The "moat" in this case would be overwhelming legislative action, criminalizing Clearview and its ilk out of existence. The law (supposedly) exists to ensure and protect the commonweal, and we should apply it instead of sitting on our hands and lamenting the market's unwillingness to self-legislate.

That probably won't happen, of course.

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm very pro-privacy. I don't so much object to certain technologies or data collection; the cat is out of the bag to some extent. I do object to the conspicuous lack of regulatory frameworks. For instance, if you're going to use Clearview on a suspected terrorist my first question would be, "What due diligence and groundwork have you done to prove that they are in fact a terrorist?" If it's a known member of the Taliban who has a Twitter account that regularly calls for death to Americans, is that enough -- or is that some kind of edgy free speech? My point being, I'd like a very high bar to use these technologies and I'd like for them to be, mostly, used in apprehension rather than intelligence gathering.

> "What due diligence and groundwork have you done to prove that they are in fact a terrorist?"

The solution is to make this question their (Clearview) problem. If you are offering a service that makes damaging claims about people, then you need to be liable for any related damages if that claim is later found to be slander/libel.

The risk of a potentially huge ruling/settlement will be handled the same way it is handled in other professions: by paying for liability/malpractice insurance. Eventually, the insurance companies will handle the question of due diligence.

Unless you make a new liability law that is pretty specific to this use case, I don't think it's very possible to make slander/libel damages for it, especially considering the US's 1st amendment laws.

Clear view probably today says "I think this is %90 likely to be person X, but I could be wrong" in their UI. That turns it into opinion.

The regulation for this is not libel.

I would suspect in such cases they would have a 'case file' on such an individual. Perhaps it ought to be to the extent it would pass any reasonable jury in a court of law - I would be very surprised if this system isn't merely an addition to their existing toolset to help them validate/process data (perhaps as a verification system? finding individuals they are looking for?)

Here in Australia we are continually passing laws removing judicial/court/judge oversight for things and replacing it with whimsical oversight you’re lucky if someone outside of the requesting organisation looks at it. It’s pissing me off :(

Australia's rapid dismantling of any checks and balances is extremely concerning. It's also something of a bipartisan stance, the only real pushback tends to come from independents and minor parties.

The cat is out of the bag? So unleash the dogs!

this only works in one country at a time, you can rest assured that other governments have your face tucked away in a datacenter

Sure. I'll work on fixing the place I live, sleep, and eat for the time being. Liechtenstein can wait!

But can the other Five Eyes states wait? Offshoring outlawed domestic surveillance to allies seems to be the name of the game now.

I'm not confident that anything will stop US military and defense intelligence (which is completely distinct from the FBI, as a domestic LEO) from doing shady things.

Instead of worrying about how they're going to get around the law (they can do parallel construction on the Moon, for all I care), I'd prefer to have a sufficiently big punishment waiting for them when the public finally learns about it.

Time will punish them. As it did with any imperium in the past, as it will until the last ape on this space rock has ushered their last breadth.

Time is lord of all of us. Peasants and emperors alike

There is no evidence that this happens, and it is illegal for the US government to ask another country to spy on its citizens. If it happened, the resulting lawsuits would make headlines for weeks, and there would be forced resignations.

> There is no evidence that this happens ...

Didn't the Snowden documents and various things from that point give evidence that it _does_ happen?

GP found HN that year, might have missed the headlines.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosu...

Point me to any document that says the US asks other countries to spy on its citizens.

No. Nothing in Snowden's leaks showed this happening. If anything did, there would have been lawsuits. People believe there were a lot of things in those leaks that weren't actually there.

Other governments lack the ability to take my property, take my freedom, or take my life.

FBI has the ability, with a single action, to ruin any resident's of the US life, I think that is significantly more worrisome than if Russia or China has my face unless I lived in Russia or China

I didn't down-vote you as I believe views like this should be stated but responded to properly. Your safety from foreign governments is not guaranteed even if you live within the borders of the United States. A perfect example of this is a post by someone else here on Hacker News pertaining to the tools that the Chinese government uses to identify dissidents outside of their borders.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/31/business/china-internet-p...

Nothing in that story seems to concern me or most US Citizens, if you are a Chinese citizen living in the US, attended a US University then return home sure you should be concerned and I do not condone the actions of China. However I am a Natural Born US Citizen, and I have no plans or desire to ever visit China, Russia, or even Europe

And lets be real here. FBI is not much different, and has more direct control over people in the US than the china bogey man you are attempting to peddle

>>You will certainly live an uneventful, forgettable life with that attitude.

That is the dream, and desire. I want a uneventful, drama free, peaceful existence. Nor do I have the desire to leave a "legacy" or be remembered in anyway, I can not understand the desire for celebrity.

>>It is clear that you add very little value in the future of humanity overall. That in itself isn't condemnable.

lol, yes I am sure your contributions will change the world. Narcissism much?

>>What is however is your blatant disregard for others with your selfish statements.

My statements are realist. My statements are based on the reality of the world, I am not sure why you believe my statements are a "disregard for others" in my acknowledgement of the fact that in my situation the FBI is more of a threat to me than CCP, where as the CCP is more of a threat to a Chinese national than the FBI.

That is a statement of fact, your denial of this fact does not change reality

>>I hope to never encounter you again on HN as your world view is very limited. Period.

Feel free to ignore reality at your own peril

This is the problem today. A bunch of ignorant people are making statements and trying to force others to believe that it is the truth. You are just a casualty of your grandiose perception of your opinion.

All of your responses actually reek of your narcissistic tendencies. I choose to ignore your perception of reality due to the simple fact that making statements of absolutes just by assuming that what you believe to be the truth and others should fall in line with your truth is flawed.

That is why classified systems exist, they act as a last ditch mechanism to ensure that the ruling class isn't inconvenienced by silly things like "the law". How many people have been locked up for lying to Congress about their illegal activities at the NSA? What about the people at the FBI who knowingly misrepresented evidence while renewing secret FISA court surveillance orders? You remember the so called "Satanic Panic" in the late 80's? Did you know that documents were declassified last year proving that it wasn't a silly conservative overreaction to Iron Maiden, but something that was actually happening - and the CIA was (for whatever reason) coordinating the media's handling of events? Do you think the law hindered those government employees assisting in the trafficking of those children, or saw to their punishment? Nope.

> You remember the so called "Satanic Panic" in the late 80's? Did you know that documents were declassified last year proving that it wasn't a silly conservative overreaction to Iron Maiden, but something that was actually happening

[citation needed]

These are the keywords you are interested in: The Finders, FBI, CIA memo to NBC, North Korea visa. It has been my experience that the more effort one puts into sharing something like this with a stranger on the internet - the more easily it is dismissed. You've got a few hundred pages of declassified documents waiting for you, do the work or don't - it really depends on the sincerity of your "citation needed".

I honestly have no idea how truthful any of this is. If experience has taught me anything, it's that conspiracy theories like this are largely bullshit. Thank you for at least providing me somewhere to start though.

huh, you'd think that the last few years would have sufficiently chastened the kind of people who reflexively characterize things as "conspiracy theories"... :)

No, not really.

Yeah, you're right - it was definitely bat soup and Adam Schiff will be releasing that evidence of watersport hijinks any day now.

> That is why classified systems exist

This is historically as well as prima facie inaccurate. Yes, classification is abused. No, that is not why it was created nor why it is maintained.

Why it was created? I don't think anyone could offer more than guess. Why it is maintained? lol. First, we could get a lot more specific about the kinds of classification and the distinguishing characteristics... but I think we can get away with this: broadly speaking there are two kinds - tactical and strategic. Tactical is almost always SECRET (sometimes with a further qualifier like NOFOR) and below. This is stuff that is very time sensitive. For example: Manning's SIPRNET data dump. It makes sense to protect this information for a short period of time, no more than 2 years - as declassification would only skyline bad actors. Strategic (everything above SECRET) is where are all the highly illegal stuff that would cause a massive amount of backlash is hidden. For example: all of the Snowden/Greenwald releases. Sure, there are some long running strategic programs that could be argued needs protection... but to a degree that justifies the entire security apparatus? No, that is the whole reason why nukes are suited to their purpose - the barrier to entry is far higher than getting your hands on some schematics.

Clandestine sources always pale in comparison to open source collection, when the objective is the truth - not some concealed agenda. So, the idea that the status quo is maintained for any other reason than concealing bad behavior is laughable - we know that it doesn't do what it purports to do.

Yes, this.

Legislation and regulation operate on the basis of finding some viable point of control or enforcement.

The devices are ... ubiquitous. Collection all but certainly cannot be stopped.

What can be controlled is:

- The collection, solicitation, retention, sale, purchase, or transacting of the images, data, or access to each.

- Voiding of any contractual obligations concerning same. Any such business would literally be outside the law.

- Development of technologies or training sets concerning such data.

- Validity of any such data or conclusions derived from it in courts of law.

- Any business decisionmaking based on such data. Protected by whistleblower laws.

As a start.

Standalone collection, security footage recordings, and the like might be permitted with some limited retention period (say, 1--3 months), but restricting any aggregation of such data. Individual images could be taken. Posting identifiable images online without the freely-given willing consent of subjects should be sharply limited. Yes, that includes children. Compelling public-interest exceptions might exist.

The biggest challenge will be totalitarian surveillance states which practice and cultivate such surveillance, and which drive further technology and practices both within and beyond their own borders. That is a problem whcih inherently goes beyond mere law, and always has.

Privacy is the ability to express and enforce limitations on access to and distribution of information of, by, or about you. It is an emergent principle, and its own scope and definition expand precisely as information technologies do. In an age of speech, it concerns gossip, hearsay, and slander. In an age of print, libel. It has expanded with photography, telephony, improved optics and sensing (long lenses, infrared imaging, microwave scanning of structures), and with ever-expanding data storage, processing, and distribution.

In response to an earlier discussion where it was asserted that concerns over privacy in information technology are somehow a post-1980s phenomenon,[1] I compiled a list of notable persons in the field who'd voiced concern earlier, one of the most notable being Paul Baran, a co-inventor of packet-switched networks whilst working at RAND in the 1960s. At my request, his RAND monographs are now freely accessible to the public:

Paul Baran:

- "On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy"

- "On the Future Computer Era: Modification of the American Character and the Role of the Engineer, or, A Little Caution in the Haste to Number"

- "The Coming Computer Utility -- Laissez-Faire, Licensing, or Regulation?"

- "Remarks on the Question of Privacy Raised by the Automation of Mental Health Records"

- "Some Caveats on the Contribution of Technology to Law Enforcement"

Largely written/published 1967--1969.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/b/baran_paul.html

I've listed additional authors and references here:

https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105074933053020193

________________________________

Notes:

1. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24745246

Here’s the best description I’ve heard of why that’s a bad idea. It basically goes (paraphrased):

> Q: What would happen if you could look at someone and know who they are and where they live or work?

> A: A lot of women would die.

Google maps has some safeguards like certain areas have no imagery but really the biggest thing is it’s not fine detailed enough to be a threat to anybody. In fact, US law prevents (IIRC) sub-meter pixels on commercial satellite imagery.

In the US, most women who become violent crime victims are victimized by someone they know. More men are victimized by "stranger danger." At least according to the FBI’s uniform crime report. I’m skeptical this proposal would change existing crime patterns much.

Has anyone tried suing Clearview for copyright infringement? It seems like wouldn't have a legal right to be using these images.

If they are making false claims about you that cause serious damage to your reputation (like telling the FBI you look like a terrorist), then sue them for libel.

Wouldn't you have to prove you don't look like a terrorist?

Clearview is probably saying that if you convert an image, or set of images, of a person to vector(s) then there are some similar vectors that are associated with a terrorist. If they are saying it, it's because it's probably true in their implementation.

I probably do look like a terrorist somewhere. The problem isn't identifying that person and associating them with me, the problem is treating that information as significant, and that's on the FBI (in your hypothetical scenario).

I would guess they would cite transformative use.

> So Clearview has a database of billions of faces scraped from the internet, and sells subscriptions to match photos on that data.

I fully expect a class action lawsuit for Illinois residents soon. They need explicit opt in for biometric collection, regardless of how they obtained their photos.

See In Re: Clearview AI, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation (1:21-cv-00135)

I think that one potential solution would be for the SCOTUS (who has made very wrong decisions in the past) to rule that third-party information is protected and requires a warrant just like entering your home. The decision to allow warrantless requests from businesses was a major error (or, maybe, malicious decision) in my view.

Step 2 is to ban such activity or rule that it is copyright infringement. And to maybe admit that scraping needs more guardrails and regulation.

Maybe we should just leverage the existing copyright penalties our beloved MPAA and RIAA lobbied so hard for? What is it... 15 years in jail and $250,000 fine per violation? Isn't that what the scare screens on DVDs always warned me about? If they're claiming 1B photos they've scraped and violated copyright on...

Rule #1 (as famously learned by SpaceX and Tesla) about doing new and risky things: Don't ask permission. Deal with the consequences later. They'll probably be smaller than if you had asked.

Billions of faces sure. How many of those are duplicates? How many of each person do they have and in what quality? A low res snap from a traffic camera is useless.

To distinguish individuals you need a lot of data.

I'm sorry, but this is a horrible take. I don't want every Joe Schmoe to have this capability in their back pocket. I can't even trust vetted people who have been elected into power to use it responsibly. Why on earth would I trust the drunk creep at the local dive with it? This is like saying every household in America should have an M1 Abrams because their value would rapidly decrease and therefore they'll be less dangerous.

Of course we can. A few nukes in the stratosphere will do the trick.

On a more serious note: I agree. Everyone should have that ability, then the worth decreases rapidly.

Still some players could act on the info more aggressively than others, but it would level the playing field to some extent.

I mean... I think it can be re-built from the ground up if the funding were there, but the type of people who build surveillance tools using nebulous data collection methods tend not do make a public service out of it.

So the concept of in dubio pro reo is dying faster and faster and all we do is shrug and tell ourselves we can't do anything about it.

"and offered it to everyone for free, making a fortune" - this makes no sense

This is Google Earth and Maps. They're free to users, but make Google billions on ads.

They have pricing plans for business users: https://mapsplatform.google.com/pricing/

I suspect if anyone uses it too much per hour or something, they will block you awhile and ask you to sign up for a plan. This is what google translate does.

> This is Google Earth and Maps. They're free to users, but make Google billions on ads

Citation needed. Google only recently started showing ads in Maps and there is no way it's near billions at this point.

I don't have that citation. But Google doesn't spend billions on growing and maintaining apps just for public benefit. Those services pull their weight (now or prospectively) or Google would pull the plug. Generally their strategy is to drive traffic to search, and ads.

It's more subtle than just showing a traditional ad. When you search on a business (i.e. restaurant, hotel etc) in a given area, businesses are often paying to show up prominently in the results and/or when you're zoomed out.

They don't need to. They can show more relevant ads in search or email if they know where you are on the maps.

At the end of the day, our computers and smartphones are just data input/output machines. Humans generate petabytes of data yearly, and that data is going to be stored, processed and used, forever. The invent of HDDs, fibre internet and increased processing power means more can be done with that data. It's entirely plausible entire streams of stored encrypted data (TLS, openvpn etc) may one day be decoded and provide fascinating insight's into human behavior. (I wouldn't be surprised if there was a giant archive of every single byte of FB/Twitter/Reddit/HN data in a DC somewhere...even this post!)

I think we need to accept and embrace this, and that privacy is now a fight that is, for better or worse, a lost cause. Covid generated even more streams of data through sequencing, and you can be sure all of this is being stored, forever.

You can, and probably should, fight against it, but if you're a human alive today you should know many bits of data (about you) will almost certainly be contained on many disks for future generations to look at, and that isn't likely to change any time soon (short of a major regression in human capability and understanding)