5 ms·

> The commissioners found Clearview scraped images of faces and associated data from publicly accessible online sources (including social media) and stored it i

by towe12301923 5y ago

> The commissioners found Clearview scraped images of faces and associated data from publicly accessible online sources (including social media) and stored it in its database. > What the commissioners recommended was that Clearview: > • cease offering facial recognition services to Canadian clients; > • cease collecting, using and disclosing images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Canada, and; > • delete images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Canada. > The company said those recommendations were impossible to execute. Clearview claims that they have stopped selling to Canadian clients but they don't know where the people in the images are from. Probably true if they're just scraping images, but their argument seems to be "innocence by ignorance". We don't usually allow that sort of argument in other areas. Stores cannot sell cigarettes/alcohol to minors and banks cant unknowingly launder money, and it is on them to make sure they collect enough data to comply with those laws. It may be hard or even impossible for Clearview to operate while following the law.. but maybe that just means they shouldn't.

mthoms 5y ago
>Clearview claims that they have stopped selling to Canadian clients but they don't know where the people in the images are from. Probably true if they're just scraping images, but their argument seems to be "innocence by ignorance". This part of their defence is outright laughable. What's the point of having this sort of database without the associated metadata?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > This part of their defence is outright laughable. What's the point of having this sort of database without the associated metadata? I'm not a fan of Clearview AI, but I understand it's still useful even for faces that aren't explicitly tied to an identity in the system, because the if the police know where the matched photo is from, they can do the legwork to fill in the missing details. I think one of the examples in an early article about it had the police feeding a suspect's face into it. The system found a match in the background of some photo taken at a trade show (the guy was working a both). It only knew the website the photo was from, which allowed the police the identify the trade show, which allowed them to track down the people working at that booth to find their suspect.
  - kurthr 5y ago
    The point being... _they then know where it's from_, that's the metadata. If they know the trade show, then they know where and when it was, whether it was in Canada and whether they need to delete it.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > The point being... _they then know where it's from_, that's the metadata. If they know the trade show, then they know where and when it was, whether it was in Canada and whether they need to delete it. In most cases they probably only know the URL, and it's far from trivial (or even possible in a general case) to mechanically derive if photo was taken in Canada from that. Personally I hope they're forced to overshoot and delete far more than necessary to ensure compliance (e.g. only keep photos they can positively determine were taken outside of Canada).
      - martin8412 5y ago
        If they don't know where something was recorded, then they should be forced to delete it. Let them go bankrupt if need be.
    - f311a 5y ago
      They don't, they just know the original URL. IIRC, they also scrape news websites and it's impossible to automatically and correctly detect the location of a person. Even if it's from a social network, you still can't be sure. Especially, if a photo have multiple persons.
      - kurthr 5y ago
        It is so impossible that it is the actual use case they are selling? " The system found a match in the background of some photo taken at a trade show (the guy was working a both). It only knew the website the photo was from, which allowed the police the identify the trade show, which allowed them to track down the people working at that booth to find their suspect."
- tremon 5y ago
  Also, it opens up a very simple avenue for the watchdog: they might require Clearview to delete any data for which they can't prove that it's not Canadian.
- martin8412 5y ago
  Then they can delete their database and start over. Not knowing something doesn't excuse someone from responsibility.
adolph 5y ago
Clearview said its facial recognition search engine "compares user-provided images of faces to a database of images indexed from public web pages. The tool allows law enforcement and national security agencies to identify victims and perpetrators of crimes. How is this fundamentally different from Google image search? [0] Did Clearview do something to be investigated? The commission essentially claimed they read about the company in the news and decided to act based on that. [1] It seems odd that haven't they investigated Google for the same. [2] 0. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivCGA7FJZHmFkT5r4O-X5fHJTanZNWs8Gh_14BnIzsTFCvyI2o1oc4aHl-O4DLIrbObBotErajUQoO52SCGodU4mXM5nyBFfs62Lu60PDqvBe8srKvx6g4b7Ko2GPAJCs2XcrhkCRxbuCwq3JC9EPqlo2X_1ggyChd8PrrIgZmtY65iReR4Y3CbLmtA7zycvl9esUtisiXttziEIa9JmV91kjQuxD4wdF0KoZO9zgXTyZ8aaSL6s2XZeKuEvMO10EIYEFFFnUpL0fSCPokd2Agl4Powg-pl7DPeaAfMPMulVgruRsInqkrrC89nX4fVuUYB0W_1bBxcEKc4Fv1VQaeOMLjGq9HWw&btnG=Search%20by%20image&hl=en https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivCGA7FJZHmFkT5r4... 1. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-businesses/2021/pipeda-2021-001/ https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investig... 2. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-businesses/?t=google&Page=1 https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investig...
- reaperducer 5y ago
  They can both be bad. You don't stop going after one criminal because there are others.
  - adolph 5y ago
    Seemingly neutral laws can be enforced inequitably or corruptly. A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate. A government that governs without consent of the governed is illegitimate. A government that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate. The legitimacy of a government is not determined by any particular small-large business axis. Viewing the world through that axis is not helpful in this case. And while we're at it, just because your government is unfair doesn't make it illegitimate. There are plenty of state governments[1] that were, and are incredibly unfair in their enforcement of their laws, but when they aren't actively stealing elections, I wouldn't call them illegitimate. [1] For a crystal-clear example, the south under Jim Crow. Unfair laws, unfair enforcement of laws, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue that many of those governments did not have the consent of most of who they governed.

mthoms 5y ago

>Clearview claims that they have stopped selling to Canadian clients but they don't know where the people in the images are from. Probably true if they're just scraping images, but their argument seems to be "innocence by ignorance". This part of their defence is outright laughable. What's the point of having this sort of database without the associated metadata?

tablespoon 5y ago
> This part of their defence is outright laughable. What's the point of having this sort of database without the associated metadata? I'm not a fan of Clearview AI, but I understand it's still useful even for faces that aren't explicitly tied to an identity in the system, because the if the police know where the matched photo is from, they can do the legwork to fill in the missing details. I think one of the examples in an early article about it had the police feeding a suspect's face into it. The system found a match in the background of some photo taken at a trade show (the guy was working a both). It only knew the website the photo was from, which allowed the police the identify the trade show, which allowed them to track down the people working at that booth to find their suspect.
- kurthr 5y ago
  The point being... _they then know where it's from_, that's the metadata. If they know the trade show, then they know where and when it was, whether it was in Canada and whether they need to delete it.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > The point being... _they then know where it's from_, that's the metadata. If they know the trade show, then they know where and when it was, whether it was in Canada and whether they need to delete it. In most cases they probably only know the URL, and it's far from trivial (or even possible in a general case) to mechanically derive if photo was taken in Canada from that. Personally I hope they're forced to overshoot and delete far more than necessary to ensure compliance (e.g. only keep photos they can positively determine were taken outside of Canada).
    - martin8412 5y ago
      If they don't know where something was recorded, then they should be forced to delete it. Let them go bankrupt if need be.
  - f311a 5y ago
    They don't, they just know the original URL. IIRC, they also scrape news websites and it's impossible to automatically and correctly detect the location of a person. Even if it's from a social network, you still can't be sure. Especially, if a photo have multiple persons.
    - kurthr 5y ago
      It is so impossible that it is the actual use case they are selling? " The system found a match in the background of some photo taken at a trade show (the guy was working a both). It only knew the website the photo was from, which allowed the police the identify the trade show, which allowed them to track down the people working at that booth to find their suspect."
tremon 5y ago
Also, it opens up a very simple avenue for the watchdog: they might require Clearview to delete any data for which they can't prove that it's not Canadian.
martin8412 5y ago
Then they can delete their database and start over. Not knowing something doesn't excuse someone from responsibility.

adolph 5y ago

Clearview said its facial recognition search engine "compares user-provided images of faces to a database of images indexed from public web pages. The tool allows law enforcement and national security agencies to identify victims and perpetrators of crimes. How is this fundamentally different from Google image search? [0] Did Clearview do something to be investigated? The commission essentially claimed they read about the company in the news and decided to act based on that. [1] It seems odd that haven't they investigated Google for the same. [2] 0. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivCGA7FJZHmFkT5r4O-X5fHJTanZNWs8Gh_14BnIzsTFCvyI2o1oc4aHl-O4DLIrbObBotErajUQoO52SCGodU4mXM5nyBFfs62Lu60PDqvBe8srKvx6g4b7Ko2GPAJCs2XcrhkCRxbuCwq3JC9EPqlo2X_1ggyChd8PrrIgZmtY65iReR4Y3CbLmtA7zycvl9esUtisiXttziEIa9JmV91kjQuxD4wdF0KoZO9zgXTyZ8aaSL6s2XZeKuEvMO10EIYEFFFnUpL0fSCPokd2Agl4Powg-pl7DPeaAfMPMulVgruRsInqkrrC89nX4fVuUYB0W_1bBxcEKc4Fv1VQaeOMLjGq9HWw&btnG=Search%20by%20image&hl=en https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivCGA7FJZHmFkT5r4... 1. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-businesses/2021/pipeda-2021-001/ https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investig... 2. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-businesses/?t=google&Page=1 https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investig...

reaperducer 5y ago
They can both be bad. You don't stop going after one criminal because there are others.
- adolph 5y ago
  Seemingly neutral laws can be enforced inequitably or corruptly. A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate. A government that governs without consent of the governed is illegitimate. A government that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate. The legitimacy of a government is not determined by any particular small-large business axis. Viewing the world through that axis is not helpful in this case. And while we're at it, just because your government is unfair doesn't make it illegitimate. There are plenty of state governments[1] that were, and are incredibly unfair in their enforcement of their laws, but when they aren't actively stealing elections, I wouldn't call them illegitimate. [1] For a crystal-clear example, the south under Jim Crow. Unfair laws, unfair enforcement of laws, but I'd be hard-pressed to argue that many of those governments did not have the consent of most of who they governed.