3 ms·

Clearview is expected to not collect or use pictures of Canadians, presumably taken on the Canadian soil. That's a perfectly reasonable request. Just like Goo

by eps 5y ago

Clearview is expected to not collect or use pictures of Canadians, presumably taken on the Canadian soil. That's a perfectly reasonable request. Just like Google is not allowed to provide street view of certain locations due to local privacy laws. Exact same thing here.

nickff 5y ago
There's a bit of a hitch, as a photo can be legally taken, and legally transferred to a non-Canadian entity, at which point things get problematic. Canadian copyright and privacy rules don't usually apply to foreign entities.
csdvrx 5y ago
As much as I dislike legal overreach in international matters, I agree: the pictures of Canadian individuals are likely to have been taken in Canada, or to come from Canadian sources or websites. The fact that they may have been shared with a US company (ex: Facebook, LinkedIn) is irrelevant: copyright etc. does not cease to exist when crossing a digital border. Some countries also have extra protections on top of copyright, like use right, certain rights you can't sign away, etc. Even worse: by being able to correlate that to Canadian individuals (using metadata or facial metrics, etc), the company can't pretend they don't know who these pictures are from, or where they come from: they know damn well, which makes the court requests limited scope even more acceptable. Also, claiming to be ignorant of Canadian law may not be a good excuse. They should have known, if only to start doing business there. Let's construct an equivalent: if in ISIS or Afghan territory, a terrorist group had scraped pictures of people living in the EU or US, and known by them to be "enemies of the caliphate" or something equivalent and that's it's totally A-OK within their legal system to publish that on a website say to call for their murder (I must confess my ignorance on these matters but you get the idea), we'd all say "no it's not". This is just the same. What's legal for us to do domestically with domestic pictures of citizens may not be legal to do somewhere else, and importing the pictures to do it domestically doesn't magically make it legal.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  Telling your followers to kill someone in another country is considered committing a crime in that country. Distributing information that at some point originated in another country is generally not. Where it is, it's because of something like a copyright treaty.
  - csdvrx 5y ago
    If it's legal in their country, who are we to tell them to change their laws?
    - legalcorrection 5y ago
      Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. There is an area of customary international law that deals with the proper exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Encyclopedia entry here (paywalled) https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1040 https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/... Someone seems to have mirrored the first page of the entry here https://ilcfhuns.wixsite.com/ilcfhuns/single-post/2018/03/07/extraterritoriality https://ilcfhuns.wixsite.com/ilcfhuns/single-post/2018/03/07...

by eps 5y ago

nickff 5y ago

There's a bit of a hitch, as a photo can be legally taken, and legally transferred to a non-Canadian entity, at which point things get problematic. Canadian copyright and privacy rules don't usually apply to foreign entities.

csdvrx 5y ago

As much as I dislike legal overreach in international matters, I agree: the pictures of Canadian individuals are likely to have been taken in Canada, or to come from Canadian sources or websites. The fact that they may have been shared with a US company (ex: Facebook, LinkedIn) is irrelevant: copyright etc. does not cease to exist when crossing a digital border. Some countries also have extra protections on top of copyright, like use right, certain rights you can't sign away, etc. Even worse: by being able to correlate that to Canadian individuals (using metadata or facial metrics, etc), the company can't pretend they don't know who these pictures are from, or where they come from: they know damn well, which makes the court requests limited scope even more acceptable. Also, claiming to be ignorant of Canadian law may not be a good excuse. They should have known, if only to start doing business there. Let's construct an equivalent: if in ISIS or Afghan territory, a terrorist group had scraped pictures of people living in the EU or US, and known by them to be "enemies of the caliphate" or something equivalent and that's it's totally A-OK within their legal system to publish that on a website say to call for their murder (I must confess my ignorance on these matters but you get the idea), we'd all say "no it's not". This is just the same. What's legal for us to do domestically with domestic pictures of citizens may not be legal to do somewhere else, and importing the pictures to do it domestically doesn't magically make it legal.

legalcorrection 5y ago
Telling your followers to kill someone in another country is considered committing a crime in that country. Distributing information that at some point originated in another country is generally not. Where it is, it's because of something like a copyright treaty.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  If it's legal in their country, who are we to tell them to change their laws?
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. There is an area of customary international law that deals with the proper exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Encyclopedia entry here (paywalled) https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1040 https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/... Someone seems to have mirrored the first page of the entry here https://ilcfhuns.wixsite.com/ilcfhuns/single-post/2018/03/07/extraterritoriality https://ilcfhuns.wixsite.com/ilcfhuns/single-post/2018/03/07...