CBP signs Clearview AI deal to use face recognition for 'tactical targeting' • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by Manuel_D » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 6:08 PM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #166

Manuel_D wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Groups did sue after the Bank Secrecy Act, and the cases went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that it did not violate the constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act > Shortly after passage, several groups attempted to have the courts rule the law unconstitutional, claiming it violated both Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure, and Fifth Amendm…

(1) KYC requirements have changed significantly since 1974, so as applied findings in 1974 won't apply to what we're referring to today. (2) SCOTUS wrote the bank customers (rather than the bankers in the suit) themselves likely didn't have standing in that suite, which meant the decision was based more around whether the banks had their rights violated. I am not arguing that the bank had its rights violated and even…

At this point you've stopped attempting to argue that banking's information collection requirements is "avoiding" the law, and instead have pivoted to speculation about whether the Supreme Court might reinterpret the Constitution such that it prohibits this kind of data collection mandates.

But until such a ruling from the Supreme Court is made, the previous ruling is the law of the land. So as I said: it's not the government avoiding a law by acting through a third party, you just don't like the law. And it sounds like you don't disagree.

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

#172

Post by mothballed » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #171

mothballed wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) KYC requirements have changed significantly since 1974, so as applied findings in 1974 won't apply to what we're referring to today. (2) SCOTUS wrote the bank customers (rather than the bankers in the suit) themselves likely didn't have standing in that suite, which meant the decision was based more around whether the banks had their rights violated. I am not arguing that the bank had its rights violated and even…

At this point you've stopped attempting to argue that banking's information collection requirements is "avoiding" the law, and instead have pivoted to speculation about whether the Supreme Court might reinterpret the Constitution such that it prohibits this kind of data collection mandates. But until such a ruling from the Supreme Court is made, the previous ruling is the law of the land. So as I said: it's not the g…

I'm arguing the statutory law as applied today is avoiding the constitution, which is the supreme law. That is, the government is ignoring the supreme law by acting through a 3rd party. This doesn't "pivot" from my original position. Claiming so just allows you to "pivot" around my 4 points, and "avoid" addressing the inconvenience of their existence with a thought terminating quip that it just boils down to I "don't like the law".

You're "speculating" that a SCOTUS decision from 1974 applies to KYC today which has changed significantly since the passing of the BSA to a much more expanded search of your papers, updated significantly post 9/11. Moreover, the ruling you cite claims they didn't even think the clients themselves had standing in that suite, which reduces the strength of your argument since my assertion was that the clients were having their rights violated and your cited case largely contemplated whether the bankers had their rights violated.

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

#173

Post by koolba » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 11:40 PM UTC

scarecrowbob wrote: post #169

koolba wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way? A business can refuse to service any individual as long as it’s not a direct violation of things like civil rights laws.

It's possible to understand these things as "civil rights", unless you have a very narrow and likely pejorative understanding of the term.

Rights don’t entirely disappear because a group of individuals decides to form a collective entity. That’s the heart of the Citizen’s United decision. If an individual can aggregate data about his customers and make a decision to not serve a known offender, then surely a group of individuals can do the same. That’s their right.

Again, this is not discrimination if it’s done for specific individuals, even if it’s done using data collected in aggregate. Banning a protected group wouldn’t be illegal. But banning a specific person would not.

Whether it’s legal to sell that same data as a list of undesirables is the open untested question.

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

#174

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 15, 2026, 10:22 AM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #75

_3u10 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will be wildly unpopular with both parties and most importantly their constituents. I doubt even the libertarian party should they get the president, house and senate could pull it off

What do you mean "even" the libertarian party? Libertarians would remove whatever existing laws there are around facial recognition so that companies are free to do whatever they like with the data.

[deleted]