Oakland Privacy Says Clearview AI Settlement is Inadequate
Members of the advocacy group Oakland Privacy traveled to Chicago on Jan. 30 to tell a federal court in person that the proposed class action settlement resolving claims against Clearview AI for allegedly scraping facial images off the internet and then selling them to law enforcement is inadequate, the coalition said in a press release Tuesday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
“Clearview AI should be held accountable for misusing the public’s biometrics,” said Yadi Younse, 2022 privacy rights fellow, on behalf of Oakland Privacy. “The proposed settlement will not provide consumers with meaningful injunctive relief or dissuade Clearview AI from further scraping our images from the internet for profit. Unlike a password, our faceprint and other biometrics cannot be reset, so we should have control over who has our biometrics and how they are used. This is an opportunity to send a message to the tech sector that real innovation is responsible innovation in which their business model should not be reliant on profiting off the exploitation of people or their sensitive personal data.”
In a three-minute statement in front of the judge, Younse said that “to the best of our knowledge and as supported by reporting in the press, Clearview AI sold our faceprints" to more than 2,200 different entities, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and a former Trump campaign staff member. In addition, faceprints were sold to more than "40 local law enforcement agencies in California.”
She added, “We frequently speak on panels and to the press and are unable to prevent images of our faces from appearing on the Internet, and it would affect our ability to civically engage if we were to try to do so."
As such, Younse said, "we are powerless to prevent Clearview AI from further collecting and selling our faceprint without consent without injunctive relief from this court ... it is distressing to realize that the behavior will be repeated over and over again under this proposed settlement when we object to it, we do not consent to it, and we are harmed by it.”
The attorneys general of 23 states submitted amicus briefs in the case, objecting to the proposed settlement on similar grounds as Oakland Privacy, thus delaying the court hearing for three weeks, the coalition said. The court is holding final approval of the settlement under advisement, Oakland Privacy said.