back to article Don't scrape the faces of our citizens for recognition, Canada tells Clearview AI – delete those images

Canada’s privacy watchdog has found Clearview AI in “clear violation” of the country’s privacy laws, and has told the facial-recognition startup to stop scraping images of Canadians and delete all existing photos it has on those citizens. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada launched an official investigation into …

  1. deive

    "alaskan pipeline" I mean, I know people will use literally anything as slang for something sexual; but you can't block on that!

    It's a huge and relevant current issue - blocking that is just as bad as China blocking Tiannaman Square.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      I'm afraid the phrase "huge and relevant current issue" has been blocked by our obscenity filter. Please rephrase your post.

  2. IGotOut Silver badge

    Clearview.

    As they feel they don't have to abide by Canadian laws, due to having no presence, can I suggest the authorities block all their IP addresses until they do comply.

    1. gratou

      Re: Clearview.

      And issue arrest warrants for their executives.

  3. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    since they’re all publicly available anyway

    And presumably Clearview can document that they have checked with the rights holders that CV may use the scraped images in this way?

    I think in the States you have to register for copyright, but this side of the pond, and I would guess Canada also, copyright exists as soon as something is published.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: since they’re all publicly available anyway

      Copyright exists as soon as somebody has the financial weight to enforce it. Else it's just an abstract notion without any real world impact.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: since they’re all publicly available anyway

        The thing with registering for copyright in the US is if you want to claim for damages.

    2. Cynic_999

      Re: since they’re all publicly available anyway

      Copyright means exactly what it says. The right to *copy* the work. Using an image to train an AI does not necessarily entail copying that image, so copyright issues would not apply. Nor would it violate copyright if you reduced an image to a set of numbers that you stored so that recognition software could use to match two images of the same face.

      In addition, you quite likely gave away your copyright to the site that you uploaded the image to (e.g. Facebook, snapchat YouTube etc.) when you clicked on "I agree" to their terms & conditions.

      1. H in The Hague

        Re: since they’re all publicly available anyway

        "Nor would it violate copyright if you reduced an image to a set of numbers that you stored so that recognition software could use to match two images of the same face."

        That rather depends on how the copyright legislation in the relevant jurisdiction deals with derived works.

        "In addition, you quite likely gave away your copyright to the site that you uploaded the image to "

        You may have given that site a licence to use the picture, but that licence most definitely doesn't extend to anyone else copying the image from the site concerned.

        Please note I ain't no lawyer.

      2. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: since they’re all publicly available anyway

        Wrong on all counts.

        "Using an image to train an AI does not necessarily entail copying that image, so copyright issues would not apply."

        Wrong. Training requires the software to have access to the image to read features off it. That requires the software to have read access. Which can only be done if the software has the data. Images published online are not licensed for any purpose automatically and it is illegal to treat them as such. If the image is licensed under a noncommercial license, they're in violation. If it's licensed on a royalty-required license, they're in violation. If no license is stated, they could be in violation. It's important that copyright isn't just for distribution; it can prevent you from reading without permission too.

        "Nor would it violate copyright if you reduced an image to a set of numbers that you stored so that recognition software could use to match two images of the same face."

        Wrong. Data is a series of numbers. You can copyright text, and if I store an array of the unicode values for each character, I've violated your copyright. Now if you summarized the data into new numbers, those numbers aren't covered under my copyright unless they include most of the existing data, but the data you summarized to get them is. You are allowed to keep those numbers, but you weren't allowed to generate them. They could be ordered seized or destroyed as the products of criminal activity. That's unlikely, but possible.

        "In addition, you quite likely gave away your copyright to the site that you uploaded the image to (e.g. Facebook, snapchat YouTube etc.) when you clicked on "I agree" to their terms & conditions."

        No, you almost certainly did not. Read the terms and conditions. They all have a statement giving the site the right to display unless you revoke it (sometimes they omit that part), but few if any make you turn over the copyright to them. The ones you mention do not, and in fact explicitly state that you retain ownership*. Even if they had, copyright would still apply, and Clearview didn't get the rights to the data.

        *Let's look at the text of some of these:

        YouTube: "You retain ownership rights in your Content. However, we do require you to grant certain rights to YouTube and other users of the Service, as described below. [...] For clarity, this license does not grant any rights or permissions for a user to make use of your Content independent of the Service."

        Snapchat: "Many of our Services let you create, upload, post, send, receive, and store content. When you do that, you retain whatever ownership rights in that content you had to begin with. But you grant us a license to use that content. How broad that license is depends on which Services you use and the Settings you have selected. [...] Snap Inc. respects the rights of others. And so should you. You therefore may not use the Services, or enable anyone else to use the Services, in a manner that: violates or infringes someone else’s rights of publicity, privacy, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property right."

        Facebook: I'd have to disable a block to read it. It's not worth it.

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: since they’re all publicly available anyway

      There is also some applied permission once you publish it.

      For example this message is copyright and you owe me one first born son, 3 Cadburys creme eggs and a million $ for copying it to your browser cache.

      1. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: since they’re all publicly available anyway

        "There is also some applied permission once you publish it."

        There is explicit permission based on the terms of service for the thing you posted it on. Which usually gives anyone who can see it based on the settings the rights to view the content, but may restrict them from copying it and using it offline for other purposes unless you specifically allow that. The services we know they used do not take copyright from the original creators, nor do they require those people to grant a right to create derivative works. So those rights don't automatically exist.

        For example, The Register has a term describing what rights you have to grant when you post:

        "8.2 You retain all your ownership, copyright and other interests and rights in your comments but by posting any comments on our Website you grant us a non-exclusive irrevocable and royalty free worldwide licence to use, modify, alter, edit copy, reproduce, display, make compilations of and distribute such comments throughout our Website."

  4. Da Weezil

    Parasites.

    They seem as bad as the ad industry for assuming that they have some absolute right to our data, whether our interests and purchases or our actual likeness. Publicly posted or not, I decline to grant permission for them to take my image and use it for their commercial ends, and this should really be enshrined in law

  5. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

    LDNOOBW

    The problem with claiming words are bad, obscence, sexual, etc. is that it depends on the word's context & culture. An offenseive word in, say, America, may be perfectly fine in the UK.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: LDNOOBW

      Seemingly innocuous words Americans should watch out for - https://bestlifeonline.com/offensive-american-words-overseas/

      (no connection to site, just googled it)

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Checked out that article, it was mostly a fun read.

        Basically, I learned that almost every term outlined in US English has a sexual connotation in GB English.

        But the one thing that really made me LOL was the reference to an article intitled "This Is the Age When Men Are Most Likely to Cheat".

        Really ?

        Name me one age where men were not likely to cheat.

        I think the only one that qualifies was the period of the Black Plague - because men were locked at home to escape death instead of on the prowl for another chance to dip their wick.

        1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

          In the UK "fag" is (now) quite innocuous. I've heard that America is a few years behind the UK in its use of the word "fag" and so saying "I'm going to get a fag" in America is likely to be frowned on.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            The one I remember...

            ... from a while back was "I'm going to smoke a fag" which really had a different meaning in the States.

            1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
              1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                Re: The one I remember...

                "What's this here", he said suspiciously, "about us got to give you faggots?"

                "Oh, we have to have them," said Newt. "We burn them."

                The guard's face broadened into a grin. And they'd told him England was soft. "Right on!" he said.

                From the greatest book ever, strangely left out of the TV version.

          2. Huw D

            A friend of mine got 7 days in facebook jail for saying "I don't like faggots", when we were discussing Mr Brains' pork products.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Facebook seem to think a phot0 of an illuminated sign showing the word "DISCO" is an advert for booze and a photo of a cow in a field is an "overtly sexual" image, amongst other hilarious A.I. photo identification boo-boos.

              1. hoola Silver badge

                But what is worse (and not unexpected), the person who posted them cannot get anything done about it.

                But AI is the answer to everything. As soon as AI is attached to anything there appears to be some sort of nirvana in that it is infallible.

                1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                  Not infallible, just cheap.

                  Reviewing machine decisions is expensive. Ignoring user complaints is cheap; it appears to have a statistically negligible effect on site popularity and profit. So why wouldn't the social-media companies use mechanical content moderation with no effective appeals policy? There's no profit motive to do anything else.

        2. tiggity Silver badge

          Too US oriented for my liking

          .. the dodgy word list

          e.g.

          fecal but not faecal (i.e. US spelling centric), sadly lacking in clunge, minge, dogging, frigging, slags (fat or otherwise) etc.

          With scat and tainted love on there, I feel a bit persecuted in some music web pages I have visited..

          All a bit woefully incomplete, wouldn't even understand me if I called them onanists.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: LDNOOBW

      In the Swedish list is "sås". Which 99.9...% of the time just means "sauce", as in Hollandaise et al. So if they block that word just about any cooking related site is excluded. Was there a native speaker involved?

      In the context of someone trying to find yet another synonym for ejaculate it 'is* a possible contender (I don't read enough Swedish erotica/smut to have any opinion on how often it is used in that context), but there should be better keywords to look for.

      Also questionable: "hård" (hard, firm): naturally it is used to describe erections and modes of intercourse, but also for any thing else that is, well, hard (but not hard-as-difficult, that would be another word).

      1. ThatOne Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: LDNOOBW

        > Was there a native speaker involved?

        Yes, Google Translate...

  6. heyrick Silver badge

    "consent was not needed to scrape the photos since they’re all publicly available anyway"

    Publicly available for looking at doesn't imply publicly available for mass collection and analysis for commercial reasons.

    "argued that it does not have a “real and substantial connection” to the country so shouldn’t need to abide by its laws"

    Really? Well, since Gary McKinnon doesn't have any real and substantial connection to the US....

  7. Cincinnataroo

    Having had a quick look at the list of naughty words, I'd suggest considering those who use it for entry to the funny farm.

    This is NOT a quality list.

    Maybe it's used mainly by cockwombles.

  8. Adam Inistrator

    It looks more like a list of words that would not come up in school plus all anatomical words like penis and vagina. Banning the word "escort" and "undressing" seems a bit much. How are adults supposed to discuss all the banned items?

    auto erotic, autoerotic, bastard, bdsm, beastiality, bimbos, bitch, bitches, bollocks, bondage, boob, boobs, busty, butt, buttcheeks, butthole, cialis, circlejerk, clitoris, clusterfuck, cock,cocks, darkie, date rape, daterape, dick, domination, ejaculation, erotic, escort, eunuch, fingering, gay sex, genitals, girl on, grope, hard core, hardcore, hooker, hot chick, huge fat, incest,intercourse, kinky, lovemaking, menage a trois, negro, neonazi, nipple, nipples, nsfw, nsfw images, nude, nudity, orgasm, orgy, panties, panty, pedophile, penis, playboy, porn, pussy, rape, raping, rapist, rectum, sadism, semen, sex, sexy, sexual, sexually, sexuality, slut, smut, snowballing, spastic, spread legs, strip club, suck, sucks, swastika, tit, tits,titties, titty, topless, undressing, vagina, viagra, vibrator, voyeur, vulva, xx, xxx

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      This bollocks sucks and gets right on my tit. What butthole bastard came up with this list?

    2. heyrick Silver badge

      And why "negro" but not the one that racist twats actually say?

      (not to mention all the other offensive terms out there)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like