41–50 of 76 posts
I think one day we will look back on this era, and think it is crazy that so much crime was committed in public and caught on video, and yet the government would usually not be able to take any action. They wouldn't be able to figure out who it was, and they wouldn't be able to find the criminal. One day all of these things will be taken for granted because we will capture more and more video of public spaces, and AI…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
even without tech, justice system is already ruining people's lives unjustly. so maybe we have to discuss failure rate, processes in place to correctly use the tech, instead of just saying it has to be bad ? the question is will the tech help ruin more people lives that was already the case or not or improve the odds in some cases even
> even without tech, justice system is already ruining people's lives unjustly Sure, but as with a lot of this stuff, this allows that to be done _at scale_. "[bad thing] happens anyway" isn't a great argument against "we should ban this thing where [bad thing] is likely to happen at massive frequency".
"Assistant Chief of Police of Miami, Armando Aguilar, said in 2023 that Clearview's AI tool had contributed to the resolution of several murder cases, and that his team had used the technology around 450 times a year. Aguilar emphasized that they do not make arrests based on Clearview's matches alone, and instead use the data as a lead and then proceed via conventional methods of case investigation"
Can't the government already do the same using images from identity cards, passports, etc.? Is the problem mainly because it's a private company doing it? I genuinely want to better understand this issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can also arrest the employees of the company who is breaking their laws the next time they step foot in the EU.
You're getting downvoted, but it's an interesting idea. Violating the GDPR is illegal. You can break your home country's laws when you go abroad and it's usually OK. You can smoke cannabis when you visit the Netherlands* from Ireland, for instance, and go back home to Ireland without worry. Violating GDPR is illegal. It's acceptable to arrest people who do things that are against the law. And if, say, I write a lambd…
The US is willing to prison swap terrorists with Russia, we definitely wouldn’t tolerate some EU country (that we spend billions of dollars defending) arbitrarily arresting tourists so they can hold a foreign company hostage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the problem is that a private company doing it against data privacy regulations in the EU; collecting personally identifiable information and biometrics is regulated through the GDPR, the article clearly states the issue: > The Dutch agency said that building the database and insufficiently informing people whose images appear in the database amounted to serious breaches of the European Union's General Data Prot…
> "Clearview AI does not have a place of business in the Netherlands or the EU, it does not have any customers in the Netherlands or the EU, and does not undertake any activities that would otherwise mean it is subject to the GDPR," he said. what limits do we place on countries randomly being able to make supranational claims like this? do you want every online business checking the passport of their customer? becaus…
Is the business selling to a EU citizen? If so they have to deal with the rights that citizen has.
If a company in some fictitious jurisdiction where fraud is not a crime defrauds an American citizen, should they not face American justice for it? It might be they don't have legal representation in the USA but that shouldn't stop an American citizen on bringing the issue to authorities to deal with.
It's not random, if you make business with someone in the EU or deal with the information of someone in the EU then you need to follow EU's regulations. Can't do that? Don't deal with EU's citizens data or business, it's pretty simple.
I really don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even without tech, justice system is already ruining people's lives unjustly Sure, but as with a lot of this stuff, this allows that to be done _at scale_. "[bad thing] happens anyway" isn't a great argument against "we should ban this thing where [bad thing] is likely to happen at massive frequency".
meanwhile police departments are already using that around the world, and they seem conscious about the limitations, and not using it as a 100% accuracy tool. "Assistant Chief of Police of Miami, Armando Aguilar, said in 2023 that Clearview's AI tool had contributed to the resolution of several murder cases, and that his team had used the technology around 450 times a year. Aguilar emphasized that they do not make ar…
If there was a way to read every person's thoughts in public spaces to deal with crime, so that you could know exactly who is guilty of a crime, or preparing to commit a crime beforehand, would that be a technology you'd support?
Data privacy is important, our collective rights are more important than helping the police to increase their rate of solving crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since they don't operate directly in the EU, there is not much else they can do aside from collaborating with other countries DPAs to ban any EU company from integrating with them (per the article currently only companies in the Netherlands are banned). Even the fine itself is a bit problematic because it looks like unenforceable as they don't operate in the EU thus not subject to EU law. However if it were to be dis…
They can also arrest the employees of the company who is breaking their laws the next time they step foot in the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're getting downvoted, but it's an interesting idea. Violating the GDPR is illegal. You can break your home country's laws when you go abroad and it's usually OK. You can smoke cannabis when you visit the Netherlands* from Ireland, for instance, and go back home to Ireland without worry. Violating GDPR is illegal. It's acceptable to arrest people who do things that are against the law. And if, say, I write a lambd…
Arresting tourists for crimes they did not commit is hostage taking and could be considered an act of war. The US is willing to prison swap terrorists with Russia, we definitely wouldn’t tolerate some EU country (that we spend billions of dollars defending) arbitrarily arresting tourists so they can hold a foreign company hostage.
Anyway I think you're right that the US would strongarm EU governments in to getting their way (look at privacy shield, etc.) but I still think "you're allowed to continue breaking our laws that affect people in our country while you visit us because it happens to be running on a computer you left at home" is a weak defence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arresting tourists for crimes they did not commit is hostage taking and could be considered an act of war. The US is willing to prison swap terrorists with Russia, we definitely wouldn’t tolerate some EU country (that we spend billions of dollars defending) arbitrarily arresting tourists so they can hold a foreign company hostage.
What do you mean "did not commit"? Anyway I think you're right that the US would strongarm EU governments in to getting their way (look at privacy shield, etc.) but I still think "you're allowed to continue breaking our laws that affect people in our country while you visit us because it happens to be running on a computer you left at home" is a weak defence.
> what do you mean “did not commit”
It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.
Edit: if we’re talking about an individual US citizen that’s found guilty in the EU, then the EU will go through the extradition process to have them arrested.