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

Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#51

Post by Teever »

yadaeno wrote: post #49
CalRobert wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We’re talking about xx million dollar dispute between allied countries, it’s not a reasonable method of conflict resolution to start throwing people in cages that work for x company until the EU gets their way. > 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…

This isn't a dispute between the two countries, it's a dispute between the law enforcement of one country, and the people they're accusing of breaking the law from another country.

> It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.

Is it really so simple? Is all that the cartels missing to avoid persecution from the US gov't simply incorporating in their home state? Of course not.

Imagine that offered death by drones. You tell 'em who you want killed and they mail a package containing a drone that pops out and kills the person when it's delivered. Would it be reasonable to say "Yeah we can't arrest anyone from that company when they come to our country because they incorporated in another jurisdiction?"

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#52

Post by Teever »

ronsor wrote: post #25
Teever wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really so unreasonable to expect that countries prosecute people who commit crimes against their citizens with expectation of impunity the next time they visit their country? You're proposing an alternative where people can just commit crimes with no recourse from the victims simply because a border exists somewhere and they commit the crimes on one side of the border. Would you expect it to be reasonable for C…

> Would you expect it to be reasonable for Canadian citizens to be shooting at Americans on the border and it unreasonable for American authorities to arrest them if they came to America? Physical violence is incomparable to working at a company that did something that would be illegal in a certain jurisdiction. Should the person maintaining Clearview's website be arrested in the EU simply because they work there?

What do you suggest as an alternative? That we live in a world where people can evade legal prosecution simply by incorporating or working for a company that incorporated?

Why isn't violent crime comparable to stalking crime? Why is it socially acceptable to hoard personal information about someone and pictures of them as long as someone does it under the auspices of a business but it's creepy and weird to do it as a lone-wolf stalker type? Maybe they're both terrible and creepy business models and the EU is right to prosecute anyone who does it, articles of incorporation or not.

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#53

Post by yadaeno »

Teever wrote: post #51
yadaeno wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re talking about xx million dollar dispute between allied countries, it’s not a reasonable method of conflict resolution to start throwing people in cages that work for x company until the EU gets their way. > 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…

This isn't a dispute between the two countries, it's a dispute between the law enforcement of one country, and the people they're accusing of breaking the law from another country. > It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for. Is it really so simple? Is all that the cartels missing to avoid persecution from the US gov't simply inco…

If the EU wants to arrest someone they can submit an extradition request which the US will approve or deny after reviewing. The EU can also already arrest individuals whom are found to be criminals.

You are suggesting a totally new weapon for EU law enforcement which is to imprison individuals who are not found guilty of a crime because they work for a company that owes the EU money. That sounds a bit insane to me, I think if the EU wants to collect their fine they should find a more diplomatic approach that does not equate to a literal war crime [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#54

Post by Teever »

yadaeno wrote: post #53
Teever wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a dispute between the two countries, it's a dispute between the law enforcement of one country, and the people they're accusing of breaking the law from another country. > It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for. Is it really so simple? Is all that the cartels missing to avoid persecution from the US gov't simply inco…

If the EU wants to arrest someone they can submit an extradition request which the US will approve or deny after reviewing. The EU can also already arrest individuals whom are found to be criminals. You are suggesting a totally new weapon for EU law enforcement which is to imprison individuals who are not found guilty of a crime because they work for a company that owes the EU money. That sounds a bit insane to me, I…

The flaw in your line of thinking is that it is legal and very common place to arrest people who are suspected of committing a crime.

We're talking about people who have suspected of committing a crime in the EU. Should they step foot in the EU the EU is free to arrest suspects of a crime and they can get their day in court.

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#55

Post by ryanisnan »

mike_d wrote: post #36
htrp wrote: post #28

From the actual article: >[Clearview Chief Legal Officer] Mulcaire said in his statement that Clearview doesn't fall under EU data protection regulations. >"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. ------------- >The Dutch…

Clearview is a perfect example of how to avoid EU-nexus. They don't have any corporate presence, employees, assets, or customers in the EU. They are even careful to only pull photos from US based servers. Because they only do facial matching on photos, they have no idea if someone is or is not an EU citizen. To seek any sort of judgement or criminal charge against them the EU would need to find an applicable law in t…

Why is the burden of proof on the users? Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on Clearview? They should be required to know that a person is in a place they can legally operate before doing so.

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#56

Post by sensanaty »

ronsor wrote: post #9
Teever wrote: post #7

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.

This is not a practice you want to normalize.

I think you'll find most people would be more than happy to see a few scummy C-suites landing behind bars. I certainly welcome it and can't wait for the day when these psychopaths actually get punished for their greedy behaviour.

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#57

Post by sensanaty »

briandw wrote: post #12

If having a facial recognition system of your citizens is immoral, then maybe the Netherlands government shouldn't have one either? Are the facial recognition systems of the Netherlands auditable? How can anyone be certain that they aren't being abused and used for political persecution?

I trust the Dutch government infinitely more than any US corporate entity.

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#58

Post by Teever »

doh wrote: post #17
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Sends a strong message; and also forces employees to think about what they are doing instead of passing the buck. This is also not like some stupid patent dispute or DMA compliance argument. These employees are directly responsible for stockpiling personal identities of millions of people for the express purposes of making the surveillance efforts of their government easier. That's a very political action, w…

There are 27 countries in EU with different motives, morals, interests, etc. Just because you agree with the decision of one country in one instance it doesn't mean you would agree with them all. But once you give them the powers it's impossible to take them back. It's a bad slippery slope.

Just to be clear here, your issue is with the number of member states in the EU?

In other words you would be fine with Canada arresting employees of Clearview if they tried to enter the country after Canada deemed them profiting members of an organization that was breaking the law in Canada?

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#59

Post by hcfman »

swyx wrote: post #22
piva00 wrote: post #16

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…

So does that mean it’s intelligence services never get a face match done ?

How would you know if they have no customers here, do you think their intelligence services would tell you ? In the past the head of Dutch intelligence lied to the government about mass surveillance. Even if it was true, guaranteed they would simple send their photos to American counterparts to run.

This is just democracy theatre in reality.

Re: Clearview AI faces $45.6M fine in the Netherlands for 'illegal database of faces

#60

Post by arlort »

fsndz wrote: post #31
arlort wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's a potential misuse of that technology ? Off the top of my head it telling that someone is a criminal when they aren't and ruining their lives

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

then you should not ask "what is a possible misuse of this [facial recognition to catch criminals] technology?" but some more nuanced question

As for the rest of your argument, even if we take as a given that there is cases where facial recognition could be helpful, I'd say that if a company can't be trusted not to illegally develop their products it can hardly be trusted to respect strict standards when their products are in use

Post reply on HN