the facial recognition market — just three years after announcing it was abandoning work on the technology due to concerns about racial profiling, mass surveillance, and other human rights violations.

In June 2020, as Black Lives Matter protests swept the US after George Floyd’s murder, IBM chief executive Arvind Krishna wrote a letter to Congress announcing that the company would no longer offer “general purpose” facial recognition technology.

“IBM firmly opposes and will not condone uses of any technology, including facial recognition technology offered by other vendors, for mass surveillance, racial profiling, violations of basic human rights and freedoms, or any purpose which is not consistent with our values and Principles of Trust and Transparency.” Later that year, the company redoubled its commitment, calling for US export controls to address concerns that facial recognition could be used overseas “to suppress dissent, to infringe on the rights of minorities, or to erase basic expectations of privacy.”

Kojo Kyerewaa of Black Lives Matter UK said: “IBM has shown itself willing to step over the body and memory of George Floyd to chase a Home Office contract.

In 2019, an independent report on the London Metropolitan Police Service’s use of live facial recognition found there was no “explicit legal basis” for the force’s use of the technology and raised concerns that it may have breached human rights law.

In August of the following year, the UK’s Court of Appeal ruled that South Wales Police’s use of facial recognition technology breached privacy rights and broke equality laws.

The original article contains 860 words, the summary contains 257 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •