News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by kodah on Friday December 31, 2021 @03:43PM (#29752353)
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.
Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by pdkl95 on Friday December 31, 2021 @04:48PM (#29752876)
> "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.

Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by novok on Friday December 31, 2021 @07:14PM (#29753971)
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.

Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by aboringusername on Friday December 31, 2021 @04:05PM (#29752507)
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?)
Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by lathiat on Friday December 31, 2021 @04:42PM (#29752821)
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 :(
Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by SturgeonsLaw on Saturday January 01, 2022 @04:33AM (#29756943)
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.
Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by OtomotO on Friday December 31, 2021 @05:51PM (#29753350)
The cat is out of the bag? So unleash the dogs!
Re:Yesterday the FBI signed its first public contract with C... by kodah on Saturday January 01, 2022 @02:29PM (#29761759)
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"