In 2021, Australia’s privacy regulator ruled that Clearview AI had breached privacy laws by scraping millions of images from social media platforms like Facebook and using them to train its facial recognition technology. The company was instructed to discontinue collecting images and eliminate any that were already in its possession.
Although there was no evidence to prove that Clearview AI had implemented this directive. Earlier this year, we discovered that the corporation continued to operate normally in Australia, collecting additional photographs of residents without any issues.
Why did privacy regulators suddenly drop their pursuit of Clearview AI? What implications do these findings have for the ongoing quest to safeguard individuals’ privacy in an era dominated by massive technology companies? Can the regulation be amended to provide regulators with more leeway to rein in firms like Clearview AI, thereby better addressing concerns about their facial recognition technology and potential misuse?
After careful deliberation on the additional motion opposing Clearview AI, Inc., we have issued a significant statement.
Australian Government Department of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
A protracted-running struggle
Clearview AI has honed its facial recognition capabilities through training on more than 50 billion images sourced from social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, as well as the broader internet at large.
Established in 2017 by Australian entrepreneur Hoan Ton-That, the corporation’s founder is currently based primarily in the United States. The positioning of the device is nearly 100% accurate in identifying individuals within photographs.
By the end of this month, he anticipates a significant acceleration in the corporation’s growth and development within the American market.
It is likely that there will be an increase in bigger deals from large enterprises, especially involving federal government agencies. With some 18,000 state and native companies regulating the space, law enforcement and authorities face a substantial challenge. This could potentially generate a billion-dollar or even a two-billion-dollar annual recurring revenue stream.
The device was initially deployed for a pilot program with law enforcement agencies in countries like the US, UK, and Australia. Ukraine, wracked by conflict, has enlisted the help of Clearview AI to identify Russian soldiers involved in the invasion, potentially paving the way for accountability and justice.
Despite its brief impact sparking controversy, the know-how faced immediate legal challenges.
In 2022, the UK privacy regulator imposed a £9.3 million fine on Cleaview AI for breaching privacy regulations. Despite this, the decision was ultimately made due to UK authorities lacking the power to impose fines on an international company.
The European Union encompasses a diverse range of countries, including France, Italy, and Greece, among many others. When corporations failed to comply with authorized directives, they faced additional punitive measures.
In the United States, the corporation faced a class action lawsuit. The settlement permitted it to move forward in marketing the device to US regulatory agencies, but not to the private sector.
Australia’s privacy regulator ruled in 2021 that Clearview AI breached the country’s privacy laws by amassing images of Australians without their consent, sparking concerns over facial recognition technology and individual privacy protection. The company was instructed to discontinue collecting images and erase all previously gathered data within a 90-day timeframe. Despite this, it did not yield a positive outcome.
To date, there is no evidence that Clearview AI has complied with the Workplace of the Australian Information Commissioner’s order.
Hoan Ton-That, CEO & Co-Founder, Clearview AI says, “It’s a know-how that’s had lots widespread adoption as a result of given the correct coaching and utilization, in just some minutes regulation enforcement’s capable of arrange accounts and begin fixing crimes they by no means would’ve solved in any other case.”
— Washington Submit Reside (@PostLive)
A paucity of resources dedicated to effective enforcement – a critical constraint that exacerbates existing challenges.
Yesterday, Privacy Commissioner Carly Sorg. Nonetheless she additionally mentioned:
At present, it appears unnecessary to instigate further action in connection with Clearview AI’s specific circumstances.
The prospect of this outcome being a letdown is considerable.
Under the Privacy Act, non-compliance with a regulatory notice may trigger enforcement proceedings, potentially culminating in legal action if necessary. Despite these circumstances, the decision was made not to intervene.
Australia’s privacy laws are woefully inadequate, as evidenced by the lack of vigorous opposition to Clearview AI, underscoring the need for a more robust regulatory framework to protect citizens’ personal data. While privacy breaches are rare globally, significant penalties for violating privacy laws in Australia are extremely unusual.
The decision also highlights the regulator’s limited capacity to enforce privacy regulations under current laws, underscoring a pressing need for legislative reform.
Complicating matters is the scarcity of data available for the regulator to scrutinize and draw insights from numerous pivotal cases. The approval for Bunnings’ and Kmart’s use of facial recognition technology has been pending for more than two years.
What could be carried out?
While there is some hope that forthcoming privacy regulation reforms in Australia will bolster the country’s existing privacy law, it appears likely that the strengthened framework will provide more robust enforcement powers for the privacy regulator.
While privacy regulations may provide some protections, the effectiveness of normal privacies laws in regulating facial recognition technologies is still uncertain.
Australian specialists have called for specific guidelines to mitigate high-risk technologies. Former Australian Human Rights Commissioner Ed Santow has suggested implementing measures to govern the use of facial recognition technologies.
Countries are already developing specific guidelines for facial recognition technology. The recently adopted legislation strictly regulates the application of this technology, imposing rigid standards for its development.
Despite progress, many countries worldwide continue grappling with the challenge of establishing effective regulations governing facial recognition technologies.
Australian authorities must take decisive steps to prevent companies like Clearview AI from exploiting Australians’ personal data to develop such technologies, establishing clear guidelines on when facial recognition is acceptable and when it’s not.
