Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
piquenewsmagazine.com
Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
1–10 of 111 posts
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#2I feel like this is a very common delusion, the expectation of privacy when going into public.
It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if their photo is taken out in public without consent, but those folks were out in public so zero expectation of privacy. Same exact thing for the Internet.
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#3I feel like this is a very common delusion, the expectation of privacy when going into public. It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if their photo is taken out in public without consent, but those folks were out in public so zero expectation of privacy. Same exact thing for the Internet.
[deleted]
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#4We've created a mess of legal jurisdiction and geography that is difficult to reconcile with globally distributed systems.
BC and Clearview both have a point. But which jurisdiction is in play? Is it the one where the person lives or where the picture was taken? Was it the company that took the picture, one of a dozen networks in play, the one that transmitted it to a server, or the one that aggregated it into a database, or the one that sold the data? There could be 20 countries involved.
Laws really need to catch up to the tech which has far outpaced them.
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#5I feel like this is a very common delusion, the expectation of privacy when going into public. It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if their photo is taken out in public without consent, but those folks were out in public so zero expectation of privacy. Same exact thing for the Internet.
You're looking at the world through black and white, to the exclusion of all the shades of gray.
Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street is one thing. Someone snapping a photograph of a busy street, with a focus on you, because you are doing something that looks inappropriate, out of context, is another. Someone following you around, taking video, from the moment you step out of your front door, to the moment that you step back through it is a third.
That someone can be a stranger who doesn't know or care that you exist, a private individual with a deranged vendetta against you, who has threatened you with harm[1], a company that does this on a massive scale and aggregates data, a company that does this on a targeted, personal scale, a government agency that is lawfully investigating a crime, a government agency that is unlawfully acting out of vindictiveness, a government agency that is lawfully acting out of vindictiveness...
None of these things are the same, nor do they warrant the same "Oh, well, it's a public space, nobody owns it, everyone can do whatever they want."
It's a public space. We all own it. We all get to determine what kind of behaviour is acceptable, and unacceptable in it.
The solution to predators and bad actors in a public space is not expecting that everyone who can afford it move more of their life into a private one. That's how we lose our public spaces.
[1] Depending on your jurisdiction, you may not have any particular recourse against that. Some locales really don't like handing out restraining orders... Or enforcing them, when they are broken.
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#6Interesting to follow what happens. Great that there are still 'watch dogs' looking out for us.
The answer from the company to the order from the commission: "those recommendations were impossible to execute."
Imagine if a environmental commission ordered a company to stop polluting, and the company answered with those words!?
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#7I feel like this is a very common delusion, the expectation of privacy when going into public. It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if their photo is taken out in public without consent, but those folks were out in public so zero expectation of privacy. Same exact thing for the Internet.
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#8We've created a mess of legal jurisdiction and geography that is difficult to reconcile with globally distributed systems. BC and Clearview both have a point. But which jurisdiction is in play? Is it the one where the person lives or where the picture was taken? Was it the company that took the picture, one of a dozen networks in play, the one that transmitted it to a server, or the one that aggregated it into a data…
> We've created a mess of legal jurisdiction and geography that is difficult to reconcile with globally distributed systems.
It's easy to reconcile. If you want to operate in a jurisdiction, you are subject to that jurisdiction's laws, and legal injunctions. This is a very basic thing, on the level that a school-child can understand it. Just because you're operating using computers doesn't change a damn thing.
When a jurisdiction tells you that you can't operate in it, unless you change your behaviour, you either change your behaviour, or stop operating in it. Or keep operating, and be treated by it like a criminal. Or appeal.
If you don't like Canadian internet laws, don't do business in Canada. If you don't like Russian speech laws, don't do business in Russia, or plan a vacation in Leningrad. If you don't like Quebec language laws... Don't operate in Quebec.
You're not entitled access to every market in the world, if you can't comply with their rules. If the rules are contradictory, pick the ones you care about more.
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#9Surprise, if you base you company on something which is illegal, or likely becomes illegal, you might no longer be able to comply with law without shutting down your company.
Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order
#10We've created a mess of legal jurisdiction and geography that is difficult to reconcile with globally distributed systems. BC and Clearview both have a point. But which jurisdiction is in play? Is it the one where the person lives or where the picture was taken? Was it the company that took the picture, one of a dozen networks in play, the one that transmitted it to a server, or the one that aggregated it into a data…
The internet has always stretched through many different legal jurisdictions. It's tech companies who have decided that they can hide fugitive at the other end of a wire.