←back to thread

291 points dataflow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
computegabe ◴[] No.44604945[source]
The company used, Clearview AI, collects publicly available imagery. It would be different if the government was providing it. Here's an idea: maybe don't post your photos on social media. Still scary nonetheless.
replies(6): >>44605165 #>>44605186 #>>44605314 #>>44605681 #>>44605697 #>>44609451 #
sorcerer-mar ◴[] No.44605165[source]
“Don’t post your photos on social media” is precisely describing a chilling effect on people’s expression, i.e. the exact thing the First Amendment is designed to protect against.
replies(1): >>44605353 #
computegabe ◴[] No.44605353[source]
If a user is willingly uploading their photos to a private company to be publicly shared, how does 1A apply?
replies(2): >>44605625 #>>44606087 #
1. sorcerer-mar ◴[] No.44606087[source]
You can go do some reading on Third Party Doctrine if you'd like.

SCOTUS ruled there are some instances where private use of a service is 1) effectively necessary for modern life and 2) leaks a huge amount of information about the person, then the government cannot utilize it without a warrant even if handed over or sold willingly by the third party.

I am suggesting that we likely need to expand Third Party Doctrine to things beyond cell tower data because 1) we don't have absolute control over how/where our images are used and associated with our names, and 2) the technology to later affiliate our always-on/always-visible identities (like faces, gaits, or fingerprints) with our names is getting better and better.

You're right that today this is not illegal, but I am pointing out that your argument for "what to do instead" is literally the precise argument for why it should be: it chills protected expression.