Clearview AI is struggling to address complaints as its legal issues mount

Just think about the investigators around the world (FBI, DEA etc...) who are combating evil organizations but are not careful with the the information the post online; those people are screwed. Time for a new job.

I'm glad that this one was done in the USA so we have a way to bring more light to these issues.

I suspect (and hope) that clearview AI will not last long here in its present form.

And this kind of database, i imagine, would already exists for the NSA or whatever intelligence agency for China/russia.

Eugenics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I don't have a lot of hope that in the next 50 years we'll be able to prevent the ubiquity of (perhaps 3D printed and untraceable) drones broadcasting HD video to AI curated repositories that track your identity and every word (and bowel movement), if only for the lulz. Your only hope is that you'll be able to afford a home (and work in an office) with all the good countermeasures.

As always, the public debate (and witchhunt) is focused on the tool, the symptom, the observation, and never the underlying cause.

How are these technologies being abused, and why are the perpetrators allowed to do so?

The surveillance tech already exists, as a component of personalised advertising, because it makes lots of money. It's all any government needs as well. It's flown under the radar wrt. the masses, because most people have absolutely no comprehension of how that kind of thing can work and will ignore anyone talking about it because it's an SEP.

But facial recognition is something which the masses can recognise, if not understand, and therefore react to as a threat.

Personally I think that as long as we haven't solved the first problem then we should avoid piling more possible problems upon it, so roadblocking facial recog tech is not something I would object to. But it does miss the point by rather a large margin.

I don't believe that it'll be as 'awareness-raising' as some people seem to believe either, for the reason implied above: people only care about the comprehensible threat.

But as you suggest the usual answer to this is has always been regulation, which is only effective with teeth.

Nobody can stop you learning how to build a RF transmission devices, or conversely a blocker. But the FAA has very particular ideas (US specific) on what you are allowed to do and not in that space, and if you step too far out of bounds you will be shut down.

The trick is to make the penalties both likely and severe enough to outweigh any benefit you'll see. That will shut down most (ab)uses of the technology. Note regulation can include "you cannot do this as an individual or corporate entity, at all".

I agree that I'm really concerned about the way the surveillance state is creeping in. But it kind of feels like the cat is out of the bag, and moralizing like this is useless.