An investigation reveals Clearview AI’s controversial facial recognition technology has been employed extensively in police investigations across the US, raising significant concerns about privacy, accuracy, and the implications for civil liberties.
Clearview AI, a company known for its facial recognition technology, has been used in police investigations across the United States more extensively than previously disclosed, according to an investigation by The Washington Post. Despite facing criticism from politicians, privacy advocates, and data protection authorities, the controversial company’s services have been used in over 1,000 police investigations without apparent disclosure by law enforcement agencies.
Analysis of more than four years’ worth of records from police departments in 15 states has unveiled instances where suspects were arrested with the aid of Clearview AI’s technology. Officers reportedly concealed the use of the software through ambiguous language in their reports, such as attributing identifications to ‘investigative means,’ which obscured the software’s role in suspect identification.
Clearview AI, led by Australian CEO Hoan Ton-That and valued at over $225 million, aggregates an extensive database by collecting images from social media and other online sources. This massive collection reportedly consists of around 14 images per individual, contributing to a dossier of billions of photos. The software then uses these images to identify individuals in photos uploaded by their clients, including law enforcement agencies such as the US Secret Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and various police departments.
The use of this technology has sparked concern, particularly as Clearview’s application is capable of identifying faces even from partial images or those taken from an angle, making it one of the most extensive surveillance tools currently employed. Despite its capabilities, there have been cases where the tool has produced erroneous results, leading to concerns over its reliability. Notable issues include the software’s incorrect identification of basketball star Michael Jordan and a match with a cartoon image.
Clearview’s method of data collection has been a significant point of contention. The company scrapes photos from social media platforms without users’ consent, precipitating opposition from the platforms themselves and raising major privacy concerns. In response to these controversies, several US states and local governments have imposed restrictions on the use of facial recognition technology. These limitations arise partly due to studies suggesting that the technology is less effective at accurately identifying individuals of black descent. At least seven wrongful arrests have been attributed to errors in facial recognition, affecting innocent individuals who were later exonerated.
When confronted by The Washington Post, police departments were largely reticent about their use of facial recognition technology. Some departments asserted that the software was not used to conclusively identify suspects but rather to suggest possible matches. The broader reluctance to discuss the technology’s employment hints at a desire to avoid legal scrutiny over its reliability as evidence.
Despite its controversies, Clearview AI continues to expand, securing contracts not just with government entities but also private companies such as Macy’s, Walmart, and the NBA. This expansion persists even as European and Canadian regulators have pushed back against the company’s model, citing violations of privacy policies. Some European countries and Canadian provinces have requested that Clearview AI remove images collected without the individuals’ consent.
Clearview AI’s conduct, juxtaposed with the absence of federal regulations governing facial recognition technology in the US, leaves significant room for debate about privacy rights and law enforcement practices. Nonetheless, as the company continues to secure contracts, its technology is gaining more exposure in both public and private sectors, underlining the complexity of balancing innovation with ethical considerations.
Source: Noah Wire Services