HP is racist

[CELMX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM

You guys probably heard about this, in the news and all, but here it is anyways. HP already sucks, lol, so this isn't too shocking.

:laugh:

[Würzel]

This is on Discrimination... why? It shouldn't be shocking news that black folks' skin pigment is operating on kind of a different wavelength, thus the term "black", and this is merely a technical fuck-up instead of being a deliberate attempt on trying to stop black people from using HP products.

[Sean]

I heard an anecdote about the exact same glitch but not specifically from HP a while ago. It turned out that the programmers just used the faces of their developers to check it, and because their office was predominantly white. This may be the reason for it and I may well have actually stumbled upon a HP employee's blog without knowing it some months ago! Its a ridiculous oversight, and it has a certain humour to it (attributing messed up behaviour to computers) but its a real discrimination issue.

[Pawn Power]

In a white-supremacist society, the "standard person," and in this case the "standard HP user," is assumed to be white.

Bandages are made to be peach-colored- with the assumption that the person employing them is similar to that color. This is does not take into account of who actually uses the product it is simply a reflection of what is considered the archetype (usually, that is, a white man). This is not even overt to the extent that people consciously make these distinctions. It is just the baseline of thought (for those in power, developing this software, designing bandages, for white people, etc.) when conceiving "who is going to drive this car," "who is going to use this computer," etc.

[Red Saxon]

Video is hilarious, but the issue is serious.

[Drace]

I saw this posted in Stormfront.
Funny to see the totally different responses. :thumbup1:

[Olerud]

I could fall asleep to his voice :wub:

[Red Saxon]

I saw this posted in Stormfront.
Funny to see the totally different responses. :thumbup1:Link my friend?

[Drace]

Sorry, posted wrong one earlier.

http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=667104

[Revy]

I thought you meant "Harry Potter is racist". I was about to go on a defensive fanboy rant!:lol:

yeah, this is crazy. I don't get how his skin color should affect the camera. that makes no sense...and if this is an intentional thing, well, that's just fucked up.

[Würzel]

yeah, this is crazy. I don't get how his skin color should affect the camera. that makes no sense...and if this is an intentional thing, well, that's just fucked up.

Of course it does! The camera has to identify you as a human being and colouring is pretty important in that; it just seems they didn't plan it too well.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Xbox's Natal, actually, which used similar technology to identify people using the device - it didn't identify some black people but key thing here was that it did recognize some black people. It's not like all the black folks have similar skin, you know. They just missed on some kind of pigments and this was the result. Here, too, we are only seeing one black man not getting recognized while the chances are it's going to recognize at least some black folks - I find it kind of unlikely that they'd actually be so bloody stupid enough to forget all people aren't so light-skinned. Also, naturally, the environment where the device is being used is essential, the darker the setting is, the harder it'll be for the camera to pick up dark-skinned folks. Human recognition is pretty damn hard thing to pull off and when the technology is no more advanced than this, problems are bound to emerge.

Hardly discrimination, just a grand failure.

Claims about this being intentional, in the other hand, are just asinine, and we also got to ask: why would a capitalist even want to do so? How would they profit from cutting out a significant proportion of customers?

[Itis]

I don't think the program would work on skin colour per se so much as it would work on the contrast between skin colour and darker shadows and features on the face.

If they simply hadn't thought of darker skinned individuals when designing the technology then it would be racist. My guess would be that they were probably aware of this problem before it was released onto the market but decided to release it anyway.

Though it could be racist, it might unfortunately just be the case would be harder to design a face recognition for software for people whose skin is very dark.

[Killfacer]

I thought you mean HP sauce was racist for making "brown" sauce.

[BOZG]

I thought you mean HP sauce was racist for making "brown" sauce.

There should be a mod assigned entirely to changing topic titles.

[Red Saxon]

True. It warrants that it will recognize human faces, not subhuman faces.Wow, I want to meet this charming individual.

[Rascolnikova]

In a white-supremacist society, the "standard person," and in this case the "standard HP user," is assumed to be white.

Bandages are made to be peach-colored- with the assumption that the person employing them is similar to that color. This is does not take into account of who actually uses the product it is simply a reflection of what is considered the archetype (usually, that is, a white man). This is not even overt to the extent that people consciously make these distinctions. It is just the baseline of thought (for those in power, developing this software, designing bandages, for white people, etc.) when conceiving "who is going to drive this car," "who is going to use this computer," etc.


I disagree. I think the expression of racism here is not that the most common HP or bandaid user is assumed to be white, but that the most common HP user is white. What matters here is why pale populations have access to HP and bandaids more.

A similar point can be made about some kinds of gender discrimination. When I started studying jujitsu, the company that made the gi we were required to have did not carry a size that fit me--and I'm not particularly small. Was the company sexist for not having a product which accommodated my needs? I think not; they were simply serving the majority of users. Does this mean there's no sexisim going on in the scenario? Absolutely not.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I feel bad for finding this amusing, but it obviously wasn't an intentional flaw. :lol:

Stomfronters aren't the nicest people in the world, but their comments this time seem to have reached a real low point:

''They all look the same to the cameras, too.''
''Maybe the webcam doesn't want to get raped.'' Oh the humour. I'm almost dying from laughter over here. :rolleyes:

[Robocommie]

Sorry, posted wrong one earlier.

http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=667104

Ugh, God. Remind me not to go to that forum anymore. Or at least if I want my stomach to turn with disgust I could just save time and eat mayonnaise that's been left out in the sun.

[counterblast]

Of course it does! The camera has to identify you as a human being and colouring is pretty important in that; it just seems they didn't plan it too well.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Xbox's Natal, actually, which used similar technology to identify people using the device - it didn't identify some black people but key thing here was that it did recognize some black people. It's not like all the black folks have similar skin, you know. They just missed on some kind of pigments and this was the result. Here, too, we are only seeing one black man not getting recognized while the chances are it's going to recognize at least some black folks - I find it kind of unlikely that they'd actually be so bloody stupid enough to forget all people aren't so light-skinned. Also, naturally, the environment where the device is being used is essential, the darker the setting is, the harder it'll be for the camera to pick up dark-skinned folks. Human recognition is pretty damn hard thing to pull off and when the technology is no more advanced than this, problems are bound to emerge.

Hardly discrimination, just a grand failure.



No one is suggesting that HP intentionally made this error. Racism isn't always intentional, and unintentional racism is often the most revealing.

The fact that this issue wasn't picked up in testing is problematic, and reveals a lot about who this product is being marketed to, who this product is being tested by, and who HP predominantly hires.

This is definitely a discrimination issue.



why would a capitalist even want to do so? How would they profit from cutting out a significant proportion of customers?

Why does American restaurant chain Cracker Barrel refuse to hire queer people? As capitalists wouldn't it be in their best interests to have the broadest labor pool possible?

The answer is simple; social discrimination and capitalist exploitation are categories that often intersect but can also exist mutually exclusive of one another.

[Dr Mindbender]

I heard an anecdote about the exact same glitch but not specifically from HP a while ago. It turned out that the programmers just used the faces of their developers to check it, and because their office was predominantly white. This may be the reason for it and I may well have actually stumbled upon a HP employee's blog without knowing it some months ago! Its a ridiculous oversight, and it has a certain humour to it (attributing messed up behaviour to computers) but its a real discrimination issue.

it wouldnt be the first industry to have such discrimination.

Have you ever wondered why plasters are always the colour of caucasian skin? EDITT: shit, ive been ninja'd twice, nvm.

I wonder if the camera also fails to see asian faces? Anyway, how sure are we that the camera technology wasnt built and tested by japanese folk rather than whites? Maybe we're calling the race card too early.

[Sean]

it wouldnt be the first industry to have such discrimination.

Have you ever wondered why plasters are always the colour of caucasian skin? EDITT: shit, ive been ninja'd twice, nvm.

Mine have transformers on them.