Clearview Suffers Brief Bout Of Better Judgment, Drops Subpoena Demanding Activists' Communications With Journalists
from the keep-on-sucking dept
Just a few days ago, Clearview -- the company that scrapes the web to build a facial recognition database it sells to law enforcement, government agencies around the world, and a number of private parties -- decided to make itself even less likable.
It decided to subpoena transparency activists Open The Government, demanding copies of all FOIA requests it had made requesting info about Clearview. It also, more disturbingly, demanded copies of OTG's communications with journalists, clearly indicating it felt First Amendment protections were something it should enjoy, but shouldn't be extended to its critics.
It really wasn't a step Clearview needed to take… for several reasons. First of all, Clearview's reputation is pure dog shit at the moment. It's unlikely to improve unless the company pulls the plug on its product and disbands. A move like this only earns it more (deserved) disdain and hatred. What it's not going to do -- even if successful -- is deter future criticism of the business and its scraped-together facial recognition product.
Second, OTG was not a party to the lawsuit. Clearview has no right to demand these documents from a non-party, especially communications between it and journalists… journalists who are also not a party to the lawsuit Clearview is facing.
Third, if Clearview wanted copies of OTG's FOIA requests, all it had to do is visit OTG's MuckRock page and download all of its publicly accessible requests and responses.
There's some good news, though. Shortly after having shot itself in the face, Clearview had second thoughts about the self-inflicted wound it had just sustained. Here's Alexandra Levine for Politico.
Facial recognition company Clearview AI is dropping the subpoenas it served recently to some of the groups that first exposed its work with law enforcement — legal demands that sought the organizations’ correspondence with journalists and other records.
The best move would have been to never issue the subpoenas at all, especially given the First Amendment implications of attempting to pry loose communications between activists and journalists. This withdrawal is a distant second on the list of "Smart Things to Do."
And here's the rationale for the decision, straight from the mouth of Clearview's founder:
Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That told POLITICO that “on further reflection about the scope of the subpoenas, and my strong view of freedom of the press, we have decided to withdraw the subpoenas served on Open the Government and its associates.”
I imagine that "reflection" showed a badly maimed face mouthing the word "why" after taking the full impact of an unforced error. This should have been the first response to the suggestion of subpoenaing non-parties and demanding copies of their conversations with journalists. It should have been offered by Clearview's legal team. And if those bright minds failed to comprehend the collateral damage this move would inflict on the First Amendment (not to mention the fact that Clearview would be sitting at ground zero when its own bomb went off), the genius who came up with the idea of treating millions of internet users as fodder for unproven facial recognition tech should have been able to see doing this was a terrible idea.
Then again, it may just be impossible for Clearview and its principals (note the spelling -- "principles" are different and not possessed by Clearview) to get a firm grasp on the obvious if it can't easily be scraped from content created by people with far more common sense than its founder and legal reps.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: activism, facial recognition, foia, intimidation, journalism, subpoena, surveillance, transparency
Companies: clearview, open the government
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
“Oh, we shot our own feet? Shit, we better patch that up quick so we don’t look like idiots.” — Clearview’s CEO, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, hiding the bleeding gun-wounds by wearing crocs doesn't stop the flow of blood through the designer-holes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I almost wonder if this was the work of an idle intern that accidentally got published/read aloud.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, they just now realized the Trump administration is no longer in charge and shit like this won't fly any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe, just maybe
they realised that this sort of action is usually followed by a crapflood of retaliatory investigations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What court allowed this shit in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Subpoena in a civil suit does not require court approval...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is why a defendant can say "prove that you're entitled to this data, or else bugger off". Particularly where journalists and their sources are concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps taking legal advice from the Arby's floorshitter was a bad idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOIA FOIAs
Can I submit a FOIA asking for all FOIAs an agency has received?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOIA FOIAs
Yes, provided that you limit the scope of your inquiry to a certain topic, or to a certain source of those FOIA's, and probably a time/date range as well. Too broad a request will likely get you a "Too Burdonsome" response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOIA FOIAs
Just don't yell FOIA in a crowded theatre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOIA FOIAs
Yeah, that might get you arrested for sedition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand why you think this was an error. They generated news about themselves, presumably guiding more sleazy customers to their sales office. I doubt legal action is very expensive if all you do is file it, wait for the free publicity payout, then drop it. They're taking names for who goes up against the wall ... you're complaining. Who is shooting themselves in the face?
If you want to do something, get behind the fossil fuel lobby and keep the pipelines pumping. No man will be a slave when the oceans boil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]