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

141–150 of 174 posts

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

#141

Post by Manuel_D »

mothballed wrote: post #138
Manuel_D wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government doesn't need a warrant to access bank records, as per the US's banking laws. They just need an administrative subpoena, which doesn't have to be signed off by a judge. This is not and example of the government sidestepping laws through a third party. You just don't like the existing laws, and would prefer to make certain things illegal that are presently legal.

There wouldn't be any identity linked for an anonymous bank account to 'access', were it not for the warrantless search of your papers required under KYC but done via private entity (sidestepping 4th amendment) to open an account. That part is done without even a subpoena. That is, the US banking laws force private actors, under color of law, to systematically inspect the papers of those opening an account, which con…

Right, but the point is, no law is being avoided. The comment I responded to wrote:

> Always easier when you can avoid the law and just buy it off the shelf. (Emphasis mine)

No law is being avoided, neither in your banking example nor in the situation with Clearview. To be sure, people can have whatever opinion on the law that they want. But I do want to make it clear the the government is not "avoiding" any law here.

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

#142

Post by keybored »

asveikau wrote: post #57
digiown wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why it doesn't make sense to ban governments from doing things while still allowing private companies. Either it is illegal to surveil the public for everyone, or the government can always do it indirectly with the same effect. I don't think the deal described here is even that egregious. It's basically a labeled data scrape. Any entity capable of training these LLMs are able to do this.

The difference is that a government can take personal liberty away from people in the most direct way. A private company can't decide to lock somebody away in prison or send them to death row. (Hopefully anyway.) So we put a higher standard on government. That said, I do believe there ought to be more restrictions on private use of these technologies.

> The difference is that a government can take personal liberty away from people in the most direct way. A private company can't decide to lock somebody away in prison or send them to death row. (Hopefully anyway.) So we put a higher standard on government.

We put higher standards on the government because companies have the biggest propaganda coffers.

It’s not some rational principle. Money goes in, beliefs come out.

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

#143

Post by Manuel_D »

mothballed wrote: post #138
Manuel_D wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government doesn't need a warrant to access bank records, as per the US's banking laws. They just need an administrative subpoena, which doesn't have to be signed off by a judge. This is not and example of the government sidestepping laws through a third party. You just don't like the existing laws, and would prefer to make certain things illegal that are presently legal.

There wouldn't be any identity linked for an anonymous bank account to 'access', were it not for the warrantless search of your papers required under KYC but done via private entity (sidestepping 4th amendment) to open an account. That part is done without even a subpoena. That is, the US banking laws force private actors, under color of law, to systematically inspect the papers of those opening an account, which con…

> Clearly the government would love to just take all your information directly when you open an account, as that would be even better for them, but due to the 4th amendment they can't do that

This is just factually wrong. The Bank Secrecy Act specifically requires that banks to provide this info. The 4th amendment does not prohibit this. If a bank refused to provide this required information, the government would go in and get that information directly.

Again, no law is being avoided. You just don't like the law.

> A blanket sweep of everyone's information willy nilly by the government is not 4A compliant, that's why they've had the bank do it on their behalf.

Wrong again. If retrieving this info was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, then banks could just say "no" when the government asks them for customer data data.

Groups did sue following the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, and argued that it violated the Fourth and Fifth amendments. But they lost, and the Supreme Court determined that it did not violate the constitution.

For the third time: no law is being "avoided", you just don't like the law.

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

#144

Post by FireBeyond »

seanw444 wrote: post #62
FireBeyond wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, I'm sure that will go over "not well" with ICE agents who will happily assault you for carrying a phone...

I disagree with the shooting too, but this is such a massive oversimplification of the event.

Alright, I'll rephrase - "ICE agents have shown a bias towards escalation than de-escalation in conflict situations, be it pepper spray, assault, detention, or worse. I think that trying to get into a shouting match with them about HIPAA violations on removing your face mask are not likely to result in "okay, carry on, as you were"."

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

#146

Post by digiown »

magicalist wrote: post #140
digiown wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we clearly both agree that mass surveillance is problematic regardless of whether it is done by the government or corporations. With that said > normies would probably say it shouldn't be allowed Despite knowing about this, most continue supporting the various companies doing exactly that, like Facebook and Google. > Neither is there an expectation [...] Expectation is not law, and it cuts both ways. The auth…

> > Neither is there an expectation [...] > Expectation is not law. It is in this case. Expectation of privacy is a legal test based literally on on what "normies would probably say". If, as a society, we're moving more and more of our private effects to the cloud, there is a point where there's an expectation of privacy from the government there, regardless of the shadiness of the company we trusted for it, and rega…

Thanks for the legal clarification. I don't disagree that the third part doctrine is rather overbroad.

I would still prefer legislation and tech that actually reduce data collection though. Fifth amendment protections are much stronger, and cannot be overcome by a warrant, whereas third parties can be subject to subpoena.

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

#147

Post by dylan604 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #93
dylan604 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of facial rec systems. Thinking of systems like in iOS Photos, or any of the other similar photo library systems. I think pretty much everyone would be freaked out if they started IDing people in your local libraries.

Facebook was doing that 10 years ago

Yes, and that would fall under "any of the other similar photo" category

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

#149

Post by ChoGGi »

digiown wrote: post #42
sailfast wrote: post #3

Always easier when you can avoid the law and just buy it off the shelf. It’s fine to do this, we say, because it’s not being done by the government - but if they’re allowed to turn around and buy it we’re much worse off.

That's why it doesn't make sense to ban governments from doing things while still allowing private companies. Either it is illegal to surveil the public for everyone, or the government can always do it indirectly with the same effect. I don't think the deal described here is even that egregious. It's basically a labeled data scrape. Any entity capable of training these LLMs are able to do this.

Or that the government isn't allowed to purchase anything they'd normally need a warrant for?

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

#150

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

Manuel_D wrote: post #141
mothballed wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wouldn't be any identity linked for an anonymous bank account to 'access', were it not for the warrantless search of your papers required under KYC but done via private entity (sidestepping 4th amendment) to open an account. That part is done without even a subpoena. That is, the US banking laws force private actors, under color of law, to systematically inspect the papers of those opening an account, which con…

Right, but the point is, no law is being avoided. The comment I responded to wrote: > Always easier when you can avoid the law and just buy it off the shelf. (Emphasis mine) No law is being avoided, neither in your banking example nor in the situation with Clearview. To be sure, people can have whatever opinion on the law that they want. But I do want to make it clear the the government is not "avoiding" any law here…

> No law is being avoided

Following the conversation, this reads as too strong a statement. The Constitution is law, and it (the fourth amendment) is being avoided via the Bank Secrecy Act. The Constitution supersedes any conflicting Acts of Congress.

Post reply on HN