3 ms·
> 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 gi
by 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 agoYeah wtf is this headline? I don’t want a stake. I want this company to not exist.
- willsmith72 2y agoExactly, it's absurd. That's why it's news
- qingcharles 2y agoI 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.
- bmitc 2y agoI agree. Completely ridiculous. > The facial recognition start-up doesn’t have the funds to settle a class-action lawsuit Too bad! All these corporations keep throwing excuses like this. Can I do that even for something as simple as a library fine or parking ticket?
- seeknotfind 2y agoIf the share is fungible why not? Would you be okay if someone bought 23% of the company and gave that money to people? Or if equity was stable enough to mean something? Or maybe class action lawsuits are giving more money to the lawyers than the people who are damaged, and the net effect on society is still damage.
- bradknowles 2y agoMoney for the plaintiffs should be clawed back from the investors and all the senior management. All the information they collected should be provably destroyed.
- hollerith 2y ago"Clawed back from the investors" does not happen in the US for investors in a limited-liability corporation, which Clearview AI almost certainly is. The most such investors ever lose is to see the value of their investment go to zero.
- bradknowles 2y agoThat corporate veil deserves to be pierced in cases like this.