I’m not saying they’re in the right, but once you put stuff on the internet it’s near impossible to stop people doing what they want with it
That’s only true for people who don’t care about operating lawfully. A big company cannot practically afford to do the same things as some random fly under the radar niche community.
That being said, this is a US company, so that may be a problem.
Exactly. My first thought when I read the headline? “Who cares.” How many human eyes have harvested the same images without consent. At least AI isn’t going to stalk you afterwards.
… You do realize that AI is a tool which can make stalking monstrously easy?
Maybe they shouldn’t have left the EU.
How would that affect a US company? Did you read the article or just kneejerk a brexit snark for internet points?
The ICO failed “not because this isn’t monitoring and not because in other circumstances, this might not be in breach of U.K. GDPR, but because it’s foreign law enforcement. It’s outside of the scope of European Union law so it doesn’t apply,” said James Moss, privacy and data protection partner at the law firm Bird & Bird.
The EU has enough power to actually stand up to US companies. See: https://www.barrons.com/news/eu-bans-meta-s-use-of-personal-data-for-behavioural-advertising-fe6bcfbd
Yes in the EU. Fuck all out if it. This company was not operating in Europe. The internet isn’t in Europe
EU laws apply to EU citizens, even on the internet. EU laws therefore tend to have surprisingly global effects, often called the ‘Brussels Effect’.
A US company harvesting data from EU citizens is subject to EU laws and can be fined for breaking them accordingly, for example.
The Brussels effect is a book.
Are you saying the lawyer who specialises in data and privacy is wrong?
The company was working for a foreign government, not commercially
You could like, read the article?
Please read beyond the first Google result that you find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
What a UK court has ruled based on EU law is not necessarily what an EU court would rule. They may well state that Clearview is a commercial partner of foreign law enforcement and therefore not protected (because it’s not the foreign law enforcement itself doing the data harvesting, but a commercial firm intending to make money).
Besides, the UK court clearly ruled that the law did apply, but that Clearview wasn’t in breach. This wasn’t a jurisdiction issue, as you asserted initially.
Yes, not in breach. The UK laws have not been changed since brexit. Start dealing in facts, not some conceptual Brussels effect which isn’t real other than REACH. The California effect is much larger.
The EU court can decide whatever the fuck it likes, it still has zero jurisdiction outside the EU.
Also, read the FUCKING article, the French also brought a case…
Why are you white knighting for big US companies? They don’t even know who you are outside of a personal identification number.
I’m not… Just replying to EU supremacists who think their laws rule the world, they don’t.
And who haven’t read the fucking article which clearly says other EU countries have tried taking them to court, so the fucking moron who said it wouldn’t have happened if the UK hadn’t left the EU is clearly talking shite, as are all the other fucking morons who upvoted them without reading it.
[End rant]
No, but the internet in Europe is regulated by the EU. If that company wants to use it, they will be subjected to its laws or they will be blocked and fined.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
LONDON — Britain’s top privacy regulator has no power to sanction an American-based AI firm which harvested vast numbers of personal photos for its facial recognition software without users’ consent, a judge has ruled.
The New York Times reported in 2020 that Clearview AI had harvested billions of social media images without users’ consent.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) took action against Clearview last year, alleging it had unlawfully collected the data of British subjects for behavior-monitoring purposes.
Lawyers have pointed out that the company was under no obligation to purge Brits’ pictures from its database until the appeal was determined — and yesterday’s ruling applied not only to the fine, but the deletion order too.
The identity-matching technology, trained on photos scraped without permission from social media platforms and other internet sites, was initially made available to a range of business users as well as law enforcement bodies.
Following a 2020 lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, the company now only offers its services to federal agencies and law enforcement in the U.S. Yesterday’s judgment revealed it also has clients in Panama, Brazil, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic.
The original article contains 627 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What? Someone downloaded photos that people willingly uploaded to a public network? You don’t say.
deleted by creator
if you went Out in public and paparazzi started haunting everyone out on the street, all the time, even though you are no-one famous.
While this is true, it’s important to understand that you have already given that right by just being out in public. If you can be viewed by the eyes of people, in a public place, then they can photograph you.
The difference is that if you can be obviously identified in the image and it is used commercially, you should be asked for a release or permission generally.
It’s a grey area in the context of scraping for AI, not because permission hasn’t been given, but because the technology is new and the laws haven’t been written yet.
The changes will happen but it takes time, particularly with a complex issue like this.
deleted by creator
Except it’s not because these are photos people are choosing to post.
as someone who crossed a tourist hotspot to get to the cantina for some years, my experience can’t confirm your statement.
The problem there is someone taking photos of you without your consent, not AI analyzing the photos
deleted by creator
I am a privacy advocate but I will have to disagree with you. There is no such thing as privacy on public places , or in the public internet. If you upload a picture to the internet publicly then it is publicly available to everyone.
deleted by creator
