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

Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

piquenewsmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#91

Post by martin8412 »

tablespoon wrote: post #49
kurthr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being... _they then know where it's from_, that's the metadata. If they know the trade show, then they know where and when it was, whether it was in Canada and whether they need to delete it.

> The point being... _they then know where it's from_, that's the metadata. If they know the trade show, then they know where and when it was, whether it was in Canada and whether they need to delete it. In most cases they probably only know the URL, and it's far from trivial (or even possible in a general case) to mechanically derive if photo was taken in Canada from that. Personally I hope they're forced to oversho…

If they don't know where something was recorded, then they should be forced to delete it. Let them go bankrupt if need be.

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#92

Post by adolph »

vkou wrote: post #72
adolph wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seemingly neutral laws can be enforced inequitably or corruptly. A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate.

> A government that goes after the little guys and gives big cos a pass is illegitimate. A government that governs without consent of the governed is illegitimate. A government that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate. The legitimacy of a government is not determined by any particular small-large business axis. Viewing the world through that axis is not helpful in this case. And while we're at it,…

> A governments that governs inconsistently is not necessarily illegitimate.

Fair enough, I suppose legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder, which happens to be itself.

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#93

Post by Flankk »

tremon wrote: post #85
Flankk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also don't have a right to make copies. That all changes if you purchase the data.

Yes, you do. It's a natural right, not limited by either the constitution or copyright law. You cannot distribute your copies, that is all.

TIL intellectual property theft is a natural right.

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#95

Post by maerF0x0 »

chmod775 wrote: post #18
b112 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-pho...

This is very similar to how it works in most western countries. 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).

> but you cannot publish those without their permission.

I wonder if someone could argue that using their photo as training data could make the model itself a derivative work? iirc those require royalty/license too.

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#96

Post by [deleted] »

meowface wrote: post #59
kurthr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is so impossible that it is the actual use case they are selling? " The system found a match in the background of some photo taken at a trade show (the guy was working a both). It only knew the website the photo was from, which allowed the police the identify the trade show, which allowed them to track down the people working at that booth to find their suspect."

Just as evidence I'm not defending them, I find their project totally unethical, and the owners and their associates are also highly involved with internet fascism and credential phishing (I know the source isn't the best, but I recommend reading the article): https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clearview-ai-facial-recogniti... With that said: the order is clearly impossible to execute. There's a huge difference between p…

[deleted]

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#97

Post by legalcorrection »

wongarsu wrote: post #51
legalcorrection wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also of highly dubious legality. Would be interesting to see what would happen if an EU member state pursued damages on that angle and then tried to enforce the judgment in a US court. I would expect a US court would refuse to give it effect due to the other country exceeding the appropriate exercise of jurisdiction under international law.

Countries enforce laws on people/organizations they don't have jurisdiction over all the time. Usually it ends up with the country not being able to do anything about it until the convicted is doing business in that country, has assets there or is stepping foot into it (in the case of organizations: when a representative goes to that country). Having another countries court enforce a judgement is the exception, it us…

You're mixing up personal jurisdiction with legislative jurisdiction. There is a body of customary international law that concerns the appropriate scope for extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction. This is separate from personal jurisdiction, which is in some ways easier to establish. In the US, for example, you can get personal jurisdiction over any natural person, and sue them for any way they wronged you anywhere in the world, merely by serving them with process while they are physically present in the US. But if you sue someone in Alabama for something they did in France, the Alabama court is going to apply French law in most cases. (in most countries, there is also something like the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens that allows courts to dismiss cases that are better heard by a court elsewhere)

And it's simply not the case that foreign judgments are generally unenforceable. See the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgmen... . No treaty is necessary, though it certainly helps the person seeking enforcement if there is one.

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#98

Post by d110af5ccf »

amatecha wrote: post #58

Wait. Why "can't" Clearview comply with the order? Don't they know the identities of the people whose photos they're scraping and storing? Thus, don't they know if those people are Canadian or not? Or is Clearview just lazily scraping photos from the web etc. and storing whatever random username or pseudonym is attached to it, giving _that_ in search results? In which case, they should 1000% expect to be taken to tas…

> They don't even have the legal right to use images posted online just because they're accessible. They are protected by copyright unless CC or public-domain licensed...

I'm not sure what the legal situation is exactly but it seems to be more complicated than that. The LinkedIn case appears to have determined that scraping public content is legal. I don't think you can redistribute it after that but I guess you can freely analyze it?

As to distributing (possibly even selling) the result of that analysis, see the GitHub Copilot controversy.

There are large OCR datasets of public domain books and old governmental records that come with a "no commercial use" clause. I'm not sure what the legality of feeding those in to an ML algorithm that gets used commercially is.

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#99

Post by csdvrx »

legalcorrection wrote: post #87
csdvrx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I dislike legal overreach in international matters, I agree: the pictures of Canadian individuals are likely to have been taken in Canada, or to come from Canadian sources or websites. The fact that they may have been shared with a US company (ex: Facebook, LinkedIn) is irrelevant: copyright etc. does not cease to exist when crossing a digital border. Some countries also have extra protections on top of co…

Telling your followers to kill someone in another country is considered committing a crime in that country. Distributing information that at some point originated in another country is generally not. Where it is, it's because of something like a copyright treaty.

If it's legal in their country, who are we to tell them to change their laws?

Re: Clearview AI challenges B.C. privacy watchdog order

#100

Post by hiptobecubic »

cbsmith wrote: post #89
shkkmo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With that said: the order is clearly impossible to execute. It is clearly possible to execute, it would just require much higher costs per image that ClearView processes and the probable need for ClearView to avoid using any images that they can't verify the location of in am economical fashion. Saying it is "impossible" is different from saying that the costs of compliance would fundamentally change ClearView's bu…

I think at that point most people would consider it a very different kind of service. You don't need the Internet or AI to collate pictures and the data on them into a database.

Sure, but the point is that their business is not viable then. If it's illegal to serve childporn and imgur can't profitably detect if it's serving childporn or not, then imgur is doomed. I think no one would dispute that?
Post reply on HN