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

CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 174 posts

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#111

Post by asveikau »

digiown wrote: post #87
asveikau wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I feel like what we're seeing lately is that private companies are doing the thing that would violate the 4th amendment if government did it , then they sell to the government. The idea that it's not the government itself violating the constitution because they did it through a contractor is pretty absurd. What specific legal measures you do to enforce this, I don't know, there's…

I don't think there is an expectation of privacy for things you literally post to the public, like social media. Even the government doing the scraping directly I believe would not violate the 4th amendment. The third party doctrine also basically legalizes most types of search through people's "cloud data". To have an expectation of privacy, the data needs to not be shared in the first place. I don't think tying the…

> I don't think there is an expectation of privacy for things you literally post to the public, like social media

Neither is there an expectation that automation would slurp it up and build a database on you and everyone else. Maybe the HN crowd is one thing, but most normies would probably say it shouldn't be allowed.

> Even the government doing the scraping directly I believe would not violate the 4th amendment.

Every time I see someone make a statement like this I think of the Iraq war era when a Berkeley law professor said torture is legal. Simply saying something that clearly violates the spirit of our rights is ok based on a technicality, I would not call that a moral high ground.

> The sensitive data needs to not be collected in the first place via technical and social solutions,

At this point and points forward I think your comment is much more on the mark.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#112

Post by bjt »

unethical_ban wrote: post #73
pixl97 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A private company can't decide to lock somebody away in prison or send them to death row. A private company can 100% do this in many ways. They already do this buy putting up and using their technology in minority areas, for example.

It's a distinction. Private companies are partnering with the government to take away personal liberty. We should ban the government from accessing data gathered by private companies by default, perhaps. I need to mull on it.

The point is that "who gathers it" should be irrelevant.

The government shouldn't be able to buy data that would be unconstitutional or unlawful for them to gather themselves.

On the other hand if a company is just aggregating something benign like weather data, there's no need to bar the government from buying that instead of building it themselves.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#113

Post by GVIrish »

quantified wrote: post #47
OutOfHere wrote: post #9

We need a Constitutional amendment that guarantees a complete right to anonymity at every level: financial, vehicular, travel, etc. This means the government must not take any steps to identify a person or link databases identifying people until there has been a documented crime where the person is a suspect. Only if an anonymous person or their property is caught in a criminal act may the respective identity be inve…

Maybe. Anonymity is where bad actors play. Better to have better disclosure and de-anonymization in some cases. If some live in fear (e.g. of cartels), go after the cartels harder than they go after you.

> Maybe. Anonymity is where bad actors play.

The problem is when the government changes the definition of 'bad actor'.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#115

Post by preisschild »

charcircuit wrote: post #12

[flagged]

Yeah its not like the "AI" manufacturers have their own biases that are reflected in the model.

For example, Deepseek won't give you critical information about the communist party and Grok won't criticise Elon Musk

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#116

Post by throwway120385 »

charcircuit wrote: post #31
rhcom2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The targets for the AI are still set by humans, the data the AI was trained on is still created by humans. Involving a computer in the system doesn't magically make it less biased.

That is true for now, but eventually it should be possible for it to be more autonomous without needing humans to set its target.

That's just what we need, an AI that was trained on biased data and then empowered to do whatever it wants autonomously. It's a pity we can't look to any examples of human intelligences that have been trained on biased data and then empowered to do whatever they want autonomously.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#117

Post by Manuel_D »

text0404 wrote: post #90

[flagged]

None of your links allege that Hoan Ton-That or Richard Schwartz is a white supremacist. What the Huffington Post piece does allege, is that for 3 weeks Smartcheckr (a different LLC that would later have its assets transferred to Clearview AI) hired one Douglass Mackey. Douglass Mackey had an online alias "Richard Vaughn" that was used to post white supremacist content. Ton-That states that he was unaware that Mackey was the real person behind Richard Vaughn.

There's a vast gulf between "Clearview AI was founeded by white supremacists" and "Smartcheckr, which later merged with Clearview AI, employed for 3 weeks someone who posted white supremacist content under a pseudonym, unbeknownst to the Clearview AI founders".

In fact, neither the Buzzfeed article nor the NYTimes piece accuse anyone of white supremacy.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#118

Post by throwway120385 »

charcircuit wrote: post #54
mindslight wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you write so many low-effort, disingenuous, inflammatory comments? They're "not even wrong", yet they just suck energy right out of productive discussion as people inevitably respond to one part of your broken framing, and then they're off to the races arguing about nonsense. The main problem with the law not being applied evenly is structural - how do you get the people tasked with enforcing the law to enforc…

I want to share my opinion even if I know that it may not be a popular one on HN. I am not trying to maximize my reputation by always posting what I believe will get the most upvotes, but instead I prioritize sharing my opinion. >people inevitably respond to one part of your broken framing, and then they're off to the races arguing about nonsense. I agree that this unproductive. When people have two very different vi…

I think a good first step to policing the police is to have any use of violence by law enforcement be put to trial in court. They would have all of the same constitutional protections as any other defendant and "I was an officer of the law carrying out my duty" would be a reasonable mitigating factor. There would be no need to jail them or require bond or arraignment or any of that, but they would have to show up for the trial and demonstrate why use of force was necessary.

Re: CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting'

#120

Post by mikkupikku »

some_random wrote: post #103
jmyeet wrote: post #44

There are certain people who believe that average citizens can be held responsible for the actions of their government, to the point that they are valid military targets. Well, if that's true then employees of the companies that build the tools for all this to happen can also be held responsible, no? I'm actually an optimist and believe there will come a time whena whole lot of people will deny ever working for Palan…

>There are certain people who believe that average citizens can be held responsible for the actions of their government, to the point that they are valid military targets. Yeah we typically call those people terrorists or war criminals.

Or heroes, if they win.
Post reply on HN