Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy

Facial Recognition Database With 3 Billion Scraped Images 'Might End Privacy as We Know It' (muckrock.com) 86

Posted by EditorDavid from the recognizing-facial-recognition dept.
One police detective bragged that photos "could be covertly taken with a telephoto lens" then input into Clearview AI's database of more than three billion scraped images to immediately identify suspects.

Long-time Slashdot reader v3rgEz writes: For the past year, government transparency non-profits and Open the Government have been digging into how local police departments around the country use facial recognition. The New York Times reports on their latest discovery: That a Peter Thiel-backed startup Clearview has scraped Facebook, Venmo, and dozens of other social media sites to create a massive, unregulated tool for law enforcement to track where you were, who you were with, and more, all with just a photo.

Read the Clearview docs yourself and file a request in your town to see if your police department is using it.
The Times describes Clearview as "the secretive company that might end privacy as we know it," with one of the company's early investors telling the newspaper that because information technology keeps getting more powerful, he's concluded that "there's never going to be privacy."

He also expresses his belief that technology can't be banned, then acknowledges "Sure, that might lead to a dystopian future or something, but you can't ban it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facial Recognition Database With 3 Billion Scraped Images 'Might End Privacy as We Know It' More

Facial Recognition Database With 3 Billion Scraped Images 'Might End Privacy as We Know It'

Comments Filter:

  • ...and there's nothing you can do about it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @04:42PM (#59633390)

    because the company quite lawfully scrape images that the "concerned" populace itself has willfully uploaded. And as we all know, anything put on the internet is as good as public.

    In other words, the title should read: "Idiot Facebookers might end the privacy they don't give a flying fuck about in the first place."

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As a European Data Subject, I wonder what would happen if I were to throw a GDPR Request at privacy-requests@clearview.ai ?

      • Do it!

      • Canadians can also do that, since they have a Constitutional Right of Privacy, as do citizens of a few US states - such as Washington State.

      • As a European Data Subject I was wondering the exact same thing.

        As well as what part of the long arm statute prohibiting processing my data for purposes other than it was originally submitted seems to have escaped Clearview's notice - and this is a criminal matter in most EU countries.

        I'd say Clearview executives - and anyone buying their data or buying derivatives of their data might find themselves facing Interpol Red notices shortly.

        Of course the fun part of CHALLENGING long arm statutes like this is tha

    • Just because that data is publicly available does not mean that it’s legal to scrape, combine and process that data. Here in Europe many countries figured that out over 2 decades ago and put that into legislation to which the state itself (including law enforcement) is subject. We’ve had laws for ages to govern under what conditions data sources may be combined, and to what extent data may be used for purposes other than what it was collected for.

      • Here in europe [...]

        Which is why Clearview AI, Inc. is based out of New York,NY. and not subject to european laws.

        • Great, at least that means that they won't expand here.

        • Let me introduce you to the concept of Long-Arm statutes.

          They're well established in US law and upheld by US courts.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]

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

          The GDPR skeleton laws (the ones which the actual countries use to enact law in individual states) in Europe were written specifically to ensure they fall within the established US precedents, so any company relying on being beyond jurisdiction is in for a very rude awakening

      • The confusion arises from a private company offering services specifically for law enforcement. As the 4th Amendment strictly expresses that any Person of the United States is free from unreasonable searches and seizures, does this same freedom extend to the actions 3rd party security companies?

        • If you just accept a straightforward reading of the text of the 4th amendment, it certainly does. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Nothing anywhere in the amendment restricts that to searches by the government. It should apply equally well to an unreasonable search by the police, a private security company, your landlord, or anyone else.

          Unfortunately, the courts haven't interpreted it

          • The key here is "acting as a government agent", means at the explicit request of a government agency.

            what these clowns are doing is acting at their own behest and attempting to sell the results to govenrment agencies... I know, it SEEMS like the same thing, but it's really not.

            sigh

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        In the US, the only thing that matters is companies being able to make money. Your "rights" stop where some company could make a buck off of you. It really is a dystopian nightmare, already.
        • I don't believe that is the case. This question has not been answered in any court in any rightful manner. No one has addressed whether 3rd party, private security companies are limited by Constitutional protections or not. Their sole business is to provide LEO with data, and LEO are limited by the Constitution, so if the businesses are providing data solely for LEO, then why are they not limited as well by the Constitution?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re "put that into legislation to which the state itself (including law enforcement) is subject."...

        EU laws dont work over the NSA, GCHQ.. DEA.. CIA... New Zealand ... Canada...
        The "law enforcement" in EU nations can keep saying they are 100% under EU legislation...
        People living in the EU may well be 100% protected from any EU nations "law enforcement" collection...
        Thats their own EU nation and all other "EU nation" they move around in...
        The USA is not the EU...
        Move outside the EU? That protection

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Mate, your GDPR protections aren't worth the paper they're written on. Even the EU Commission screws up contracts with Microsoft [slashdot.org] and they're supposed to be the legal entity responsible for vetting and signing-off on GDPR in the first place.

    • I just want the one where I can snap a pic of dat ass and find her Insta. I'd be okay with surveillance if I had that.

    • Not just willfully uploaded. Idiots keep tagging pictures as me on their Facebook accounts. I'm sure that is being used too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Holi ( 250190 )
      How can you lawfully use someones pictures in your commercial enterprise without their permission? Sounds like copyright infringement to me.

  • Weâ(TM)re afraid weâ(TM)ll be seen typing comments and lose our anonymity..I bet this system will identify my account name instead of anonymous coward.

  • Your only hope (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @04:44PM (#59633398)

    is to become a member of the Screen Actors Guild and have them represent you whenever your image is used without your permission.

    I guess posting selfies to the Internet, without a mask or some kind of filter was always going to be the end of privacy. Thanks narcissus.

  • Will have to move Peter Thiel up... (Score:3)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @04:52PM (#59633404)
    to the top spot of my Privacy Rapists [slashdot.org] chart, as "Privacy Rapist 0.0".

  • Turnaround (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ann Coulter ( 614889 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @04:57PM (#59633414)

    How would cops react if there is a publicly available facial recognition database of cops?

    • How would cops react if there is a publicly available facial recognition database of cops?

      How about politicians, their families, and employees of these companies?

    • "How would cops react if there is a publicly available facial recognition database of cops?"

      You can photograph or film any cop in public space or buildings and post it online.
      Civil servants on duty have no right of privacy whatsoever.

      Funnily this is only if you plan to publish it and not keeping the recordings for your private amusement so be sure to say that you plan to publish it.

      Also, be sure to stream it directly, so that no deletion in the field is possible.

      If you are lucky, some stupid cop might not

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      People all over the USA do First Amendment audits all the time in the USA...
      They have that "freedom" in the USA...
      On the DEA, FBI... any mil base, mil contractors ... state and city police...
      Social media and video upload sites are full of the years of results..
      Some with journalist credentials end up in handcuffs in small tows .. only to quickly be rebased when elected officials understand words like "live stream".
      Most police, private security guards, gov workers, "building managers" and ex/former poli

  • Massive copyright violation? (Score:3)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @05:13PM (#59633440)
    So, if they use these images, scraped from sites, etc. and use them for purposes other than the original purpose of the pictures (say, a staff picture from a company's "About" page), would that not constitute copyright violation?

    • Re:Massive copyright violation? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @05:24PM (#59633470)

      Yes, it would. Time to start registering copyright on your photos in places like the US, and then look forward to extracting all the damages? Best case, you get rich at the expense of scum. Worst case, you demonstrate that there are limits on the applicability of the statutory damages awards that US copyright law enables, making it harder for Big Media to extort money from people by threatening to ruin their lives.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sebby ( 238625 )

        Best case, you get rich at the expense of scum. Worst case, you demonstrate that there are limits on the applicability of the statutory damages awards that US copyright law enables, making it harder for Big Media to extort money from people by threatening to ruin their lives.

        I like the way you think!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sebby ( 238625 )

        Yes, it would. Time to start registering copyright on your photos in places like the US, and then look forward to extracting all the damages? Best case, you get rich at the expense of scum. Worst case, you demonstrate that there are limits on the applicability of the statutory damages awards that US copyright law enables, making it harder for Big Media to extort money from people by threatening to ruin their lives.

        And add Peter Thiel to the lawsuits since, by providing financial support, he's contributing to that copyright infringement.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Holi ( 250190 )
        Copyright is automatic, no need to register anything

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sique ( 173459 )
      Sadly no. Only if they either publish the pictures per se or a derivative work of them. If they for instance would make the database public, it would be a copyright violation. It is not, if they only use them internally. Searching them with queries law enforcement gives them and then giving out the results (e.g. "Suspect can be seen in N.Y. on a picture posted Jan 18th 2020") to law enforcement only would not be a copyright violation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sebby ( 238625 )

        Sadly no. Only if they either publish the pictures per se or a derivative work of them. If they for instance would make the database public, it would be a copyright violation. It is not, if they only use them internally. Searching them with queries law enforcement gives them and then giving out the results (e.g. "Suspect can be seen in N.Y. on a picture posted Jan 18th 2020") to law enforcement only would not be a copyright violation.

        I don't know if it could really be applied that way. Apple got sued [cnet.com] because they made a derivative of a picture into an ad (and indirectly republished it too), but didn't otherwise "sell" the image.

        However in this case, the images are re-used to "sell" a service, without the copyright owner's explicit permission (or even knowledge). Doesn't that fall under copyright infringement?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sique ( 173459 )
          If they put the picture in an advertisement, the advertisement is a derivative work and thus a violation of the holder's copyright.

          Answering a question is no Work of Art and thus no derivative work at all, because of not being a Work of Art to begin with, as it is missing the creative act. And thus answering questions law enforcement has would not be in violation of anyone's copyright. It would also not be a violation of Copyright if you tell how many persons are visible in Picasso's "Les femmes d'Algers"

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Sebby ( 238625 )

            Let me rephrase another way (because re-reading my post even to me doesn't make the point I was trying to make clear):M

            Without pictures, the service is worthless, and so not "valuable" (can't derive profits from it). So they scrape pictures, without copyright owner's consent/knowledge.

            Now that they have pictures they've "acquired", they offer a paid "search" service against said pictures, which they collect money for and keep the profits to themselves, and themselves only.

            My point here is, given that they

            • Copyright is about... rights to copy. Not to look at and use the image in your mind. I can't print copies of, say, an Andy Warhol painting without permission, but nothing's stopping me from training an AI that hey, that's a Campbell's Soup can even if the colors are all strange.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Sebby ( 238625 )

                Copyright is about... rights to copy. Not to look at and use the image in your mind. I can't print copies of, say, an Andy Warhol painting without permission, but nothing's stopping me from training an AI that hey, that's a Campbell's Soup can even if the colors are all strange.

                Yeah, but how do you train that AI for that person's image? You need that picture. How do you acquire it?

                Keep in mind that I'm focusing on the copyright aspect, not specifically about someone's image ("image" being what a person looks like vs. a photo). I'm not arguing the case of them using data to train AI, more how they obtained that data (in the form of pictures they had to obtain, which likely have copyright on them), and are profiting from it, potentially in violation of copyright law (isn't there so

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Sique ( 173459 )
              In most cases, you are allowed to make private copies of public works. If you look at pictures in Facebook, you are making private copies all the time (the copy your browser makes to render the picture on your graphic card for instance). The scraping of the picture is per se legal. Even run them through you AI is. You are not allowed to redistribute the private copies though, but nowhere in the article it states that Clearview sends the pictures to Law Enforcement. They just send statements about them like:
    • Copyright does not affect what you can do with the copyright work. If you want to set fire to your Disney Blu-Ray collection, or print out pictures of the princesses and past them to your dartboard, or use facial recognition on screen captures of all the characters to rank them by similarity, you can. Copyright won't stop you from doing it. You just can't re-distribute the movies. (Note that playing them in a public venue constitutes redistribution so you need a special license for public performance, wh
  • My local and county LEO's catch plenty of criminals. Trouble is, they are back on the streets in less than 24 hours.

  • Oh joy (Score:3)

    by De_Boswachter ( 905895 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @05:24PM (#59633466) Homepage
    Insane Clown Posse make-up will come into fashion. Great.
    • Looking at footage of some of the rallies at colleges to protest whatever, I thought that already was the fashion.
  • Did most people not know what gov and mil would do with years of user uploaded images, friends and friends of friends?
    Year after year during "eduction", that "holiday", the politics... while "working"... after "work" .. some party... a hobby... the charity work..

    Every face going back to the start of early "social media"...

    Why? No gov/mil wants to face a digital "Cherbourg Project" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] with another nations experts wondering around a city without getting detected.
    ie the

  • Why can't we ban it? It's large and centralize It only works effectively if it is widely available and known. Seems easy to ban, imo.

  • If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sebby ( 238625 )

      If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

      To quote Snowden:

      Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say,

    • Cardinal Richelieu would disagree. And, there are plenty of CR's running around.

  • MyFace (Score:3)

    by tquasar ( 1405457 ) on Saturday January 18, 2020 @08:21PM (#59633766)
    I have never posted to social media. If a friend or foe has I'm screwed. My Sis has the brain of a carrot, she shares email and pics we share with anyone. Is it possible to have a low profile today?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Has a far larger dataset and can recognize fuzzy pictures of my son facing sideways and down.

  • Start taking people from other random photos and add them to yours. Suddenly you could be friends with the Woz, Pope, Putin, QE II, Bob Smith, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Close