5 ms·

Clearview AI Used Your Face. Now You May Get a Stake in the Company

75 points by tysone 2y ago

sdfgtr 2y ago
I'd rather have the nickle.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Dissolve the entity if they cannot survive damages, and require data destruction as part of the wind down.
- tivert 2y ago
  > Dissolve the entity if they cannot survive damages, and require data destruction as part of the wind down. The problem with that, from the perspective of the lawyers, is there's no way for them to get paid, as it stands now: > The plaintiffs’ lawyers would also be paid from the eventual sale or cash-out; they said they would ask for no more than 39 percent of the amount received by the class. (Thirty-nine percent of $52 million would be about $20 million.)
  - kmoser 2y ago
    Punishment should fit the crime, not be tailored to suit lawyers who knew very well (or should have) that they might have to join Clearview's list of creditors, and might never see a dime.
  - Yizahi 2y ago
    Imagine arrest and trial of some regular murderer. Lawyer goes like "Oh, the suspect is too poor to compensate for my work time. Lets let him loose and collect 23% of all the paid murder contracts he executes."
batch12 2y ago
Reminds me of the scene in The Godfather when Sonny smashes the photographer's camera then insultingly throws a couple of bills his way to cover the damages.
frickinLasers 2y ago
Put in a different context, this is like lifting your fingerprints off your car door, then paying you a tiny bit of company stock after selling those prints to your police department. It makes so little sense that it's hard to argue against.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bytearray 2y ago
I would much rather they shut down.
superb_dev 2y ago
Do they get to keep the data?
jjulius 2y ago
>If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview’s revenue, which it would be required to set aside. "If" and "could" are doing some heavy lifting there. This is all dependent upon the value of Clearview, a company who fucked up so hard that they got themselves into this legal mess almost immediately after they started business, and whose leaders have creepily tracked and harassed users of their own product[1]. The decision makers are still allowed to have their majority say, and now you're incentivizing the victims to support Clearview pushing the boundaries of privacy because it's now in their best financial interest to do so. This is absolute garbage. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI#Usage
cdme 2y ago
Dissolve it and delete the data. Pass legislation to make similar ventures impossible going forward.
neilv 2y ago
> The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, [...] That's not fixing the problem. That's embracing it, and also giving a greenlight to all the other prospective AI data abusers watching the case. If you want to fix it, rip this company apart. Investors (who should've known what was happening) get zero. Data gets clawed back. Etc. Why would plaintiffs settle with an attaboy for the abusers like this? > The plaintiffs’ lawyers would also be paid from the eventual sale or cash-out; they said they would ask for no more than 39 percent of the amount received by the class. (Thirty-nine percent of $52 million would be about $20 million.) Are big class action suits like this ever done in the public interest? Like, as pro bono work by lawyers who are already wealthy, and their only goal is to do what's good for society?
- anytime5704 2y ago
  Yeah wtf is this headline? I don’t want a stake. I want this company to not exist.
- willsmith72 2y ago
  Exactly, it's absurd. That's why it's news
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I guess it depends where the suit originates. Did the suit originate in the idea of a class action law firm and they head-hunted the lead plaintiffs to bring the suit? If so, it will be money all the way. If the suit started with the plaintiffs who had been violated, and they went and sought a law firm to bring suit, then the relief might be different. It's hard to bring suits like this pro bono. I have a court-appointed pro bono lawyer for a suit against the government right now that goes into settlement next month. I've had to weigh up several times the issue of whether I want settlement money, vs. fixing the constitutional violations for hundreds of thousands of people. Each time I've gone for the ethical option, but it looks like I might get both at the finish line; but only because the defendant is left with the option of going to trial and losing and then having to pay probably close to a million dollars to my lawyer, or settle with me and my lawyer gets nothing for all the hundreds of hours him and his whole team have put into the case. These cases require inordinate amounts of legal and clerical work to see them through to a solution. I've never seen relief like the one in this case, which seems bizarre though.
int0x29 2y ago
I attempted to file a CCPA request for my data with the company. I never got a response. So I'm not really surprised they got sued
teeray 2y ago
I like the option where the officers pay it back stamping license plates in the penitentiary.
kmeisthax 2y ago
I'll take an NFT: No Fucking Thanks. Anything less than algorithmic disgorgement will reward the rapist mentality that basically every tech company has pushed over the past two decades.
jerbear4328 2y ago
https://archive.is/GQWNN https://archive.is/GQWNN
aeurielesn 2y ago
Yet another US company invading privacy and trying to get away with it. If this settlement goes through, it will just open the door for more psychopathic SV founders. Let's hope that's not what will happen here.
seoulmetro 2y ago
Wow, how to give them even more data... pretend like you are in a raffle to earn something.
ungreased0675 2y ago
> Clearview opted to offer a stake instead of cash payments since the company could "go bankrupt before the case made it to trial," according to the NYT. Yes, that’s the intended effect. I would like this company’s head metaphorically on a pike next to the road into town as a warning to others.

75 points by tysone 2y ago

sdfgtr 2y ago

I'd rather have the nickle.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Dissolve the entity if they cannot survive damages, and require data destruction as part of the wind down.

tivert 2y ago
> Dissolve the entity if they cannot survive damages, and require data destruction as part of the wind down. The problem with that, from the perspective of the lawyers, is there's no way for them to get paid, as it stands now: > The plaintiffs’ lawyers would also be paid from the eventual sale or cash-out; they said they would ask for no more than 39 percent of the amount received by the class. (Thirty-nine percent of $52 million would be about $20 million.)
- kmoser 2y ago
  Punishment should fit the crime, not be tailored to suit lawyers who knew very well (or should have) that they might have to join Clearview's list of creditors, and might never see a dime.
- Yizahi 2y ago
  Imagine arrest and trial of some regular murderer. Lawyer goes like "Oh, the suspect is too poor to compensate for my work time. Lets let him loose and collect 23% of all the paid murder contracts he executes."

batch12 2y ago

Reminds me of the scene in The Godfather when Sonny smashes the photographer's camera then insultingly throws a couple of bills his way to cover the damages.

frickinLasers 2y ago

Put in a different context, this is like lifting your fingerprints off your car door, then paying you a tiny bit of company stock after selling those prints to your police department. It makes so little sense that it's hard to argue against.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bytearray 2y ago

I would much rather they shut down.

superb_dev 2y ago

Do they get to keep the data?

jjulius 2y ago

>If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview’s revenue, which it would be required to set aside. "If" and "could" are doing some heavy lifting there. This is all dependent upon the value of Clearview, a company who fucked up so hard that they got themselves into this legal mess almost immediately after they started business, and whose leaders have creepily tracked and harassed users of their own product[1]. The decision makers are still allowed to have their majority say, and now you're incentivizing the victims to support Clearview pushing the boundaries of privacy because it's now in their best financial interest to do so. This is absolute garbage. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI#Usage

cdme 2y ago

Dissolve it and delete the data. Pass legislation to make similar ventures impossible going forward.

neilv 2y ago

> The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, [...] That's not fixing the problem. That's embracing it, and also giving a greenlight to all the other prospective AI data abusers watching the case. If you want to fix it, rip this company apart. Investors (who should've known what was happening) get zero. Data gets clawed back. Etc. Why would plaintiffs settle with an attaboy for the abusers like this? > The plaintiffs’ lawyers would also be paid from the eventual sale or cash-out; they said they would ask for no more than 39 percent of the amount received by the class. (Thirty-nine percent of $52 million would be about $20 million.) Are big class action suits like this ever done in the public interest? Like, as pro bono work by lawyers who are already wealthy, and their only goal is to do what's good for society?

anytime5704 2y ago
Yeah wtf is this headline? I don’t want a stake. I want this company to not exist.
willsmith72 2y ago
Exactly, it's absurd. That's why it's news
qingcharles 2y ago
I guess it depends where the suit originates. Did the suit originate in the idea of a class action law firm and they head-hunted the lead plaintiffs to bring the suit? If so, it will be money all the way. If the suit started with the plaintiffs who had been violated, and they went and sought a law firm to bring suit, then the relief might be different. It's hard to bring suits like this pro bono. I have a court-appointed pro bono lawyer for a suit against the government right now that goes into settlement next month. I've had to weigh up several times the issue of whether I want settlement money, vs. fixing the constitutional violations for hundreds of thousands of people. Each time I've gone for the ethical option, but it looks like I might get both at the finish line; but only because the defendant is left with the option of going to trial and losing and then having to pay probably close to a million dollars to my lawyer, or settle with me and my lawyer gets nothing for all the hundreds of hours him and his whole team have put into the case. These cases require inordinate amounts of legal and clerical work to see them through to a solution. I've never seen relief like the one in this case, which seems bizarre though.

int0x29 2y ago

I attempted to file a CCPA request for my data with the company. I never got a response. So I'm not really surprised they got sued

teeray 2y ago

I like the option where the officers pay it back stamping license plates in the penitentiary.

kmeisthax 2y ago

I'll take an NFT: No Fucking Thanks. Anything less than algorithmic disgorgement will reward the rapist mentality that basically every tech company has pushed over the past two decades.

jerbear4328 2y ago

https://archive.is/GQWNN https://archive.is/GQWNN

aeurielesn 2y ago

Yet another US company invading privacy and trying to get away with it. If this settlement goes through, it will just open the door for more psychopathic SV founders. Let's hope that's not what will happen here.

seoulmetro 2y ago

Wow, how to give them even more data... pretend like you are in a raffle to earn something.

ungreased0675 2y ago

> Clearview opted to offer a stake instead of cash payments since the company could "go bankrupt before the case made it to trial," according to the NYT. Yes, that’s the intended effect. I would like this company’s head metaphorically on a pike next to the road into town as a warning to others.