Hacker News Reader

Comment by ewzimm | Hacker News Reader

If there were an Amazon Prison option, I wonder how many people would choose it. Need to serve time? Skip the cell and stay home with a robust suite of real-time behavior analytics to ensure compliance. Conversations are processed locally and scanned for restricted subjects with advanced AI. A special Amazon Prison store offers a full suite of approved products with automatic payments, accessible with Alexa, and customized meal plans are optimized by biometrics. Need money? Work is available on Mechanical Turk at reduced rates for store credit only. Now available for undocumented immigrants awaiting processing!

View on HN

You jest, but most likely someone at Amazon will read this and think to themselves: "you know...the for-profit private prison industry is ripe for disruption. This could be a good lead."

Also, what you describe has been done before in history. In the 19th century in the US there were "Pullman Towns" - everything from A to Z owned by the Pullman company.

"Get baptized in a Pullman church, go to a Pullman school, work for Pullman all your life, and get buried in a Pullman graveyard." was an activist slogan at the time. (I learned this from history class at university, paraphrasing from memory).

More on Pullman Towns here: https://www.pullman-museum.org/theTown/

For the curious: besides the Pullman towns, there were many other “company towns” [1] in the United States, owned by various companies [2].

Some of the most exploitive ones were owned by mining firms, as immortalized in the famous protest song “Sixteen Tons”, with its refrain “I owe my soul to the company store”. [3]

(This song may be familiar to South Park viewers.) [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns_in_the_U...

[3] http://www.protestsonglyrics.net/Labor_Union_Songs/Sixteen-T...

[4] https://youtube.com/watch?v=yO9VRtrTJwc

Thank you for pointing that out - yes, Pullman is one of the most famous examples but the issue was rampant during the Industrial Revolution.

In a sense we are now re-living that past, call it the "Digital Industrial Revolution."

I had those “Pullman Towns” in mind. This type of system opens up obvious opportunities for exploitation, but so do our existing prison systems. If we ever did replace prisons, I think it would involve something like this.

Since Amazon Prison is so close to life already, we might all benefit from thinking about how to solve its issues. As the legal system necessitates lawyers, a digital prison might need digital advocates programmed by the prisoner‘s representatives. Could we design a digital jail that could both monitor the prisoner and share privileges?

As software introduces more restrictions on our lives, we could benefit from something like an AI “Freedom Box” that represented us while interfacing with proprietary services. People have already made AI lawyers to suggest options. Maybe these could merge with security software to allow us to navigate whatever future prisons we build.

How about willfully admitting yourself into the Amazon prison, to build up prison credits. By so doing, you could commit small crimes with impunity, using your already earned credits to skip punishment. Hmm. The rich already commit large crimes, and skip punishment, using MONEY.

$5000 in AWS credits if you spend a month in Amazon Prime Prison™

Forgot about that GPU cluster you spun up last month and built up an astronomical AWS bill? Don’t worry, you won’t have to sell a kidney, stay at Amazon Workhouse Services until you've cleared your debt!

Part of the Blockchaingang..

Cold: the air and water flowing.

Hard: the land we call our home.

Push to keep the corpo growing,

Feel the weight of what we owe.

This: the song of sons and daughters,

Hide the heart of who we are.

Making code to build our future,

Strong, united, working till we fall.

Maybe instead of wasting energy to mine crypto, one could waste human potential instead.

Go to Amazon Prime Prison Free for 30 days!

> Maybe these could merge with security software to allow us to navigate whatever future prisons we build.

In my mind our goal should be to imagine a future in which the need for prisons becomes obviated.

You jest, but most likely someone at Amazon will read this and think to themselves: "you know...the for-profit private prison industry is ripe for disruption. This could be a good lead."

"Good business is where you find it." - Dick Jones, Omni Consumer Products

Why would you not choose this over what prison is currently like?

This is like asking whether people would prefer home confinement to being in a prison cell

Interestingly the state has an incentive to take this approach too: it's much cheaper. If you can monitor & enforce confinement without actually building any prisons, you don't need to budget for prisons, you don't need to operate prisons (or contract out to them), and you can avoid the political blowback of the prison/industrial complex.

The limiting case for this is the Matrix or Metaverse, where everybody voluntarily confines themselves to their home and interacts with each other only according to the rules of the governing software. No possibility for crime because there are no unmediated interactions, and the state has total control.

This is just called house arrest. It’s not really prison or punishment if I’m comfortable at home.

It's still punishment to not be allowed to leave your home. Not as uncomfortable as prison, obviously. But this gets into whether the main goal of prison is to cause physical discomfort as punishment or to protect society. When you look at the routine nature of beatings and rape in prisons, whether or not you are okay with people receiving that as punishment you have to admit that those aren't the punishments prescribed by law. The law doesn't say that a prison must make the prisoner suffer physically (in fact, it mostly says the opposite, but that's generally ignored). And one man's punishment is another's delight. There are criminals who thrive all too well in prison at the expense of others less well connected. For them, being locked at home might be the greater punishment.

Prison reform is possible.

While I certainly sympathize with the aspect of reform for prison, it seems unpalatable to me to not punish, say, someone who rapes a child or with complete disrespect for the law and other people and breaks into homes or smashes car windows to basically be told to hang out and watch TV and “reform” at home with pamphlets or asinine internet courses from a state-provided computer.

Parole, probation, house arrest, etc. are tools we have to provide more leniency at the discretion of a judge as appropriate. And there are different levels of prisons to be considered here as well. Rehab can occur while in prison too.

But in addition to reforming prisons, we need to solve the problem at its core. Why do people do things that land them in prison in the first place? This is where healthcare, education, and other projects can stop the problem before it starts.

Prison is a very poor choice of punishment (no surprise there, since the original intent for prisons was to replace punishments with rehabilitation!). First, the punitive aspect of confinement varies greatly from person to person. But also, long-term isolation is a great way to ruin the person's economic prospects of honest living after prison while at the same time putting them into the environment that often encourages "learning crime" (and the associated attitudes), so to speak.

(I'm not saying that isolation is never necessary. But it should be clearly separated from punishment.)

I don't know how we get to fixing the problems that land people in prison in the first place. All I'm saying is pick a logical position and stick with it. If it's reforming people, put them on a farm. If it's punishment, put them in a gulag. To me, reform (lefty) and punishment (righty) are just hot topic culture war footballs. Both sides like to kick them around. The real issue is what is the point of this prison institution? No one seems to know. If there's any logic, it should be to protect society from your murderers and rapists. What happens to them after that can be argued by every liberal and conservative on the planet, but I think it's important to delineate clean goals first.

Personally, I think corporal punishment and fines should play a much larger role. Someone who is basically a nuisance, like, a vandal, or a thief, should be dealt with via fines or community service and a punitive flogging. There is no need to incarcerate such a person for extended time at high cost to society and to the individual being punished.

Criminals who are deranged, either in the sense of committing especially heinous crimes (e.g. child rape) or in the sense of repeatedly committing serious crimes without evidence that they are able to reform should be humanely executed the same way we put down problematic animals.

is there any evidence to backup the approached you propose as effective, efficient, or desirable in any way?

Especially since you seem to advocate flogging, which is a form of torture.

And advocate executions, which grants the government ultinate tyranical power over a citizen.

And when a mistake is made, and the innocent is executed, this mistake can never be corrected.

Such mistakes are quite conmon, as apparently in America police will lie in counrt, claim that their dog can smell a body that was in a particular location years ago, but now cannot be found and jurors will convict based on testimony of a dog.

I don't believe our current system (in the US) is based on evidence, so I see no reason to limit alternatives to being backed by evidence. I've never had the opportunity to run my own justice system, so no, I can't say how well it works.

I think corporal punishment is vastly more humane and prefer it largely for humanitarian reasons. If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea?

There needs to be some deterrent, but taking years from a person's life, and forcing them to live in squalid conditions and in close proximity to violent criminals, is not a humane deterrent, it is not an effective deterrent (as evidenced by recidivism rates), and it is not an effective deterrent in terms of either dollars or time.

Flogging, by contrast, can be executed quickly and cheaply, and, while the injury might stay with you for weeks, doesn't take a large quantity of your life. Flogging is also visually impressive and likely to be something that most people want to avoid. Flogging has a long history of use as a punishment too - suggesting it would have a useful deterrent effect.

Regarding execution - no mistakes can ever be corrected. If you send a person to prison and they commit suicide, die of disease, or are killed by another inmate, all of which are vastly more common in prison than in the general population, you can't undo your mistake should you discover that the person sentenced was wrongfully convicted. Likewise, even if you sentence someone for five years, discover after two it was a mistake, they do not get their life back. Does this mean we should never imprison people?

It's fine to say there should be a higher bar of proof required for execution, but the finality of the sentence is not a reason not to employ it. There are people who have committed heinous crimes caught on video, attested to by witnesses, placed at the scene by evidence, and who have confessed their own guilt, and who have no plausible defense. In such a scenario why should we stay punishment out of a paranoia that maybe, despite all evidence, we might be wrong and might one day want to release this horrible criminal back to the general population?

> If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea?

We are torturing prisoners in several ways, from solitary confinement to physical deprivation. People do routinely propose that we stop, and they do get asked for evidence that their proposal would be better. Your idea is one that we have evidence against because, as you mention, it has a long history. (And that is not actually evidence that it works: otherwise we'd just use witchcraft.)

Since you're proposing society tortures and kills people without evidence that it'll make things better (and in spite of the evidence that it clearly doesn't), you're essentially saying "let's torture and kill people for fun."

If you followed that logic out, what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?

Actually, given that the current model tortures and kills people to a greater extent - long prison terms in squalid conditions being worse and more dangerous than flogging, and there is no evidence that the current model is better than my system, you (or the status quo) are the one, by rejecting alternatives, proposing we torture and kill people without evidence. Following your logic what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?

Point out where I said the current system works.

I think the system needs to change but that change needs to be with clear goals and with evidence that those goals can be, and are being, met. That’s why I’d propose looking at models that reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of inmates.

That’s what makes me better than a murderer or violent criminal.

Vandals and thieves, if it's their first offense, sure, fines and community service are fine. If they're repeat offenders then they need to be locked up.

For the "deranged", I prefer imprisonment for at least two reasons:

1. They may have friends/relatives who would be harmed by them no longer existing. Why punish them?

2. Death is too easy an 'out'. If I had no other tether to society, then choosing a peaceful sleep vs a daily reminder of my actions is an easy choice; put me to sleep.

House arrest serves one of prison’s purposes, reduction of danger to others. It may also be a suitable place from which to rehabilitate.

> It’s not really prison or punishment if I’m comfortable at home

Strong disagree.

As many of us found out during Covid (depending on your country), being restricted from seeing loved ones and not being allowed to leave your house is absolutely punishment. House Arrest is much preferable to actual prison, but is still absolutely punishment. I went to a boarding school, and the strongest punishment you'd get before suspension/expulsion was "gating" - you had to stay in your room except for lessons and meals, and you had to report in to a teacher very regularly. It was a strong deterrent, 'cuz it sucked.

In almost any case where society is mad at someone, rather than scared of someone (re-offending), House Arrest would be cheaper, more humane, but still absolutely a punishment.

Compared to a jail cell? I think your perspective is wildly off. COVID “lockdown” would be a paradise in comparison.

House arrest is a reasonable solution for nonviolent offenders. If they violate the house arrest, then they go to an actual prison.

The state, unfortunately, does not have a great incentive to reduce costs; especially since a lot of prisons are run by for-profit entities.

…that are paid by the state.

The state is just people though, and people like money. It's pretty naive to think that the politicians in charge of this stuff don't get huge kickbacks from private prison operators.

... and who pay politicians large sums of money to keep it that way.

You're halfway there. Now consider: why are people paying to put themselves in a light-security prison?

Because they don't recognize it will become a prison, or even if they do, they rationize it by saying it's not currently a prison.

> Why would you not choose this over what prison is currently like?

Because there would be no upper limit to the number of people you can imprison - limited space in prisons provides vital societal back-pressure on which crimes are considered serious enough for custodial sentences.

In general, the inefficiencies in the justice system are good because they force prioritization. What would be the impact on society if crime detection, deliberation and rulings were all automated?

But Big Tech is involved, so we are expected to be enraged.

Well, I can easily one-up this. The Agricultural Revolution was a mistake. We should have remained hunter gatherers.

(Lots of people believe this, or claim to)

If I had the choice to serve a sentence in real prison or Amazon Prison, I’m 100% on Team Jassy.

Almost anything would be worth it to avoid prolonged contact with other prisoners and prison guards.

I have been incarcerated, and that is a yes from me as well

Then prison as a punishment will stop becoming a punishment and will reduce incentive to abide by laws

You think... the threat of abuse and assault by inmates and guards is something we should keep around on purpose?

There are a lot of people that think like this, you won't be able to convince them that prisoners should be treated with dignity.

I've found that they are receptive of evidence when it comes to efficacy, recidivism, cost, etc. If you care about those things, our prison system makes no sense, it only makes sense if cruelty and maintaining a steady supply of forced labor are the only things they care about.

If the government doesn't provide some measure of retributive justice, people will seek it themselves, and that is much worse for society.

yes because there are always will be some criminals in population, and you want to keep the system bad so that others' wont ever think of committing crime, especially juveniles and first time offenders

This leads to the most violent and dangerous prisoners being punished the least, and the least violent punished the most. This seems completely backwards.

I've always called this the "head on a pike" rationale.

If how terrible prison is what backs your incentive to abide by laws, I'm worried.

Criminals generally don't expect to be caught, the quality of prison doesn't matter much if you're not planning on going there.

https://youtu.be/h0jMpNZukjg?t=31

It's just a business calculation.

there is always risk/reward calculation.

if you replace prison time with home arrest, then you remove downside to being caught. Especially for second/Nth time offenders.

People often think that's the case, because it kind of makes sense. But real world data suggest it doesn't work that way.

In fact you are generally just making your problems worse. First and biggest problem is, that it turns small time crooks into hardcore criminals, because that's the only way to survive on the inside.

So unless you never plan on releasing anyone out of prison, having bad prisons is not great idea.

Second If prisons are so bad, it makes it more likely people will do whatever they can to stay out. There is big difference between spending 2 years doing some manual labor, having bad bed and bad food or being gang raped. And the lesion is not, no to do crime like you and I would hope, but to kill/intimidate witnesses etc.

As captured in the saying "might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb". (https://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Sayings/Quizzes/Badness/...)

> there is always risk/reward calculation.

You have not been around criminals much, and it shows. That’s really not how all of this works, and you’re applying logic to something that offenders themselves often don’t.

If they did, the USAs horrific prison system would work. But it doesn’t.

If you're good with risk/reward you generally don't do crime (at least, not the kind that doesn't already leave you in the kind of minimum security-style prison being proposed here).

In 2015 the average robbery netted less than $2,000 while the average sentence length was almost 10 years.

Risking 10 years of your life for $2,000 isn't something that people who understand risk/reward will do, how bad things are while you spend those 10 years is basically a rounding error compared to just how terrible of an idea it already is.

if the cost to imprison someone is far larger than damages done maybe it would be cheaper for the tax payer to just make the victim whole and give the criminal a lesser sentence.

There are a large number of crimes for which money can not make the victim whole.

The damage done is far greater than the gain to the thief.

Prisons are sexual assault factories, yet that didn't stop the 3 million people who are currently incarcerated here.

well why stop there, lets bring back brutal medieval torture, I am sure if people are threatened with being drawn and quartered that will bring the crime rate right down.

Russia has torture in prisons and 99% conviction rate, how cone their crime rate is high?

Finland's prisons look like 3 star hotels, how come their crime rate is low?

Because degrading prison as a deterrent works so well, as evidenced in the low crime numbers of the US, as compared to rampant crime in Europe, where prison is much more human-rights-compliant.

That’s just called being a SDE in AWS.

>Need to serve time? Skip the cell and stay home with a robust suite of real-time behavior analytics to ensure compliance.

How would that differ from regular life?

Maybe "Amazon Prism" (a "Prime" members' version of "prison") has a catchier ring to it...

I would have gone with Amazon Prime Time

Amazon Prime and Punishment?

(Sorry Mr Dostoevsky).

Amazon Panopticon would be my submission. If you're going to go evil, lean in all the way.

Calling it Prism would be especially funny in a disdainful way, given a certain NSA program.

How would this be meaningfully different than house arrest? Not that it's a terrible idea but we already have exactly this except that the reason you would use Amazon is simply becsuse you had to as there's no other services with similar reliability. House arrest would probably be better for the government too since the 'prisoner' is paying personal rates rather than whatever Amazon might charge the government for the "service". The only advantage to prison is that it gurantees lodging during the forced homestead which is significant because, contrary to the rosy image painted by portrayals of these people as victims of the system, most of these people are screwups who arent going to have the rent money to keep living where they reside if you bar them from leaving home. The practical implementation would be likely be to just issue section 8 style rent vouchers and contract with gig services and ghost kitchens to ensure you're not liable for starving people to death. After all, Amazon already does the things you've described for the most part anyway. It would probably be much cheaper than real jail. The main other expense that comes to mind is the utility bills and an insurance plan for when the 'prisoners' inevitably vandalize the home you've obligated into keeping them.

Aside from the dystopian undertone, if I was a betting man, I’d wager they’ll immediately spawn entire industries that disable these surveillance devices for a cost. At the cyberpunk end of dystopian, if I was selling the surveillance tech, I’d also dip into the counter industry and provide some low severity exploits for and play both sides.

I wonder if Neal Stephenson has written something of this sort. In Snow Crash, prisons were a per franchise affair iirc.

People don't appreciate that CBDCs will become the Amazon Prison you describe.

It's already happening. Surveillance using modern technology e.g. GPS ankle bracelets, voice recognition, facial recognition is being widely deployed.

For decades surveillance has becoming cheaper and therefore more pervasive and more socially accepted.

We are building platforms that can enable turn-key dictatorship.

Something that will be extremely difficult to overturn.

"Conversatations are processd locally and scanned for restricted subjects with advanced AI."

That includes any conversations with lawyers.

We like to pick on Amazon disproportionately I think. At least in my situation, Apple and Google know far more about me in the most terrifying ways than Amazon. Apple has access* to my entire Phone and over 12 years of phone backups on iCloud. My most intimate conversations, photos, medical and biometric data, etc. Amazon has access to purchase history, not much more since I don't use Alexa.

* I understand its all encrypted but we're wearing tin foils at the moment.

That basically describes my pandemic year.

Compared to a typical US prison, that sounds like a sweet deal. Y'all, we made Black Mirror

This is one of the major plot points for the film Sorry To Bother You.

I'd much rather go to the Hoosegow than the Clink

You need to define home here. I sense an implicit assumption that this is a single family home with more than one bedroom. What is home for an undocumented migrant?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com