7 ms·

Been going on since 2021. The UK has fined them has fined Clearview AI £7,552,800 in 2022 but they have not paid. EU data protection authorities did not come

by reify 1y ago

Been going on since 2021. The UK has fined them has fined Clearview AI £7,552,800 in 2022 but they have not paid. EU data protection authorities did not come up with a way to enforce its fines and bans against the US company, allowing Clearview AI to effectively dodge the law. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2025/10/uk-upper-tribunal-hands-down-judgment-on-clearview-ai-inc/ https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs... A shit company

deaux 1y ago
> EU data protection authorities did not come up with a way to enforce its fines and bans against the US company, allowing Clearview AI to effectively dodge the law. This is laughable. You make it illegal for any EU company to do business with them, you imprison leadership as they arrive on EU soil, there's a hundred things you can do. Companies like these that simply ignore the law and seriously damage society need to be treated just like international drug trafficking rings. Never heard a "well they keep ignoring our fines and bans, oh my what do we do" when talking about those.
- gampleman 1y ago
  > imprison leadership as they arrive on EU soil I think that's the step that's being taken (or attempted at least) here.
- cynicalsecurity 1y ago
  > you imprison leadership as they arrive on EU soil It's in the article, Austria might issue a criminal warrant for the company executives.
  - deaux 1y ago
    The other measure is more important IMO. I doubt that zero EU companies, including EU subsidiaries of US companies, do business with these companies.
- wongarsu 1y ago
  I would assume their leadership simply never enter EU soil. Just like the CIA agents Italy has arrest warrants out for kidnapping Abu Omar, or how Kim Dotcom lived quite happily for a time by not going to the US or any country that would extradite him. It's pretty difficult to prosecute people on foreign soil without the kind of international cooperation that exists for prosecuting drug traffickers
  - deaux 1y ago
    I did mention another measure. Does not a single EU company work with Clearview? Even EU subsidiaries of US companies? I doubt it.
- leobg 1y ago
  This is government. If you exceed the speed limit on the autobahn, you’ll be fined immediately. But if you run a multi million Euro fraud, you will get away with it for DECADES. Why? Because they’ve got no systems in place for that. And to do something out of the ordinary that is hard would require someone with an incentive to do it. That does not fit the profile of your typical government employee. They don’t get paid for taking on difficult cases. They get paid for closing files, or, ideally, finding reasons for not even opening them in the first place. Laws are like locks. The honest people pay attention to them. The criminals don’t. They look at the enforcement (or lack thereof).
anonym29 1y ago
I'm no fan of surveillance technology in general, nor of Clearview specifically, but no American corporation is legally obligated to obey British law. To suggest that Clearview is "dodging" the (British) law falsely implies that Clearview has any legal duty to obey (British) law in the first place. Sure, if they don't want to follow British law, Britain has the right to reject Clearview from British markets, but that's about it. The British government does not have jurisdiction over American companies or American citizens outside of Britain's borders, in spite of what British Parliament seems to believe.
- ForHackernews 1y ago
  If they do business in the EU they are obligated to follow EU laws, and if they have committed crimes they should be subject to arrest and extradition. I know you're making a point about Ofcom censorship, and I agree, but we cannot set the precedent that "if you commit your crimes using a company in Delaware, they're not illegal." If you program your AI-drone to murder your enemies, that's fine as long as the control server is offshore?
  - anonym29 1y ago
    Should European citizens be subject to the laws of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and pals? Either laws in other countries matter in yours (regardless of how different they are from your own) or they don't. Picking and choosing which country's laws you do or don't want to consider yourself bound to on moral grounds is not fundamentally very different from picking which of your own country's laws you do or don't want to consider yourself bound to on moral grounds.
    - bbg2401 1y ago
      An entity must follow the law of each jurisdiction it conducts business. This is not a novel concept. If an entity wishes to process data of citizens of a particular country, then they must follow the laws and regulations of said country, in those instances.
udev4096 1y ago
UK fining them is hilarious. UK is a joke in terms of upholding any form of privacy for it's citizens
- JohnFen 1y ago
  Maybe so, but it's so much better than the US at this that it's not even funny.

by reify 1y ago

deaux 1y ago

> EU data protection authorities did not come up with a way to enforce its fines and bans against the US company, allowing Clearview AI to effectively dodge the law. This is laughable. You make it illegal for any EU company to do business with them, you imprison leadership as they arrive on EU soil, there's a hundred things you can do. Companies like these that simply ignore the law and seriously damage society need to be treated just like international drug trafficking rings. Never heard a "well they keep ignoring our fines and bans, oh my what do we do" when talking about those.

gampleman 1y ago
> imprison leadership as they arrive on EU soil I think that's the step that's being taken (or attempted at least) here.
cynicalsecurity 1y ago
> you imprison leadership as they arrive on EU soil It's in the article, Austria might issue a criminal warrant for the company executives.
- deaux 1y ago
  The other measure is more important IMO. I doubt that zero EU companies, including EU subsidiaries of US companies, do business with these companies.
wongarsu 1y ago
I would assume their leadership simply never enter EU soil. Just like the CIA agents Italy has arrest warrants out for kidnapping Abu Omar, or how Kim Dotcom lived quite happily for a time by not going to the US or any country that would extradite him. It's pretty difficult to prosecute people on foreign soil without the kind of international cooperation that exists for prosecuting drug traffickers
- deaux 1y ago
  I did mention another measure. Does not a single EU company work with Clearview? Even EU subsidiaries of US companies? I doubt it.
leobg 1y ago
This is government. If you exceed the speed limit on the autobahn, you’ll be fined immediately. But if you run a multi million Euro fraud, you will get away with it for DECADES. Why? Because they’ve got no systems in place for that. And to do something out of the ordinary that is hard would require someone with an incentive to do it. That does not fit the profile of your typical government employee. They don’t get paid for taking on difficult cases. They get paid for closing files, or, ideally, finding reasons for not even opening them in the first place. Laws are like locks. The honest people pay attention to them. The criminals don’t. They look at the enforcement (or lack thereof).

anonym29 1y ago

I'm no fan of surveillance technology in general, nor of Clearview specifically, but no American corporation is legally obligated to obey British law. To suggest that Clearview is "dodging" the (British) law falsely implies that Clearview has any legal duty to obey (British) law in the first place. Sure, if they don't want to follow British law, Britain has the right to reject Clearview from British markets, but that's about it. The British government does not have jurisdiction over American companies or American citizens outside of Britain's borders, in spite of what British Parliament seems to believe.

ForHackernews 1y ago
If they do business in the EU they are obligated to follow EU laws, and if they have committed crimes they should be subject to arrest and extradition. I know you're making a point about Ofcom censorship, and I agree, but we cannot set the precedent that "if you commit your crimes using a company in Delaware, they're not illegal." If you program your AI-drone to murder your enemies, that's fine as long as the control server is offshore?
- anonym29 1y ago
  Should European citizens be subject to the laws of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and pals? Either laws in other countries matter in yours (regardless of how different they are from your own) or they don't. Picking and choosing which country's laws you do or don't want to consider yourself bound to on moral grounds is not fundamentally very different from picking which of your own country's laws you do or don't want to consider yourself bound to on moral grounds.
  - bbg2401 1y ago
    An entity must follow the law of each jurisdiction it conducts business. This is not a novel concept. If an entity wishes to process data of citizens of a particular country, then they must follow the laws and regulations of said country, in those instances.

udev4096 1y ago

UK fining them is hilarious. UK is a joke in terms of upholding any form of privacy for it's citizens

JohnFen 1y ago
Maybe so, but it's so much better than the US at this that it's not even funny.