Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 10 2020, @03:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the hidden-in-clearview dept.

Senator fears Clearview AI facial recognition could be used on protesters:

Sen. Edward Markey has raised concerns that police and law enforcement agencies have access to controversial facial recognition app Clearview AI in cities where people are protesting the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died two weeks ago while in the custody of Minneapolis police.

[...] "As demonstrators across the country exercise their First Amendment rights by protesting racial injustice, it is important that law enforcement does not use technological tools to stifle free speech or endanger the public," Markey said in a letter to Clearview AI CEO and co-founder Hoan Ton-That.

The threat of surveillance could also deter people from "speaking out against injustice for fear of being permanently included in law enforcement databases," he said.

Markey, who has previously hammered Clearview AI over its sales to foreign governments, use by domestic law enforcement and use in the COVID-19 pandemic, is now asking the company for a list of law enforcement agencies that have signed new contracts since May 25, 2020.

It's also being asked if search traffic on its database has increased during the past two weeks; whether it considers a law enforcement agency's "history of unlawful or discriminatory policing practices" before selling the technology to them; what process it takes to give away free trials; and whether it will prohibit its technology from being used to identify peaceful protestors.

[...] Ton-That said he will respond to the letter from Markey. "Clearview AI's technology is intended only for after-the-crime investigations, and not as a surveillance tool relating to protests or under any other circumstances," he said in an emailed statement.

Previously:

(2020-06-09) IBM Will No Longer Offer, Develop, or Research Facial Recognition Technology
(2020-05-08) Clearview AI to Stop Selling Controversial Facial Recognition App to Private Companies
(2020-04-20) Security Lapse Exposed Clearview AI Source Code
(2020-04-18) Some Shirts Hide You from Cameras
(2020-03-13) Vermont Sues Clearview, Alleging “Oppressive, Unscrupulous” Practices
(2020-02-28) Clearview AI's Facial Recognition Tech is Being Used by US Justice Department, ICE, and the FBI
(2020-02-26) Clearview AI Reports Entire Client List Was Stolen
(2020-02-24) Canadian Privacy Commissioners to Investigate "Creepy" Facial Recognition Firm Clearview AI
(2020-02-06) Clearview AI Hit with Cease-And-Desist from Google, Facebook Over Facial Recognition Collection
(2020-01-22) Clearview App Lets Strangers Find Your Name, Info with Snap of a Photo, Report Says

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 11 2020, @09:46AM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 11 2020, @09:46AM (#1006222) Journal

    Yes, that tax revenue thing, it's true. But, you use the term "wrong conversation", and you're missing a little something important. Little more than a lifetime ago, cops weren't there to collect revenues. Oh - that may not be quite accurate, there has always been corruption. During prohibition, lots of cops were collecting "protection" fees from the speakeasies, etc. But, in more recent times, not so much.

    Traffic tickets weren't much of a revenue thing, when I was a child. A ticket might be issued if the cop really thought you were screwing up, then it would cost maybe $20. Not a lot of tickets, and not a very stiff fine.

    Enter the insurance industry. They pushed radar guns on departments that didn't really want them. Over time, every cop has a radar gun, and he is required to use it. "I want two tickets written every single day, Trooper Wilson, or I'll take your car and give it to someone who will write tickets!" Then it became five tickets, then ten. And, the county realized there was a lot of potential in those fines, and kept raising the fines.

    Ditto the above for seat belts.

    But, blame it on the insurance industry. In the end, you find that they are calling the shots in much of the legislation written in recent decades.

    But no one ever asks, "Is the insurance industry really this "Deep State" we keep hearing about?"

    Can't really put drunk driving in the same category, as it started out as a grass roots thing - remember Mothers Against Drunk Driving? All grass roots, the women had hell getting the first laws passed. Then it became an industry, and enter the insurance industry. Now, the laws don't even make sense half the time. If .08 makes you drunk, and .01 or .02 is not drunk - then WTF are commercial drivers cited for drunk driving at .01 and .02? Oh - insurance lobbying.

    There's a lot of strange shit that has happened, thanks to the insurance companies.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @01:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @01:33PM (#1007746)

    In California (I know other states are different, but at least a few have similar rules regarding this), if insurance is more than X dollars your car is 'totalled', regardless of the structural damage to the vehicle. Meaning that in many cases a newer car that had serious structural damage that was below 40-50 percent of the cost of the car will be repaired and listed as a 'clean title' vehicle, while a 10-20 year old car that had bumper or fender damage will be listed as salvaged, even though there was never any structural damage done to it.

    When a pair of clearcut terms (junk title, and salvage title) get used to make vehicles that have no safety risk uninsurable/worth less, while making vehicles with a safety risk/insurable, where have we ended up? In order to find out the real history of a car now you have to pay extra money to companies like CarFax because the title of vehicle tells you nothing of the history of the vehicle. The same happens with Smog and many other things, all focused on ensuring old vehicles are purged from the system while new vehicles, safe or not, remain to maximize the value the 'extractors' (insurance, loan companies, etc) can extract from all parties involved.