I’m not saying they’re in the right, but once you put stuff on the internet it’s near impossible to stop people doing what they want with it
That’s only true for people who don’t care about operating lawfully. A big company cannot practically afford to do the same things as some random fly under the radar niche community.
That being said, this is a US company, so that may be a problem.
Exactly. My first thought when I read the headline? “Who cares.” How many human eyes have harvested the same images without consent. At least AI isn’t going to stalk you afterwards.
… You do realize that AI is a tool which can make stalking monstrously easy?
How does it do that? Ask it step by step instructions on how to stalk? If there is some other way in your mind, then I’d posit that AI also makes anti stalking monstrously easy. It’s a tool right?
Ask it to monitor all public cameras and notify when it finds the face you are stalking.
Ask it to analyze your known movement patterns based on public check ins and guess at future locations. Or ask it to monitor profile for check ons and give updates.
I’m not sure if your naive or argumentative.
or
AI, give me the list of everyone who is likely to stalk me based on their public profile
deleted by creator
where are these tools available?
They aren’t as far as I’m aware. But a year ago, chatgpt didn’t exist either. It’s not a huge technological leap. Especially now it’s getting linked in to google and bing, which in turn are linked to your online presence with email, tracking etc.
The question is if they will be locked down well enough?
Maybe they shouldn’t have left the EU.
How would that affect a US company? Did you read the article or just kneejerk a brexit snark for internet points?
The ICO failed “not because this isn’t monitoring and not because in other circumstances, this might not be in breach of U.K. GDPR, but because it’s foreign law enforcement. It’s outside of the scope of European Union law so it doesn’t apply,” said James Moss, privacy and data protection partner at the law firm Bird & Bird.
The EU has enough power to actually stand up to US companies. See: https://www.barrons.com/news/eu-bans-meta-s-use-of-personal-data-for-behavioural-advertising-fe6bcfbd
Yes in the EU. Fuck all out if it. This company was not operating in Europe. The internet isn’t in Europe
Why are you white knighting for big US companies? They don’t even know who you are outside of a personal identification number.
I’m not… Just replying to EU supremacists who think their laws rule the world, they don’t.
And who haven’t read the fucking article which clearly says other EU countries have tried taking them to court, so the fucking moron who said it wouldn’t have happened if the UK hadn’t left the EU is clearly talking shite, as are all the other fucking morons who upvoted them without reading it.
[End rant]
EU laws apply to EU citizens, even on the internet. EU laws therefore tend to have surprisingly global effects, often called the ‘Brussels Effect’.
A US company harvesting data from EU citizens is subject to EU laws and can be fined for breaking them accordingly, for example.
The Brussels effect is a book.
Are you saying the lawyer who specialises in data and privacy is wrong?
The company was working for a foreign government, not commercially
You could like, read the article?
Please read beyond the first Google result that you find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
What a UK court has ruled based on EU law is not necessarily what an EU court would rule. They may well state that Clearview is a commercial partner of foreign law enforcement and therefore not protected (because it’s not the foreign law enforcement itself doing the data harvesting, but a commercial firm intending to make money).
Besides, the UK court clearly ruled that the law did apply, but that Clearview wasn’t in breach. This wasn’t a jurisdiction issue, as you asserted initially.
Yes, not in breach. The UK laws have not been changed since brexit. Start dealing in facts, not some conceptual Brussels effect which isn’t real other than REACH. The California effect is much larger.
The EU court can decide whatever the fuck it likes, it still has zero jurisdiction outside the EU.
Also, read the FUCKING article, the French also brought a case…
No, but the internet in Europe is regulated by the EU. If that company wants to use it, they will be subjected to its laws or they will be blocked and fined.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
LONDON — Britain’s top privacy regulator has no power to sanction an American-based AI firm which harvested vast numbers of personal photos for its facial recognition software without users’ consent, a judge has ruled.
The New York Times reported in 2020 that Clearview AI had harvested billions of social media images without users’ consent.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) took action against Clearview last year, alleging it had unlawfully collected the data of British subjects for behavior-monitoring purposes.
Lawyers have pointed out that the company was under no obligation to purge Brits’ pictures from its database until the appeal was determined — and yesterday’s ruling applied not only to the fine, but the deletion order too.
The identity-matching technology, trained on photos scraped without permission from social media platforms and other internet sites, was initially made available to a range of business users as well as law enforcement bodies.
Following a 2020 lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, the company now only offers its services to federal agencies and law enforcement in the U.S. Yesterday’s judgment revealed it also has clients in Panama, Brazil, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic.
The original article contains 627 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What? Someone downloaded photos that people willingly uploaded to a public network? You don’t say.
I think this argument is silly. It’s like if you went Out in public and paparazzi started haunting everyone out on the street, all the time, even though you are no-one famous.
There is such a thing as privacy, and the fact that I uploaded a picture does not give some other random company the right to wholesale process my images.
We should resist giving companies these rights.
deleted by creator
Except the GDPR is written. The right to privacy has been part of several rights charters. But I do agree that legislation does need to catch up more.
Except it’s not because these are photos people are choosing to post.
as someone who crossed a tourist hotspot to get to the cantina for some years, my experience can’t confirm your statement.
The problem there is someone taking photos of you without your consent, not AI analyzing the photos
But not to be harvested by third parties to be used for God knows what. Sure the occasional meme is one thing (and can have an impact) but this impacts everyone, everywhere, all the time. It’s not just that one photo, it’s all photos of everyone and also other info like metadata, text posts etc. The fact we don’t even know how what and where the data is collected we don’t even know what they have combined into profiles.
And this does not even speak to potential harm that could come from incorrectly associated info in your profile.
I am a privacy advocate but I will have to disagree with you. There is no such thing as privacy on public places , or in the public internet. If you upload a picture to the internet publicly then it is publicly available to everyone.
We can disagree here. But if I upload a picture with a specific intent (sharing it in my insta feed for example) why do other companies then have the right to wholesale take these images and use them for other purposes? I think they don’t.
And there is a serious constraint on privacy violations like taking my picture when I’m out and about, since the photographer can only be on one place at a time.
What we see here is privacy violations by automated systems on a scale never before seen. Just by taking the photos and processing them.
