Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#41

Post by ska »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #39
ska wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of examples. You are right that technology itself is usually value neutral, it's how it has been applied. But as you suggest the usual answer to this is has always been regulation, which is only effective with teeth. Nobody can stop you learning how to build a RF transmission devices, or conversely a blocker. But the FAA has very particular ideas (US specific) on what you are allowed to do and not in t…

What are some examples? (I'm genuinely interested.)

Other than the FAA one I gave?

There are legal/regulatory limits placed on technologies that can

- create radio signals and/or interference

- reproduce some things (e.g. financial instruments)

- produce certain types of substances (e.g. nuclear, but also chemical)

- are primarily used for producing restricted things (e.g. some arms and armament)

- explode particularly well

- etc.

In some cases this will limit your ability to purchase or create them, in some cases just use. For many things you can do them as a corporation, but only if you subject yourself to scrutiny that you are playing by the rules - i.e. you will be audited.

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#42

Post by texorcist »

sschueller wrote: post #2

How many clearview AIs exist that we don't know about? This is something I could create as a hobby project in my free time so what would someone with real resources be able to do?

This is the thinking man's question right here

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#43

Post by catalogia »

donclark wrote: post #21
_bxg1 wrote: post #9

> One of Clearview AI's investors defended the company, “We do not have to be hidden to be free.” Yikes.

Would it be a good idea to capture all the investors names, address, photos, etc. and put them online for all to see?

Legally? Maybe not. But ethically and morally? Hell yes!

We need a Robin Hood of privacy. Extralegal justice for the common people, for whom official channels are contemptuous.

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#44

Post by catalogia »

nradov wrote: post #27
lozenge wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact: the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, 1995 is "the first time since 1868, when the use of exploding bullets was banned, that a weapon of military interest has been banned before its use on the battlefield and before a stream of victims gave visible proof of its tragic effects."

Now that high energy lasers are finally becoming practical for military use we will start seeing blinded casualties in major conflicts. Lasers will be used to attack vehicles and if one of the occupants happens to be looking toward the emitter then it's tough luck.

The ban on laser blinding weapons was precipitated by the 1995 public announcement of a practical laser blinding weapon created by the Chinese arms manufacturer Norinco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZM-87

They have supposedly already been used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Juan_de_Fuca_laser_i...

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#45

Post by lucasmullens »

ska wrote: post #34
civilian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cynical take: I'm pretty sure we've all agreed to ToSes that has allowed our faces to end up online. Clearview AI is just doing what a detective with an eye for faces and unlimited time is doing. I agree that I'm really concerned about the way the surveillance state is creeping in. But it kind of feels like the cat is out of the bag, and moralizing like this is useless.

Clearview AI is just doing what a detective with an eye for faces and unlimited time is doing. This has always been a bullshit argument for this type automation, whether it be facial recognition, license plate readers, recording phone conversations, whatever. It pretends that scale doesn't matter, when the reality is that scale and network effects are the most important feature of many of these 'advances'.

Could you critique it without calling it a "bullshit argument"?

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#46

Post by bashinator »

lozenge wrote: post #19
sillysaurusx wrote: post #10

Hot take: fighting this is a losing battle, because you’re fighting against technology. Can you think of a single technology that society has successfully rejected? It’s pretty hard. In general, once the tech to do X exists, then X will find a way to exist. Instead of crucifying Clearview, it might be better to open a dialogue about regulation in this space. But even that has problems; bitcoin was eventually accepted…

Fun fact: the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, 1995 is "the first time since 1868, when the use of exploding bullets was banned, that a weapon of military interest has been banned before its use on the battlefield and before a stream of victims gave visible proof of its tragic effects."

It's interesting that there's been no similar objection to directional phase-array audio weapons that are easily capable of deafening people.

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#47

Post by ska »

lucasmullens wrote: post #45
ska wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearview AI is just doing what a detective with an eye for faces and unlimited time is doing. This has always been a bullshit argument for this type automation, whether it be facial recognition, license plate readers, recording phone conversations, whatever. It pretends that scale doesn't matter, when the reality is that scale and network effects are the most important feature of many of these 'advances'.

Could you critique it without calling it a "bullshit argument"?

By "bullshit argument" I mean specifically that this argument is not presented in good faith. Rather it is used to obfuscate or avoid engaging with the issues at hand. At least, that is how it comes from corporate entities etc. From individuals I expect it is more a category error.

Would you have preferred “disingenuous " ?

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#48

Post by mattrp »

_bxg1 wrote: post #9

> One of Clearview AI's investors defended the company, “We do not have to be hidden to be free.” Yikes.

Scott Adams has a Clearview investor on his podcast (ep. 798). Tone deaf really doesn’t adequately describe this investors level of concern about critics. When I was a teenager I once asked a musician what he thought of a certain store for musical instruments, his response is that he supposed someone has to sell peavy gear but he certainly wouldn’t want to see the special room in hell reserved for such a person. That’s kind of how I feel about involuntary biometrics.

Re: Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

#49

Post by bathtub365 »

catalogia wrote: post #43
donclark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be a good idea to capture all the investors names, address, photos, etc. and put them online for all to see?

Legally? Maybe not. But ethically and morally? Hell yes! We need a Robin Hood of privacy. Extralegal justice for the common people, for whom official channels are contemptuous.

What if you were mistakenly or maliciously targeted?
Post reply on HN