Investigation Reveals Clearview AI is Highly Intrusive
The decision is based on the findings from a joint investigation conducted by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), the Australian regulator, and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The investigation revealed that Clearview AI’s facial recognition tool collects biometric information in an unreasonably intrusive and unfair manner. Clearview’s tool scrapes images from social media sites and uses them to identify people in other photos. The company sells this technology to law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to help identify criminals. In fact, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) tried out the tool between October 2019 and March 2020. The OAIC is investigating the AFP for this trial. Last month, the European Parliament passed a resolution banning the use of facial recognition technology by LEAs. The lawmakers even named Clearview AI as an example of this intrusive technology. Citing the growing societal concerns around the tech, Meta announced that it will discontinue the use of Facebook’s Facial Recognition System.
Privacy Commissioner Flags Danger to Children
OAIC privacy commissioner Angelene Falk pointed out the problems with the way Clearview collects data. In a press statement, Falk stated that “the covert collection of this kind of sensitive information is unreasonably intrusive and unfair. It carries significant risk of harm to individuals, including vulnerable groups such as children and victims of crime, whose images can be searched on Clearview AI’s database.” Falk added that “when Australians use social media or professional networking sites, they don’t expect their facial images to be collected without their consent by a commercial entity to create biometric templates for completely unrelated identification purposes. The indiscriminate scraping of people’s facial images, only a fraction of whom would ever be connected with law enforcement investigations, may adversely impact the personal freedoms of all Australians who perceive themselves to be under surveillance.”
Clearview Intends to Appeal the Decision
Mark Love, a lawyer representing Clearview in Australia, stated that OAIC’s decision does not accurately reflect how the company operates. Love said that the commissioner lacks jurisdiction and that Clearview plans to seek a review of the decision with the Administrative Appeals tribunal. “Clearview AI has not violated any law, nor has it interfered with the privacy of Australians. Clearview AI does not do business in Australia (and) does not have any Australian users,” Love added.
