Clearview AI Used Your Face. Now You May Get a Stake in the Company. (nytimes.com) 40
A facial recognition start-up, accused of invasion of privacy in a class-action lawsuit, has agreed to a settlement, with a twist: Rather than cash payments, it would give a 23 percent stake in the company to Americans whose faces are in its database. From a report: Clearview AI, which is based in New York, scraped billions of photos from the web and social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram to build a facial recognition app used by thousands of police departments, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. After The New York Times revealed the company's existence in 2020, lawsuits were filed across the country. They were consolidated in federal court in Chicago as a class action.
The litigation has proved costly for Clearview AI, which would most likely go bankrupt before the case made it to trial, according to court documents. The company and those who sued it were "trapped together on a sinking ship," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing proposing the settlement. "These realities led the sides to seek a creative solution by obtaining for the class a percentage of the value Clearview could achieve in the future," added the lawyers, from Loevy + Loevy in Chicago.
Anyone in the United States who has a photo of himself or herself posted publicly online -- so almost everybody -- could be considered a member of the class. The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, which is valued at $225 million, according to court filings. (Twenty-three percent of the company's current value would be about $52 million.) If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview's revenue, which it would be required to set aside.
The litigation has proved costly for Clearview AI, which would most likely go bankrupt before the case made it to trial, according to court documents. The company and those who sued it were "trapped together on a sinking ship," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing proposing the settlement. "These realities led the sides to seek a creative solution by obtaining for the class a percentage of the value Clearview could achieve in the future," added the lawyers, from Loevy + Loevy in Chicago.
Anyone in the United States who has a photo of himself or herself posted publicly online -- so almost everybody -- could be considered a member of the class. The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, which is valued at $225 million, according to court filings. (Twenty-three percent of the company's current value would be about $52 million.) If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview's revenue, which it would be required to set aside.
and if they go bankrupt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When they go bankrupt or restructure for a buyout the 23% will be worth zero. Not even $0.02.
Re: (Score:2)
your stock will be worth about $00.02
As opposed to the $52,000,000 * 0.23 / 350,000,000 Americans ~= $0.03 per American it's worth today?
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. $52M is already 23% of the value. So it's worth more like $0.78 per American.
Story problems!
Paging Milo mindbinder (Score:2)
Shares for everyone!
Re:and if they go bankrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if they don't go bankrupt, your "stake" in the company will be worth about $12.87. Which they'll probably send you in a gift card that you're just going to stick in your desk drawer and forget about. Meanwhile, the lawyers who filed the class action lawsuit will get millions.
Lesson to be learned here... don't be the victim. Be part of the legal team suing on behalf of the victims. That's where the real money is.
You can't steal someone's privacy and expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a plausible, reasonable, healthy or sane solution to the problem.
Stock in a company with no hard assets or long term revenue is not a real asset. This is pathetic. Web 2.0 busted itself out. American's deserve a real stake, not some fake stock.
Clearview is a Thiel company, right? I have a theory that he's kinda broke. All the scams he's built are blowing up and he's the one holding the bag. He's a scammer with almost no money and ton of worthless tech stocks and about 400 million enemies. Of course he's going to try to pay off debts with stock...it's all he has.
Re: You can't steal someone's privacy and expect.. (Score:5, Informative)
Stock in a company with no hard assets or long term revenue
On top, those opposing the corporation by suing them, with this move, turn to actively supporting it to grow. This is so wrong in so many ways.
Re: (Score:2)
If this was actually allowed to happen here's how it would play: insiders would sell off all of their shares as soon as the settlement was announced which would signal a complete lack of support for the company. that would tank the value of the
Re: (Score:3)
Right!?! I didn't want my face in their system. Now I have my face in their system AND a stake in the company?!?!?
IMO, the only way that comes close to working is if they divided the entirety of the company among the stakeholders. Then the people would have majority control of the company. It could, and probably would, still go south for those who didn't want to be a part of it, but there's at least a chance they could have a say and effect change. At 23% stake divided across millions, you're just along for
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, as it is usually known these days, "Business as Usual".
Re: Let me get this straight (Score:2)
Neither commercial use without compensation, nor use in a surveillance application is considered âoefair useâ.
Sorry.
Actually an interesting alternative to a $2 check (Score:2)
My initial reaction was a skeptical huff, but the more I thought about it, it's actually an interesting thing. So many of these class action lawsuits result in a check for couple bucks. So why not something a little different? I guess it comes down to whether an action like this should be bankrupting the company as a Bad Company rather than potentially enriching the impacted class.
Still not a fan of the whole facial recognition/law enforcement/all that jargle, especially with the false positives it seems to
Not enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. AI companies will keep doing things like this if they think they can just pay out later worst case. If they are forced to start destroying the things built with personal info and data they don't own, maybe they'll start to think twice. Until then, they'll just keep doing what they're doing.
Re:Not enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be looking for the morally correct solution. There is no profit in that.
It IS possible to force this issue, but it would require ordinary people to form a political lobby and push for it, making real sacrifices and being tenacious. Nobody cares about this enough to do that, so it won't happen. And therefore, companies will violate our rights, get away with it, and give us some sort of token compensation that amounts to nothing and say "there, all good."
The root of the issue is that most people don't care about their privacy enough to fight for it. That's my main point. There will always be evil people attempting evil things for their own profit. If it's not this guy, it's someone else trying the same scheme. Our willingness to fight for what we care about is what keeps them in check. And, that willingness is not there. So, abuses like this will roll forward, one way or another.
Re: Not enough. (Score:3)
Exactly. Agree to the shares? You keep the other shareholders afloat.
Send the company into bankruptcy? Someone else will buy the assets.
Either way, itâ(TM)s a smokescreen to hide the privacy violation that persists and will persist until these databases and models are destroyed.
Forced marriage (Score:2)
With all due respect to victims of actual rape, Isn't this somewhat analagous to being forced to marry your rapist?
Re: Forced marriage (Score:2)
That's a bad analogy because it would be worth it.
catch 22 (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot find out if you are a member of the class without giving Clearview AI your picture.
Re: (Score:2)
In my case, the answer is closer to "maybe" but I do not want to find out. I'm fairly certain my state DMV has not worked with ClearView AI. There are very few if any pictures of me online and possibly none with my name attached. I can think of a couple of others ways via government records that could do it.
You did WHAT now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Though maybe "prosecutor" is the wrong word? Litigator? Solicitor? IANAL.
Also, I am not a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Ambulance-chaser
Bloodsucker
Bottom-feeder
Attorneys taking 39% (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont want a stake in this (Score:4)
I want it destroyed as if it never existed
Profile Pics (Score:1)
This is why I haven't had a profile pic on anything in over a decade.
How do I find out. (Score:3)
...if I'm now a stockholder? Where's my snail-mail documentation?
There's one kind of stake I'd like to hold (Score:2)
No thanks (Score:2)
Let's just bankrupt the company. Problem solved.
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
First they steal my face... now, instead of paying it's victims for the crime, they are offering to sign you up as a share holder, where they would then have on file a ton of additional personal information on me, for synthetic money with no real value?
Oh eat these rich mf'ers! Let's have a fricken feast with them!
Fatal irony (Score:2)
Ctrl+F Dilution (Score:1)