Read on Twitter
Congrats to @VTAttorneyGen and @RyanKriger on their initial victory against ClearviewAI. This is important case for #FacialRecognition watchers: https://ago.vermont.gov/blog/2020/09/11/attorney-general-wins-significant-victory-in-clearview-ai-lawsuit/
First, Clearview AI's nonsensical #Section230 arguments are dismissed: "[T]he claims here attempt to hold Clearview 'accountable for its own unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'"
![First, Clearview AI's nonsensical #Section230 arguments are dismissed: "[T]he claims here attempt to hold Clearview 'accountable for its own unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehpki-LXYAAGYjM.png "First, Clearview AI's nonsensical #Section230 arguments are dismissed: \"[T]he claims here attempt to hold Clearview 'accountable for its own unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'\"")
Always fun when a thread breaks so you RT yourself! https://twitter.com/joejerome/status/1304466578533216257
There's discussion of both Sorrell and HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn. #CFAA watchers can get in on the action!
We get a discussion of how to evaluate "unfairness" claims, so #LabMD gets brought in! The Vermont court even discusses how public policy should inform this determination:
"Privacy as a public policy is embodied in numerous Vermont and non-Vermont judicial decisions."
"Privacy as a public policy is embodied in numerous Vermont and non-Vermont judicial decisions."
And Patel v. Facebook joins the party!
“Technological advances provide access to a category of information otherwise unknowable, and implicate privacy concerns in a manner as different from traditional intrusions as a ride on horseback is different from a flight to the moon.”
“Technological advances provide access to a category of information otherwise unknowable, and implicate privacy concerns in a manner as different from traditional intrusions as a ride on horseback is different from a flight to the moon.”
"Clearview’s argument that consumers can reasonably avoid such injury by not uploading photographs of themselves online is spurious at best."
As they say, inject this legal reasoning into my veins!
As they say, inject this legal reasoning into my veins!
The discussion about the merits of Clearview AI's privacy policy is golden. Of course, only a "privacy law scholar" and maybe @JustinBrookman can understand privacy policies:
Privacy policies suck, part 2...984,997,365.
"Clearview could have presented the policy in less misleading manner, for example, by making it clear that these opt—out “rights” in fact do not apply to most U.S. citizens."
"Clearview could have presented the policy in less misleading manner, for example, by making it clear that these opt—out “rights” in fact do not apply to most U.S. citizens."
The court does swat away the state's efforts to use the new data broker law to argue Clearview fraudulently acquired brokered data.
This would seem to suggest legislative controls on data brokers need to be stronger.
This would seem to suggest legislative controls on data brokers need to be stronger.
All to say that state courts are playing a big role in regulating biometrics, and the arrogant way #facialrecognition companies argue there's not only no harm in the way they're deploying these technologies but also a First Amendment right to do so hasn't worked yet.
