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.

Filed Under: activism, facial recognition, foia, intimidation, journalism, subpoena, surveillance, transparency
Companies: clearview, open the government

Clearview Tosses Subpoena To Non-Party Transparency Advocates, Demands Copies Of Communications With Journalists

from the maybe-just-scrape-gmail-you-fucking-hacks dept

Clearview is currently being sued by a small percentage of its database of scraped personal info. It is also being sued by a few state officials over privacy law violations. It is (also) also being side-eyed closely by the federal government, which has not initiated an official investigation, but has expressed its disappointment in legislative ways.

One of dozens of lawsuits Clearview is hopefully being eventually bankrupted by has resulted in a bit of the old intimidation tactics. Clearview has made some inadvertently amusing arguments in court about its alleged right to do whatever the hell it wants to amass secondhand data as well as market access to whoever the hell it wants whenever the hell it wants. We'll see how that all plays out. In the meantime, Clearview is hoping to make others as miserable as it is. And if that means doing terrible things to long-recognized First Amendment protections, so be it.

Transparency advocate Open The Government has been hit with a subpoena from Clearview, which is defending itself against several plaintiffs alleging state law violations in an Illinois-based class action lawsuit. With its livelihood being barely threatened by an ongoing suit, Clearview has decided to threaten Open the Government, which is not involved in the lawsuit in any way.

In January 2020, Open The Government and MuckRock used public records requests to expose a start-up that was scraping Americans’ images and personal information from social media sites, and selling the data to law enforcement agencies. Now, that company, Clearview AI, has subpoenaed OTG and one of its employees to turn over all of the responses we received to Freedom of Information Act requests and all First Amendment protected communications we have had with the media about this matter.

This would be ironic if Clearview were capable of irony. But it isn't. Clearview claims it has a First Amendment right to scrape sites, clear cut data, and serve it up to whoever would like to pay for access. When it comes to the First Amendment rights and protections of others, it simply doesn't care.

As OTG points out, a bunch of what Clearview is demanding with this subpoena could be had simply by accessing its account at public records request clearinghouse Muckrock, where all of its requests targeting Clearview are located.

As for the rest of it -- the communications with the media -- Clearview has no right to access those… for several reasons. First, these are protected under the First Amendment. Second, THESE ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Third, OTG and its media connections are not a party to this lawsuit. Fourth, if Clearview wants to know what government agencies know about it, it could search its own internal communications and, if it feels it's still missing something, file FOIA requests just like OTG did.

Clearview can defend itself without brushing aside the First Amendment to demand communications from a non-party to another non-party. If it's feeling the heat because its business model is built on site scraping and a complete disregard for due diligence, so be it. It dug this grave with billions of scraped images. That it refused to consider the implications of its acts under state and federal law is its own fault. Targeting sources of information that have contributed to months of negative coverage isn't going to make Clearview any more likeable or any more capable at defending itself in court.

Filed Under: foia, journalism, subpoena, transparency
Companies: clearview, open the government