An investigation reveals Clearview AI’s extensive and opaque involvement in police activities across the US, raising significant concerns about transparency, accountability, and civil liberties.
In a recent revelation, the controversial facial recognition company Clearview AI has been highlighted for its extensive involvement in law enforcement operations across the United States, often without clear disclosure of its usage. The Washington Post conducted an in-depth investigation into the utilisation of Clearview’s technology by police departments, revealing that it has been involved in over 1,000 police investigations over the past four years. However, details on its application in these cases were frequently omitted or obscured in police reports, raising concerns over transparency and accountability.
Clearview AI, founded in 2016 by Hoan Ton-That, an Australian entrepreneur, is known for its massive photographic database. The database, arguably the most comprehensive of its kind, contains over three billion images sourced from a variety of online platforms, including Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and even Venmo. This compilation enables the company’s facial recognition technology to match individuals in images submitted by its clients, which include numerous law enforcement agencies and government bodies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Secret Service.
Opposition to Clearview’s practices has surfaced from multiple sources, including lawmakers, privacy advocates, and regulatory bodies, due to its practices of collecting images without consent. Despite this, Clearview continues to secure contracts across the United States and explore partnerships with private companies like Macy’s, Walmart, Best Buy, and the NBA.
In the investigation, The Washington Post reviewed records from 15 states, uncovering instances where citizens were arrested based on identifications made through Clearview AI’s technology. However, the methods used to identify these individuals were often described in reports with vague terminology such as “through investigative means,” thus concealing the role of facial recognition. Some police departments even instructed officers not to disclose the use of the technology in official reports, with conditions laid out that only if legally required, the source of identification would be divulged in court.
The reliability of facial recognition technology has been a point of contention, particularly with studies indicating its less effective performance in accurately identifying individuals of African descent. This has resulted in certain misidentifications and subsequent wrongful arrests, which has fuelled criticism from civil rights groups and legal experts. Notably, instances were reported where innocent individuals, the majority being black, were arrested but later had their charges dropped.
Clearview’s contracts with law enforcement agencies make clear that the software is not designed for use as standalone evidence in courts, highlighting potential concerns over the accuracy and legal basis of such technology. Despite this, the software has become a tool that law enforcement agencies rely on, exploiting its vast database that allows extensive tracking capabilities.
Clearview AI’s practices have also drawn condemnation from international quarters. European Union nations such as the United Kingdom, France, and Italy have raised concerns over privacy law violations, while Canadian provinces have requested that the company remove images acquired without consent.
Despite facing scrutiny, Clearview AI continues its operations and growth, backed partially by funding from Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist known for his involvement in data analytics firm Palantir Technologies. Clearview’s technology has reportedly been employed in federal investigations, including those targeting child sexual exploitation cases by ICE.
The debate surrounding facial recognition technology and personal privacy persists, with no comprehensive federal regulation in place to manage its use in the United States. This leaves the onus largely on state and local governments to implement policies governing its application and transparency. As these technologies become more ingrained in law enforcement procedures, questions linger about the implications for civil liberties and potential misuse.
Source: Noah Wire Services
