Clearview AI fined in UK for illegally storing facial images:
Facial recognition company Clearview AI has been fined more than £7.5m by the UK's privacy watchdog and told to delete the data of UK residents.
The company gathers images from the internet to create a global facial recognition database.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) says that breaches UK data protection laws. It has ordered the firm to stop obtaining and using the personal data of UK residents.
Clearview AI chief executive Hoan Ton-That said: "I am deeply disappointed that the UK Information Commissioner has misinterpreted my technology and intentions.
"We collect only public data from the open internet and comply with all standards of privacy and law.
Clearview AI takes publicly posted pictures from Facebook, Instagram and other sources, usually without the knowledge of the platform or any permission.
[...] John Edwards, UK information commissioner, said: "The company not only enables identification of those people, but effectively monitors their behaviour and offers it as a commercial service. That is unacceptable."
Mr Edwards continued: "People expect that their personal information will be respected, regardless of where in the world their data is being used."
The ICO said Clearview AI Inc no longer offered its services to UK organisations but, because the company had customers in other countries, it was still using personal data of UK residents.
In November 2021, the ICO said the company was facing a fine of up to £17m - almost £10m more than it has now ordered it to pay.
The UK has become the fourth country to take enforcement action against the firm, following France, Italy and Australia.
Lawyer from American firm Jenner and Block, Lee Wolosky said: "While we appreciate the ICO's desire to reduce their monetary penalty on Clearview AI, we nevertheless stand by our position that the decision to impose any fine is incorrect as a matter of law. "Clearview AI is not subject to the ICO's jurisdiction, and Clearview AI does no business in the UK at this time."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @04:23AM
“I am deeply disappointed our lawyers couldn’t pull our asses out of this one.”
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Saturday May 28 2022, @06:23AM (1 child)
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-ukraine-has-started-using-clearview-ais-facial-recognition-during-war-2022-03-13/ [reuters.com]
Though the service of course works both way. Business is good...
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @02:29PM
Does that mean Clearview's business offering can now be restricted under the existing legislation for trade in arms?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday May 28 2022, @06:35AM (1 child)
People who can't help themselves and keep posting photos of their ugly mush, their friends' and relatives' on their Facestagrams.
And then their representatives run around and sue this-or-that company for using photos that people THEMSELVES gladly offer to Big Data for the express purpose of exploiting and monetizing up the wazoo. Big Data is a disgusting and shameful bunch, but they're doing exactly what people let them do with their personal information.
Educate people on the necessity to exercise restraint when sharing data with big unaccountable for-profits and the problem will be halfway solved.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @08:26AM
I still remember sharing my truthful birthdate with a friend, only to have them send me an e-card on my special day, and this after so many discussions about exactly how people coax this kind of data from their friends using this method.
I swear, some people, even one's own family, can be dumb as a sack of rocks at times.
Think I was pleased to know someone ratted me out, with my real name, my longtime email, and my real birthdate, to someone who was deliberately collecting them?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @06:42AM (3 children)
So, anyone pull up any hits on Runaway1956? Or variations? Might search the Arkansas State Police, for hits on his real name, which is *au* F. **op*r. Should be enough. If not, search Angband, CX500. and various local papers, or linux user threads, where he gives away his real name. We need to know who this bastard is, that is threatening to kill us all. Not necessarily so we can return the favor, but just to prevent the mass murder that he is headed toward. Poor Runaway, he could have been a law-abiding American, if Rupert Murdock has not rotted him brain.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @08:50AM (2 children)
You know, given the level of your obsession with him if you do ever turn up at his house and he puts a bullet in you he would almost certainly not face any charges. There's a long record on here showing just what a fascinated nutjob you are. Any cop is going to look at that and go "yeah, ok, justified self-defense against a fruit-loop".
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @11:15AM
I really do not think Runaway is going to show up at my house. He gets lost if he goes past Texarkansas. And bullets cannot fix stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2022, @07:26AM
So, no hits, then? Extra credit for nudes!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Ironrose on Saturday May 28 2022, @08:53AM (2 children)
There were many warnings about this company, and how it was run by alt-right wackos. We could use some references to past articles, and even to rejected submissions on this same organization.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday May 28 2022, @09:54PM
I can't get past that name. It just keeps making me think of pregnancy tests.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 29 2022, @08:29AM
How would previous submissions tell us about a fine that was issued a few days ago?
We have published many earlier submissions where they were relevant but when they introduced 'alt-right wackos' they became political rants rather than factual reports and were naturally rejected for the obvious bias that they contained. Such submissions are rejected because they do not comply with our Submission Guidelines [soylentnews.org].
However, some previous articles:
Now what is the point that you were trying to make that you believe those links, going back several years, will demonstrate?
There are of course many more - but your search button probably works just the same as mine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @09:43AM (2 children)
And if they don't have presence in the UK all they have to do is make sure to never go to the UK and they can just give the UK a middle finger.
Or is the UK like the USA that tries (with some success) to extradite/punish non-US citizens and non-US residents for alleged civil offenses that weren't even done in the USA?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @01:34PM
7.5 million is insignificant to the UK budget or economy. That probably doesn’t even cover the #10 COVID lockdown party budget (oh, sorry "work gatherings" where decorum dictates vomiting on the walls, apparently).
(Score: 2) by Snospar on Saturday May 28 2022, @04:01PM
They've stated this is seen as a breach of GDPR which has a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4% of Annual Turnover whichever is greater (Source [itgovernance.co.uk]). I can't find exact numbers for Clearview AI's Annual Turnover, just a rough range from $5 - $25 million, so even at that upper limit 4% would only be $1 million (or £800K).
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Saturday May 28 2022, @12:01PM (4 children)
People, it's not the 1980s any more. The privacy to which we're accustomed was before the Internet, ubiquitous digital cameras, and immense storage capacity.
Our expectations are not realistic. It was only our own collective amnesia, our inability to remember the faces of every stranger we encountered, and our disinterest in trying to do so, that allowed us to hide and stay anonymous by blending in. We don't have that amnesia any more.
This seems another case of trying to turn back the clock with the law.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @03:52PM
True, but laws can protect us and guide society to minimize the negative effects from this loss of privacy. Not being perfect is no reason to not try.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snospar on Saturday May 28 2022, @07:13PM (1 child)
I still have a right to privacy, it's one of my fundamental Human Rights. Just rolling over and saying "things have changed" doesn't mean we should be welcoming in the surveillance state. We should all be fighting to ensure our rights aren't being taken away from us or trampled by unscrupulous corporations like these fuckers.
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday May 29 2022, @01:52PM
I agree that something should be done. But trying to prevent misuse of data by preventing generation, collection, and analysis of data-- can't misuse what they don't have! -- is not addressing the problem nor is it practical or even really possible any more. Digitally, we're all in a nudist colony now.
The analysis is what should be very carefully done. That's where they're apt to be taking shortcuts that are incredibly biased and unfair. We won't achieve perfection, but we can at least force them to be open about the algorithms, and insist that reasonable improvements be made.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday May 28 2022, @09:50PM
Just because today's tech can be used to do things like this, doesn't mean that should be permitted.
And actually, turning back the clock in terms of the internet (but not the performance of home computers), sounds wonderful to me. Cap the speeds so no-one can upload people's photos in less than an hour. All the bloated ads and tracking wouldn't be viable anymore! Every website could be like SoylentNews!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Saturday May 28 2022, @01:27PM (3 children)
"I am deeply disappointed that the UK Information Commissioner has misinterpreted my technology and intentions."
"We collect only public data from the open internet and comply with all standards of privacy and law."
Your intention doesn't matter.
You do not have explicit opt-in consent from those people, so whether its on the open internet or not, it's a data protection violation.
This NOTHING in this complies with ANY standard of privacy or law, in the UK, or the wider EU in fact (as we basically have the same laws in this regard).
(Score: 1) by wArlOrd on Saturday May 28 2022, @02:13PM (1 child)
So, in addition to paying the fine they need to destroy all copies (globally) of UK persons photos, don't they?
Any image recognition models developed using even one of those UK photos must also be tainted, need to destroy those too?
If they do not, then they simply get fined again tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...
One can dream... or is it a nightmare?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @02:33PM
Yes, they were already ordered to exactly that by the Canadian watchdog. Though if I were dealing out the sentence, I would make them delete every photo for which they can not unamibiguously prove it's not a Canadian/UK citizen (require positive proof, not negative proof).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2022, @06:08PM
Does Facebook or Instagram or YouTube have explicit permission from every person who appears in every photo or video on their site? No? Interesting double standard then.