[HN Gopher] Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract w... ___________________________________________________________________ Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with Clearview AI Author : danso Score : 145 points Date : 2021-12-31 18:32 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | hellbannedguy wrote: | Ephil012 wrote: | The worst part about Clearview is there is no way to easily opt- | out if you do not live in California or Illinois. | | I wrote Clearview an email a long time ago saying I would like my | data removed. They asked for my ID to verify who I was. Clearview | responds saying thanks for sending your ID, but you aren't a | California resident so we don't have to remove your data. I wrote | follow up emails still asking if they could consider removing it. | After my follow up email, they just stopped responding. It's been | months now and no word back. | | I get that they have no legal obligation to, but they should | provide people a way to opt-out in other states. It felt like a | bait and switch to ask for my personal information then just | ghost me. However, I guess nobody can expect Clearview to be a | moral company. | sneak wrote: | Rent a cheap place in California or in the EU. | | Establishing second residence isn't that expensive. | Scoundreller wrote: | Is clear view requiring people to _live_ in California or the | EU for California /EU rights to apply?? | | Those state's rights should apply for anyone present in those | states (and possibly airspace) unless they idiotically wrote | their laws. | Ephil012 wrote: | Yes, Clearview requires it. Technically, the laws can only | cover residents of those areas so that is how Clearview is | able to require residency. | [deleted] | staplers wrote: | Not to mention you gave them even more (highly sensitive) | personal data about yourself. | Ephil012 wrote: | Typically with these types of requests it isn't abnormal to | have to give over an ID. I don't like the idea of doing it, | but usually it's the only way to do it. Even if you're a | California resident, you're forced to upload your ID to | remove data. It is kind of a no-win scenario. Either they | keep your facial data or you give over highly sensitive data | to get the facial data removed. I only did it because it | seemed initially they were willing to remove the facial data | (despite their very delayed response). | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I wrote them an email saying I would like my data removed (I'm | a california resident) and they asked for more data to help | them remove me (a photo or something). It felt so backwards. | Like they need to enter me into the database to ensure they | don't enter me into the database? If complying with the law | results in paradoxes like that, the business doesn't seem like | it should be legal. | | I never sent them the photo. | Ephil012 wrote: | Yeah same, it feels very backward to me. I mean I can get | that they want an ID to make sure you aren't filing a request | on someone else's behalf without them knowing. Still, it is a | bit disturbing they need an ID. Supposedly they don't do | anything with the ID info, but you never know I guess. I sent | the ID picture in hopes they'd remove the facial data, | because they did for others. However, when they denied | removing the data I instantly regretted sending the picture. | A bit of a stupid move on my part to be honest. | hbarka wrote: | I don't know what the statistics are for stolen license plates | but it seems to me, here in the San Francisco Bay Area anyway, | that whenever there's a recorded incident of a robbery or assault | where the perpetrators used a getaway car, in all likelihood they | put stolen plates on the car. | | Here's an example of a gang who prowled around with impunity, | comfortable that their cars could not be traced because they | would just put stolen plates. | | https://sfist.com/2021/12/15/six-bay-area-men-arrested-for-a... | | Technology like Clearview could find a use case not just for | facial recognition but vehicle recognition with validation to the | license plate. We have many checkpoints and toll junctions where | it can be installed and just run these exception checks. At the | very least it would establish statistics on these gangs that are | committing crimes with impunity. Vehicle recognition would be | much easier than facial recognition. | yeetaccount4 wrote: | I think in 10-20 years they'll have this and more. Imagine dash | cam videos from cop cars being analyzed and correlated by | software so that someone who sped in between two cop cars 100 | miles apart gets ticketed because they could not have got from | one to the other without speeding. | hirundo wrote: | So Clearview has a database of billions of faces scraped from the | internet, and sells subscriptions to match photos on that data. I | don't think we can put this capability back in the box. There is | no moat around it. | | Keyhole once had a similar business model for satellite data. | Then Google bought them and offered it to everyone for free, | making a fortune. I hope that Clearview's path goes the same way. | If this is available to law enforcement and anyone else who can | afford it, better for it to be available to everyone. | | If big brother can have it, little brother should too. There is | no serious prospect of withholding it from big brother. I think | I'd rather have privacy from both, but that doesn't seem to be an | option. | OtomotO wrote: | So the concept of in dubio pro reo is dying faster and faster | and all we do is shrug and tell ourselves we can't do anything | about it. | cletus wrote: | Here's the best description I've heard of why that's a bad | idea. It basically goes (paraphrased): | | > Q: What would happen if you could look at someone and know | who they are and where they live out work? | | > A: A lot of women would die. | | Google maps has some safeguards like certain areas have no | imagery but really the biggest thing is it's not fine detailed | enough to be a threat to anybody. In fact, US law prevents | (IIRC) sub-meter pixels on commercial satellite imagery. | woodruffw wrote: | The "moat" in this case would be overwhelming legislative | action, criminalizing Clearview and its ilk out of existence. | The law (supposedly) exists to ensure and protect the | commonweal, and we should apply it instead of sitting on our | hands and lamenting the market's unwillingness to self- | legislate. | | That probably won't happen, of course. | kodah wrote: | I'll preface this with the fact that I'm _very_ pro-privacy. | I don 't so much object to certain technologies or data | collection; the cat is out of the bag to some extent. I do | object to the conspicuous lack of regulatory frameworks. For | instance, if you're going to use Clearview on a suspected | terrorist my first question would be, "What due diligence and | groundwork have you done to prove that they are in fact a | terrorist?" If it's a known member of the Taliban who has a | Twitter account that regularly calls for death to Americans, | is that enough -- or is that some kind of edgy free speech? | My point being, I'd like a very high bar to use these | technologies and I'd like for them to be, mostly, used in | apprehension rather than intelligence gathering. | OtomotO wrote: | The cat is out of the bag? So unleash the dogs! | pdkl95 wrote: | > "What due diligence and groundwork have you done to prove | that they are in fact a terrorist?" | | The solution is to make this question _their_ (Clearview) | problem. If you are offering a service that makes damaging | claims about people, then you need to be _liable_ for any | related damages if that claim is later found to be | _slander_ / _libel_. | | The risk of a potentially huge ruling/settlement will be | handled the same way it is handled in other professions: by | paying for liability/malpractice insurance. Eventually, the | insurance companies will handle the question of due | diligence. | aboringusername wrote: | I would suspect in such cases they would have a 'case file' | on such an individual. Perhaps it ought to be to the extent | it would pass any reasonable jury in a court of law - I | would be very surprised if this system isn't merely an | addition to their existing toolset to help them | validate/process data (perhaps as a verification system? | finding individuals they are looking for?) | lathiat wrote: | Here in Australia we are continually passing laws | removing judicial/court/judge oversight for things and | replacing it with whimsical oversight you're lucky if | someone outside of the requesting organisation looks at | it. It's pissing me off :( | nyolfen wrote: | this only works in one country at a time, you can rest | assured that other governments have your face tucked away in | a datacenter | woodruffw wrote: | Sure. I'll work on fixing the place I live, sleep, and eat | for the time being. Liechtenstein can wait! | rebuilder wrote: | But can the other Five Eyes states wait? Offshoring | outlawed domestic surveillance to allies seems to be the | name of the game now. | woodruffw wrote: | I'm not confident that _anything_ will stop US military | and defense intelligence (which is completely distinct | from the FBI, as a domestic LEO) from doing shady things. | | Instead of worrying about _how_ they 're going to get | around the law (they can do parallel construction on the | Moon, for all I care), I'd prefer to have a sufficiently | big punishment waiting for them when the public finally | learns about it. | OtomotO wrote: | Time will punish them. As it did with any imperium in the | past, as it will until the last ape on this space rock | has ushered their last breadth. | | Time is lord of all of us. Peasants and emperors alike | lern_too_spel wrote: | There is no evidence that this happens, and it is illegal | for the US government to ask another country to spy on | its citizens. | syshum wrote: | Other governments lack the ability to take my property, | take my freedom, or take my life. | | FBI has the ability, with a single action, to ruin any | resident's of the US life, I think that is significantly | more worrisome than if Russia or China has my face unless I | lived in Russia or China | ozfive wrote: | I didn't down-vote you as I believe views like this | should be stated but responded to properly. Your safety | from foreign governments is not guaranteed even if you | live within the borders of the United States. A perfect | example of this is a post by someone else here on Hacker | News pertaining to the tools that the Chinese government | uses to identify dissidents outside of their borders. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/31/business/china- | internet-p... | cameldrv wrote: | Has anyone tried suing Clearview for copyright infringement? It | seems like wouldn't have a legal right to be using these | images. | pdkl95 wrote: | If they are making false claims about you that cause serious | damage to your reputation (like telling the FBI you look like | a terrorist), then sue them for _libel_. | ALittleLight wrote: | Wouldn't you have to prove you don't look like a terrorist? | | Clearview is probably saying that if you convert an image, | or set of images, of a person to vector(s) then there are | some similar vectors that are associated with a terrorist. | If they are saying it, it's because it's probably true in | their implementation. | tyingq wrote: | I would guess they would cite transformative use. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | I think that one potential solution would be for the SCOTUS | (who has made very wrong decisions in the past) to rule that | third-party information is protected and requires a warrant | just like entering your home. The decision to allow warrantless | requests from businesses was a major error (or, maybe, | malicious decision) in my view. | | Step 2 is to ban such activity or rule that it is copyright | infringement. And to maybe admit that scraping needs more | guardrails and regulation. | aboringusername wrote: | At the end of the day, our computers and smartphones are just | data input/output machines. Humans generate petabytes of data | yearly, and that data is going to be stored, processed and | used, forever. The invent of HDDs, fibre internet and increased | processing power means more can be done with that data. It's | entirely plausible entire streams of stored encrypted data | (TLS, openvpn etc) may one day be decoded and provide | fascinating insight's into human behavior. (I wouldn't be | surprised if there was a giant archive of every single byte of | FB/Twitter/Reddit/HN data in a DC somewhere...even this post!) | | I think we need to accept and embrace this, and that privacy is | now a fight that is, for better or worse, a lost cause. Covid | generated even more streams of data through sequencing, and you | can be sure all of this is being stored, forever. | | You can, and probably should, fight against it, but if you're a | human alive today you should know many bits of data (about you) | will almost certainly be contained on many disks for future | generations to look at, and that isn't likely to change any | time soon (short of a major regression in human capability and | understanding) | c7DJTLrn wrote: | Billions of faces sure. How many of those are duplicates? How | many of each person do they have and in what quality? A low res | snap from a traffic camera is useless. | | To distinguish individuals you need a lot of data. | RobSm wrote: | "and offered it to everyone for free, making a fortune" - this | makes no sense | hirundo wrote: | This is Google Earth and Maps. They're free to users, but | make Google billions on ads. | gundmc wrote: | > This is Google Earth and Maps. They're free to users, but | make Google billions on ads | | Citation needed. Google only recently started showing ads | in Maps and there is no way it's near billions at this | point. | hirundo wrote: | I don't have that citation. But Google doesn't spend | billions on growing and maintaining apps just for public | benefit. Those services pull their weight (now or | prospectively) or Google would pull the plug. Generally | their strategy is to drive traffic to search, and ads. | OtomotO wrote: | Of course we can. A few nukes in the stratosphere will do the | trick. | | On a more serious note: I agree. Everyone should have that | ability, then the worth decreases rapidly. | | Still some players could act on the info more aggressively than | others, but it would level the playing field to some extent. | weare138 wrote: | https://sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu/fawkes | monkeybutton wrote: | Clearview has recently been getting into trouble for their | practices in Canada: | https://globalnews.ca/news/8451440/clearview-ai-facial-recog... | | Edit: What they are doing here is illegal and they've since | dropped operations in Canada. However they still track Canadian | citizens and sell their services to anyone who wants to buy it | outside of Canada. They've basically told Canadian citizens and | the government here to go pound sand. I'm not sure how this gets | resolved without new international agreements over privacy? | Scoundreller wrote: | Arrest their directors, employees and investors upon entry into | Canada. | | Same with europe if this violates GDPR (likely). | | We'd (rightfully or wrongfully) treat a cocaine cartel | "shareholder" the same way. | user764743 wrote: | Of course the FBI would be collaborating on surveillance with the | far-right, including weev & friends. | | https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/clearview-ai-facial-reco... | | https://www.businessinsider.com/clearview-ai-far-right-white... | tentacleuno wrote: | The fact that Clearview have such a comprehensive database in the | first case is rather unnerving. Shouldn't there have been some | sort of legislation to stop them? One private company having | access to this information is not a good idea. | aboringusername wrote: | There's nothing really stopping anyone making such a database | considering as I understand they just scraped faces from the | public internet. There's no proof they were colluding with | anyone. | | For example, you could scrape and download every single public | tiktok video and use that data as you see fit, if you can | access it via a web browser it's fair game these days. | larvaetron wrote: | So copyright isn't a thing anymore? | analog31 wrote: | I think the process of recovering damages should be | standardized, like it is for music recordings: A fixed, but | fairly stiff, penalty per offense. This would encourage | bounty hunters to go after offenders, and split the | proceeds with the owners. The act of offering to sell or | share personal information would be interpreted as | "intent," and automatically triple the damages. | tehwebguy wrote: | Probably can't sue for damages if you can't prove damages, | and probably can't sue for statutory damages if you can't | prove they've got your IP (since it's their database is an | opaque box to you and me). | rebuilder wrote: | I'm not sure that's true in the EU, for instance. It seems | like it would fall foul of the GDPR, doesn't it? | nceqs3 wrote: | Clearview is compliant with GDPR FYI | vlovich123 wrote: | That's an interesting position that is at least in | dispute [1][2]. My prior based on how companies behave is | that they are indeed in violation of the GDPR. | | [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/16/clearview-gdpr- | breaches-fr... | | [2] https://fortune.com/2021/05/27/europe-clearview-ai- | gdpr-comp... | jtdev wrote: | [deleted] | hourislate wrote: | The FBI, CIA, NSA and every other alphabet agency down to the | state, municiple level already have access to your face, address, | d.o.b, phone info, income, bills, investments, physical and | online activity. | | Having the clearview info will help them build a better picture | of who you hang with (all those photo's on FB, Snapchat, Insta, | tiktok, etc) and the circles you keep. When they crunch all that | data they'll be able to build a complete picture and remove any | minutia of privacy you still might have had. | | Here's an idea for you folks who are chasing the next big thing, | develop something that will erase a person from the matrix. | aboringusername wrote: | Isn't this the acceptable nature of participating in a society? | Covid was an opportunity to force people online - creating new | accounts, accepting new privacy policies, getting used to Zoom | calls and having more of your data legally recorded and used in | ways you may not have considered (but you pressed "I agree" on | that privacy policy!). | | You _can_ live off grid, but even that is very difficult with | satellites overhead and trying to avoid every CCTV camera or | digital device that may vacuum you up is bordering on | impossible. | | Unless you erase yourself from life, but even then someone will | likely make a note of that somewhere ;). | wellthisisgreat wrote: | The match between what Clearview AI is doing and it's founder's | personal stories is just... cinematic. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoan_Ton-That | 7d5TJ3v9uxqs9J8 wrote: | riazrizvi wrote: | This technology is so widespread, Apple could do it, Microsoft | could do it, Google could do it, Facebook could do it, but for | some reason we are focusing on Clearview. I think it's because | only Clearview is selling it to law enforcement, thereby turning | a previously expensive human task of identification and tracking, | into a cheaper automated one. I'm reminded of the line 'With | great power comes great responsibility'. The more people who have | the power, the greater the odds that the responsibility will be | abused in the pursuit of profit or even darker motives. History | is littered with shithole autocracies that ran their corners of | the world into the ground by eliminating economic participation | and mobility using new advancements that delivered new | concentrations of power. Here this technology gives smaller and | smaller jurisdictions the power to turn themselves into absolute | authorities, and it needs to be balanced with better oversight, | better protections for people to move around without harassment. | I hope this country is able to create and uphold new Federal | legislation to that effect. Otherwise it's going to back an awful | lot of people into a corner. I guess this is the big political | question being fought out between the two main parties right | now... | areoform wrote: | Clearview AI is disturbing. I have had a public conversation with | one of the founders (who had left the company), where he said, | "you civil libertarian types are all going to lose. We are going | to steamroll you." And dismissed any and all concerns related to | the technology. | | They've taken the data without consent and sold it to police | departments across the world with provable records of human | rights violation, whilst claiming a 100% facial match accuracy. I | am not exaggerating. They claim -- to the police departments they | sell to -- that their technology is 100% accurate and doesn't | have false positives. | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/clearv... | | They are a combustible mix of greed and ambition with lies | sprinkled into the mix. It astounded me that he had the gall to | say and imply in a public setting that they are "civil | libertarian types" (like me) were going to go the way of the dodo | and that the totalitarian surveillance state was the way of the | future. | | I hope he is proven wrong. And I hope that they get sued and | sanctioned out of existence like the NSO Group. | boppo1 wrote: | > public conversation Is there a verifiable record somewhere? I | think there's no outrage because this is unknown to laypeople. | However, I've very confident this would be a unifying issue for | far left and right internet-outrage machines. | donmcronald wrote: | > I hope he is proven wrong. | | Was it the failed model that ran some phishing schemes and | hired people to commit mass copyright infringement to build | their database or the right wing politician that built | ideological porn filtering software that blocked the ACLU and | EFF? | | Are those really the people we want controlling technology | that's ethically questionable? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI | stareblinkstare wrote: | > "you civil libertarian types are all going to lose. We are | going to steamroll you." And dismissed any and all concerns | related to the technology. | | That's pretty spot on, matches with my experience as well as | every historical record ever written. We have a country right | now that has installed labor/concentration camps and the rest | of the world is dancing to their fiddle. Steamroll is an | understatement. I don't want to know what is going on at those | camps, but it wouldn't surprise me if many wish they could be | steamrolled to end it all. | | "Civil Libertarian Types" are abound on HN. They forget human | nature and think that change is right around the corner. | Sometimes I wonder if they're playing the devil's advocate or | if they're really that stupid. It's bread and circuses of a | very amusing and gullible sort. | | These sort of people have no incentive whatsoever to change | what they're doing. So yes, they're laughing at you as they | fuck you over and profit from it. They know you're powerless, | and they know you know it too. | | What are you going to do about it? I'd genuinely like to see | more than keyboard warring from you CLTs, but you're pretty | useless about the whole thing. | photochemsyn wrote: | I'm sure the FBI would go into hysterics if there was a publicly | accessible facial recognition database of all FBI employees and | all FBI informants - but is there really a problem with that? Why | should secretive police organiziations - which have a notorious | history related to the establishment of totalitarian states - be | subject to different rules about data privacy then the general | public is? Why shouldn't citizens have access to an app that | allows them to easily identify undercover police seeking to | infiltrate peaceful protest movements via facial recognition, for | example? | | The counterargument (authoritarian) is that police spies are | necessary to combat various forms of crime in which all parties | to the criminal activity have no interest in reporting said | criminal activity - for example, illegal drug transactions. The | counter-counterargument (libertarian) is that such forms of crime | are actually victimless and the solution is to legalize and | regulate all such drug transactions, to move them into the same | sphere as alcohol sales. | | It would be a very curious world, however, in which anyone could | point their phone at anyone else and get an immediate background | report on them (which is apparently what the government agencies | like the FBI want to be able to do), including their home | address, phone number, credit history, educational background, | criminal records if any, online browsing habits, family and | business relationships, medical history, travel patterns... that | would be a very creepy world indeed. It already seems to exist | for the secret police, however, with tools like Palantir coupled | to this facial recognition system. The potential for gross abuse | is pretty obvious. | | Government regulation banning all such facial recognition | software and data collection and aggregation is the only | realistic option if we want to prevent such a dystopian future. | People should have a right to privacy, even if this destroys the | business model of Google, Facebook, and other personal data-based | targeted advertising platforms, and so what if it makes the job | of law enforcement harder? Read the Bill of Rights, about half of | it is all about making it harder for law enforcement to snoop on | citizens. | whodunnit wrote: | Information ownership and a digital bill of rights would solve | this. It should be considered a basic human right to own one's | information just as one owns one's body. | sneak wrote: | What's it say about the rule of law in the USA when the leading | domestic federal organization for investigation of criminal | activity is fine using databases obtained illegally? | | What's it say about the police being subordinate to the law? | aboringusername wrote: | Can you source the claims of databases being obtained | illegally? An interesting conversation of "consent" comes to | mind - I think the issue is if somebody's face appears in a | news article is it allowed to then download that same image and | store it for unrelated purposes? Wouldn't that make google | image search illegal? How about FB's now defunt face matching | system they just removed? As far as I have seen some regulators | have demanded the data be deleted as it might be considered to | breach GDPR, but there are absolutely countries (like the USA) | where this is considered absolutely acceptable behavior. | | So far, no public court cases with decisions can be found | anywhere from what I can see. | sneak wrote: | Clearview is selling use of the imagery without a license. If | you or I scraped everything off of Instagram and started | offering derived data as a SaaS, we'd go to jail. | | These people don't because they're using it to help the cops. | pixl97 wrote: | They are selling the images themselves... if you scraped | all the images off Instagram to make a list of the most | popular memes and songs of the week the lawsuit would be | much more difficult against you. | creato wrote: | I don't think that is true. Scraping Facebook and the like | has already been litigated several times. I can't find the | outcome of those cases, but jail is definitely not a | possibility. | donmcronald wrote: | If I take a picture of my family and tag everyone on | Facebook, I own the copyright to that picture and the | metadata. If Clearview AI scrapes that image and uses | that to build their database, they're violating | copyright. | | Why don't they get prosecuted for industrial scale | copyright infringement? IMHO it's because they're not | violating the copyright of an ultra wealthy company or | individual. It's _only_ normal people getting cheating, | so nothing gets done. | djrogers wrote: | Copyright violation is a civil matter, not a criminal | one. You don't have D.A.s prosecute people for civil | crimes, you sue them. | quocanh wrote: | Facial recognition software. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-31 23:00 UTC)