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