3 ms·
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
by kodah 5y ago
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.
- aboringusername 5y agoI 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 5y agoHere 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 :(
- SturgeonsLaw 5y agoAustralia's rapid dismantling of any checks and balances is extremely concerning. It's also something of a bipartisan stance, the only real pushback tends to come from independents and minor parties.
- pdkl95 5y ago> "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.
- novok 5y agoUnless you make a new liability law that is pretty specific to this use case, I don't think it's very possible to make slander/libel damages for it, especially considering the US's 1st amendment laws. Clear view probably today says "I think this is %90 likely to be person X, but I could be wrong" in their UI. That turns it into opinion. The regulation for this is not libel.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- OtomotO 5y agoThe cat is out of the bag? So unleash the dogs!
- kodah 5y ago"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"