Unveiling the Controversy: Amazon's Allegated Sanction Breach and Facial Recognition Sale

A Whistleblower's Stand Against Giant Corporations

In a story that could have been lifted from a taut thriller, Amazon has become caught in a vortex of public controversy. A whistle-blower known as Charles Forrest walked out from the shadows, shining a torch on Amazon to reveal that the firm had breached UK sanctions on Russia by selling face recognition to the country, fuelling a firestorm of ethical controversy around the tech giant.

Amazon's Russian Rendezvous: A Technological Tangle

At the centre of the rapidly escalating controversy is Amazon’s Rekognition, the facial recognition technology that Forrest asserts was purchased by VisionLabs, the Russian company. ‘The whole thing was bought through a shell company in the Netherlands,’ she says. ‘They cloaked this deal by going through a Dutch shell company and that’s how they’re getting around sanctions. This happened right after Russia invaded Ukraine, which then prompted all these sanctions.’

Beyond the Legal Morass: Amazon's Ethical Quandary

The allegations thrown at Amazon reveal much to worry about far beyond the immediate fray of legal wrangling. Forrest accuses the multinational of not only breaching UK sanctions but, since its pledge to ‘paralyse’ police use of facial recognition after the murder of George Floyd, of acting hypocritically. The language here maps out a disconnect of ideals against actions.

Amazon's Countercharge: Denials and Dismissals

Amazon counters with a thorough denial. The company says it never sold Rekognition technology to VisionLabs. And it points out that Forrest was dismissed with ‘gross misconduct’ – a statement that paints a picture of a disgruntled employee, not a principled whistleblower. The contrast between Forrest’s accusations and Amazon’s story is glaring.

The Legal Battlefield: A Whistleblower's Protection

At the heart of this story is the question of whistleblower protections: a legal lifeline for those seeking to speak truth to power in the House that Jeff built. Central to the dispute between Amazon and Forrest is whether the company’s voluntary moratorium amounts to a legal obligation. If a company decides that a ‘best practice’ is good for shareholders and stakeholders, is that tantamount to a legal requirement? Publisher’s note: this article originally appeared in the US in September 2018.

The Implications: A Mirror to Society

In the course of this legal battle over just that, however, a corporation’s civil case becomes far more than a corporate case. It raises some of the most basic questions we can all ask about how technology and society intertwine – about what rights and responsibilities large organisations such as Amazon have, and what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in the era of modern big data. The question we all need to investigate is: where should we draw the line between technological progress and moral virtue? Where should we draw the line between national security and individual privacy?

About Amazon

Amazon the global giant might be at the cutting edge of technological innovation, expansion and never-ending quest for customer satisfaction, but the company also confronts the ethics and legal battlegrounds that this incident highlights. The company’s transition from books to surveillance tools reminds us of the ambivalence of technology; it is not only a tool for promoting new capabilities, but it also creates ethical questions, particularly in the context of geopolitical conflicts. The story itself underlines the delicate correlation between the instrumental virtues and prudential virtues of technological apparatuses.

In this story of Amazon, sanctions and a controversial technology, we are asked to consider the bigger questions prompted by technology. We are watching Amazon try to steer through this new, dangerous and, for the company, ethical sea. One thing is certain: how Amazon gets through this will impact the future of technology, corporate behaviour and social norms.