Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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, @09:52AM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 11 2020, @09:52AM (#1006223) Journal

    Prove him guilty? Well, that's easy enough. At the least, manslaughter and negligent homicide. I mean, that's the LEAST. Third degree murder, should be an easy case. Second degree might take an intelligent, and dedicated prosecutor. A REALLY good prosecutor should be able to make the case for first degree.

    Like the Zimmerman case, some lackwit second echelon flunky will probably bite off more than he can chew, go for first, and lose the fucking case to a damned fine defense attorney.

    The facts pretty much speak for themselves. The cop killed that nigger, for reasons that he is not sharing.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:24PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:24PM (#1007870)

    Given that the suspect in question was under allegedly lawful arrest and detention and no obvious threat to either the officer kneeling on him or his partner, this should be a clear case for compounding his charges under color of the law. The only reason he wasn't stopped from killing this person is because of his badge and the abuse of his power is directly responsible for public action he took and is thankfully now being tried over. But without adding that 'Color of the Law' charge it won't send the right message to other officers on how and why they should behave correctly. There will be lots of times where it might not apply, but this is one of the few where it very obviously should. If he hadn't been an officer someone would have intervened to stop his unlawful conduct.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:47PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:47PM (#1007877) Journal

      That sounds fair and reasonable. To you, and to me.

      Now, let's go out into the real world. Jury selection has become a circus whereby the attorneys ensure that no jury is ever seated that might take matters seriously, and take charge.

      Even without the selection circus, how do you propose to seat a jury of twelve, with the sophistication to understand what you've just said? Think about how dumb the average person is - then realize that half of all people are even stupider. If you're not a lawyer, you probably can't understand simple legal concepts, even if the judge patiently explains them to you.

      Then, there is the police union. They'll be defending this cop with a zillion dollars for a war fund.

      I'll stick with my opinion that going for second or third degree murder is doable. The lesser charges are almost certain to stick. Going after anything more sets you up for a loss in our current judicial system.

      I'll repeat that Zimmerman got off because the prosecutor bit off more than he could chew. That bastard should have, and could have, been convicted of third degree, and certainly manslaughter.