4 ms·

From the actual article: >[Clearview Chief Legal Officer] Mulcaire said in his statement that Clearview doesn't fall under EU data protection regulations. >"C

by htrp 2y ago

From the actual article: >[Clearview Chief Legal Officer] Mulcaire said in his statement that Clearview doesn't fall under EU data protection regulations. >"Clearview AI does not have a place of business in the Netherlands or the EU, it does not have any customers in the Netherlands or the EU, and does not undertake any activities that would otherwise mean it is subject to the GDPR," he said. ------------- >The Dutch agency said that building the database and insufficiently informing people whose images appear in the database amounted to serious breaches of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. > "Facial recognition is a highly intrusive technology, that you cannot simply unleash on anyone in the world," DPA chairman Aleid Wolfsen said in a statement. > "If there is a photo of you on the Internet — and doesn't that apply to all of us? — then you can end up in the database of Clearview and be tracked. This is not a doom scenario from a scary film. Nor is it something that could only be done in China," he said. ----------------- If you're pulling data from European Citizens from all over the internet, I'd imagine that the EU does get a say (since it's literally data processing of EU citizen data). I'd also expect that the EU could just make one of the other upstream suppliers of Clearview data responsible for enforcement.

mike_d 2y ago
Clearview is a perfect example of how to avoid EU-nexus. They don't have any corporate presence, employees, assets, or customers in the EU. They are even careful to only pull photos from US based servers. Because they only do facial matching on photos, they have no idea if someone is or is not an EU citizen. To seek any sort of judgement or criminal charge against them the EU would need to find an applicable law in the US that covers the activity. While some people might be upset because GDPR isn't a stick they can use to beat Clearview with, this legal framework is the same that allows you to post material critical of the Chinese government without facing financial penalties or extradition.
- ryanisnan 2y ago
  Why is the burden of proof on the users? Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on Clearview? They should be required to know that a person is in a place they can legally operate before doing so.
- hcfman 2y ago
  The Netherlands created an intelligence agency called the RIEC deliberately without a human representative so the whole organisation cannot be taken to court. And this organisation actively works against the rights of its citizens with impunity. The attorney general himself even said that their prosecutors can lie in court without being prosecuted for perjury. It’s a joke that this country pretends to be upset with clearview.
  - djhn 2y ago
    Could you point towards any sources on this? A few google searches turn up nothing and.
    - hcfman 2y ago
      Sure. Not sure which part you were referring to, but I'll provide both. Here for example is an article that refers to the fact that the RIEC is not headed by a person (natuurlijke persoon) and hence you can't take it to court: https://www.nysingh.nl/blog/inzageverzoek-bij-riec-of-bij-gezamenlijke-verwerkingsverantwoordelijken/ https://www.nysingh.nl/blog/inzageverzoek-bij-riec-of-bij-ge... But it's also helpful to use chatgpt here. Ask it if it is true that the RIEC as organisation cannot be taken to court because it's not headed by a natural person. I've asked that question before and it's answer in the affirmative. Note also, the RIEC has computer systems but asks it's partners, through which it does all it's work, not to put anything into their computers unless it's absolutely necessary for the job. It never is and it cannot be taken to court so it's untouchable. As to the perjury part, first I'll answer in one way, I filed criminal charges of obstruction of justice against a prosecutor who was the former head of the RIEC who was pretending to prosecute his own asset for stalking merely so that he could make sure that the case did not succeed (because their manner of using this asset was absolutely illegal, they were facilitating illegal activity against people not involved in any criminal activity [collateral damage]). They dismissed the case, I appealed. The appeal went to the attorney general. The attorney general ignored and simply did not comment on any of the evidence and mere responded only to the perjury charge, stating that a prosecutor could not be charged with perjury (meineed), in the sense of artikel bla, bla (The bill for perjury). Suggestioning that the eeds oath (Oath not to lie) that they take when they become a prosecutor is useless. So here is a link that states that anyone whose job includes a secrecy obligation is exempt from being prosecuted for perjury. They give an "example" of lawyer, but this was just mis-direction at the time, the wording is very broad and in my opinion so broad that it includes everyone in Dutch government. https://www.judex.nl/rechtsgebied/strafrecht/columns/10-vragen-en-antwoorden-over-meineed/ https://www.judex.nl/rechtsgebied/strafrecht/columns/10-vrag... And if not, then the attorney general told me in a letter, I just don't have that online.
stickfigure 2y ago
Do you expect the US government to enforce that judgement?

by htrp 2y ago

mike_d 2y ago

Clearview is a perfect example of how to avoid EU-nexus. They don't have any corporate presence, employees, assets, or customers in the EU. They are even careful to only pull photos from US based servers. Because they only do facial matching on photos, they have no idea if someone is or is not an EU citizen. To seek any sort of judgement or criminal charge against them the EU would need to find an applicable law in the US that covers the activity. While some people might be upset because GDPR isn't a stick they can use to beat Clearview with, this legal framework is the same that allows you to post material critical of the Chinese government without facing financial penalties or extradition.

ryanisnan 2y ago
Why is the burden of proof on the users? Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on Clearview? They should be required to know that a person is in a place they can legally operate before doing so.
hcfman 2y ago
The Netherlands created an intelligence agency called the RIEC deliberately without a human representative so the whole organisation cannot be taken to court. And this organisation actively works against the rights of its citizens with impunity. The attorney general himself even said that their prosecutors can lie in court without being prosecuted for perjury. It’s a joke that this country pretends to be upset with clearview.
- djhn 2y ago
  Could you point towards any sources on this? A few google searches turn up nothing and.
  - hcfman 2y ago
    Sure. Not sure which part you were referring to, but I'll provide both. Here for example is an article that refers to the fact that the RIEC is not headed by a person (natuurlijke persoon) and hence you can't take it to court: https://www.nysingh.nl/blog/inzageverzoek-bij-riec-of-bij-gezamenlijke-verwerkingsverantwoordelijken/ https://www.nysingh.nl/blog/inzageverzoek-bij-riec-of-bij-ge... But it's also helpful to use chatgpt here. Ask it if it is true that the RIEC as organisation cannot be taken to court because it's not headed by a natural person. I've asked that question before and it's answer in the affirmative. Note also, the RIEC has computer systems but asks it's partners, through which it does all it's work, not to put anything into their computers unless it's absolutely necessary for the job. It never is and it cannot be taken to court so it's untouchable. As to the perjury part, first I'll answer in one way, I filed criminal charges of obstruction of justice against a prosecutor who was the former head of the RIEC who was pretending to prosecute his own asset for stalking merely so that he could make sure that the case did not succeed (because their manner of using this asset was absolutely illegal, they were facilitating illegal activity against people not involved in any criminal activity [collateral damage]). They dismissed the case, I appealed. The appeal went to the attorney general. The attorney general ignored and simply did not comment on any of the evidence and mere responded only to the perjury charge, stating that a prosecutor could not be charged with perjury (meineed), in the sense of artikel bla, bla (The bill for perjury). Suggestioning that the eeds oath (Oath not to lie) that they take when they become a prosecutor is useless. So here is a link that states that anyone whose job includes a secrecy obligation is exempt from being prosecuted for perjury. They give an "example" of lawyer, but this was just mis-direction at the time, the wording is very broad and in my opinion so broad that it includes everyone in Dutch government. https://www.judex.nl/rechtsgebied/strafrecht/columns/10-vragen-en-antwoorden-over-meineed/ https://www.judex.nl/rechtsgebied/strafrecht/columns/10-vrag... And if not, then the attorney general told me in a letter, I just don't have that online.

stickfigure 2y ago

Do you expect the US government to enforce that judgement?