11–20 of 111 posts
I 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.
Interesting 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!?
I 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.
I don't think Clearview AI has any employees in Canada, so what do they stand to gain from this lawsuit? Does that tiny startup have any customers of note there?
Google? Facebook? Microsoft? Any cell phone company? Most ISPs? Any of the CRAs? Any credit card company? Any major bank? About a thousand companies most people have never heard of? Palantir?
Checks article
> Clearview AI
OK. You really gotta specify in the headline. There are a lot of possibilities with that vague a description.
We'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…
None of this is new, or specific to tech, this is just how companies try to end-run the law.
How exactly would you propose changing jurisdictional boundaries and/or rules? Subjecting people to more governments that are not the ones for the areas in which they're operating? Removing the ability for some local areas to have control over the business that occurs in it?
I 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.
https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-pho...
You can photograph people in public all you want, but you cannot publish those without their permission.
Blurring or the people not being in focus/center can allow you to do so without getting everyone's permission though (think of crowds, passersby in the background).
We'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…
What defines "operating"? Does it mean you are physically based there? Your infrastructure being there? Your company registration? Your bank account? Etc.
Back in the day these weren't problems in practice; for physical goods/services you typically were based in a single jurisdiction. If exporting goods, customs take care of it.
The internet has no "customs" equivalent though, so you can very well be based in one jurisdiction and yet process personal data of residents of another. Sometimes you may not even know where the data subject actually resides.
If you cannot comply with Canadian laws, you cannot sell to, or operate in, Canada. I don't think Clearview AI has any employees in Canada, so what do they stand to gain from this lawsuit? Does that tiny startup have any customers of note there?
On the other hand, the scraping/facial recogniton they do would also violate European privacy regulations, and it could be they feel a win in a similar case would come in handy if they ever decide to offer their services to European customers.