LONDON-An attempted shareholder revolt over Amazon’s sale of facial recognition technology to the police mustered less than 3% of votes cast at the firm’s annual general meeting.
The tally was revealed in a corporate filing.The tech firm had said it was aware of civil rights concerns but had not received any reports of law enforcement clients misusing its Rekognition tool.Even so, the system is set for further scrutiny.Last week, Republican and Democrat politicians on the House Oversight Committee raised concerns about the speed at which Amazon’s facial recognition facility and others like it were being deployed.
“My office has had nine meetings with representatives from Amazon. We ask questions of experts across the spectrum, and my concerns only grow day by day,” commented Democrat congressman Jimmy Gomez.
“Shareholders did not not end up passing a ban of Rekognition... and you know what? That just means it’s more important Congress acts.”Republican congressman Jim Jordan added: “It is virtually unregulated but I think that frankly that needs to change.”Amazon’s marketing materials promote Rekognition as a crime-fighting toolFor its part, Amazon has said that it should be up to lawmakers rather than individual companies to decide what restrictions should be put in place.
“To the extent there may be ambiguities or uncertainties in how existing laws should apply to facial recognition technology, we have and will continue to offer our support to policymakers and legislators in identifying areas to develop guidance or legislation to clarify the proper application of those laws,” the company said.
The ballot at last Wednesday’s annual general meeting was held on the basis of one share, one vote.The proposal to ban governments from making use of Rekognition garnered close to 8.3 million votes, but that figure was dwarfed by the 327 million votes placed in opposition. In addition, there were about 5.5 million abstentions.That means that the idea only garnered 2.4% support.
A second vote was also held, calling on Amazon to commission an independent study into the risks posed to the general public’s privacy rights and to specifically address concerns that Rekognition could lead to the disproportionate surveillance of people of colour, immigrants and activists.