4 ms·

> Clearview's attorney Andrew J. Lichtman said in a statement that “Clearview AI is vigorously defending itself against claims in multi-district litigation and

> Clearview's attorney Andrew J. Lichtman said in a statement that “Clearview AI is vigorously defending itself against claims in multi-district litigation and therefore has served subpoenas to appropriate parties relating to its defense.” > That litigation is a privacy case in Illinois district court that does not appear to involve Open The Government, Martinez or Lucy Parsons Labs. Clearview did not respond to a question on how the communications with journalists were relevant to the Illinois case. If I understand this correctly, it's like a DNS amplification attack. They are involved in a case and they are claiming that these proportedly unrelated parties have information vital to their defence. They are using the court to send subpoenas on their behalf and consume their enemies resources until either they fold or tell them everything they want to know.

black_puppydog 5y ago
IANAL, but it seems to me like abusing the letter of the law for this kind of bad-faith move, while maybe hard to prove, should carry its own penalty, which an office shouldn't protect against. If someone decides to move forward with litigation in this way, and it turns out (provably, of course) that they knew full well that this was entirely just to get rid of inconvenient parties or keep them busy, they should expect personal consequences. Organizations don't have a conscience, but people will not stand for taking personal risks for the imagined benefit of their employer.
- rapht 5y ago
  > Organizations don't have a conscience, but people will not stand for taking personal risks for the imagined benefit of their employer. I find this to be very true independently of this case: in general, I think people are a lot too much protected from consequences of their actions because they are supposedly acting on behalf of an employer, all the way to the top, until you reach the infamous 'legal personality' of corporations, at which point you've deflected all liability to a very powerful body that can just throw away a few million dollars to get out of jail free. Of course there are details to be worked out, but in general I believe individuals who make decisions should be made personally liable of the consequences, regardless of the organization they work for (and this of course is not exclusive of prosecuting that organization in its own right).

black_puppydog 5y ago

IANAL, but it seems to me like abusing the letter of the law for this kind of bad-faith move, while maybe hard to prove, should carry its own penalty, which an office shouldn't protect against. If someone decides to move forward with litigation in this way, and it turns out (provably, of course) that they knew full well that this was entirely just to get rid of inconvenient parties or keep them busy, they should expect personal consequences. Organizations don't have a conscience, but people will not stand for taking personal risks for the imagined benefit of their employer.

rapht 5y ago
> Organizations don't have a conscience, but people will not stand for taking personal risks for the imagined benefit of their employer. I find this to be very true independently of this case: in general, I think people are a lot too much protected from consequences of their actions because they are supposedly acting on behalf of an employer, all the way to the top, until you reach the infamous 'legal personality' of corporations, at which point you've deflected all liability to a very powerful body that can just throw away a few million dollars to get out of jail free. Of course there are details to be worked out, but in general I believe individuals who make decisions should be made personally liable of the consequences, regardless of the organization they work for (and this of course is not exclusive of prosecuting that organization in its own right).