If given the choice between (1) increasing their personal wealth by 1% + tech that will violate billions of people's rights and result in the death of millions, or (2) no increase in wealth + no surveillance tech, then I'm afraid a disheartening large percentage will pick option 1 and find a naive and shortsighted way to justify their decision.
Fortunately that's not the choice being presented. The choice being presented is developing a tech that has just as many positive uses as negative just like many things. Cars can carry people or weapons. Knives can be used to cut food or stab people. Facial recognition can be used to stop crime or harass.
Pretty easily actually. I'm ethically responsible for my own actions, not for the actions of law enforcement or anyone else who uses or misuses Amazon's technology. Amazon on the other hand has a moral responsibility to its shareholders to pursue their interests, not to go tilting at windmills on social justice crusades whose only possible outcome is merely betraying those who chose to allocate some of their savings to the company's equity.
You're not legally required to, so you don't have to.
My government actively engages in different military operations around the world, even if I may disagree. For "ethical" reason the bank managing my pension fund refuse to invest in companies supplying the military my government use for missions I disagree with. So I have mixed feelings about mixing ethics and business.
I realise you don't have to; it is usual for conversational answers to not be legally mandated. What a weird thing to say.
Also quite weird is having "feelings" about mixing ethics and business. Businesses have effects on people's material reality, and businesses are staffed by people, whose actions can very legitimately be analysed by ethical positions. The "mixing" is there whether or not you have feelings about it.
As an AMZN shareholder, I pick profits. Well, growth actually.