"The tribunal also made clear that Clearview's activities involve 'behavioural monitoring'. Clearview sought a narrow interpretation of that term so as to escape the application of the UK GDPR, but the tribunal rightly adopted a broader one that clearly encompasses automated processing. That's an important finding - especially as we see more use of AI and biometrics to track people both on - and offline."
"The Upper Tribunal's judgment recognises that exemptions from the law for national security or law enforcement bodies must not be overly interpreted as this can undermine the purpose and effectiveness of the laws in question. Relying on the services of private businesses for state surveillance and data analysis cannot result in that processing being done without accountability. Tom West, Programme Director, Privacy International:"
The UK Upper Tribunal confirmed Clearview AI's facial recognition business falls within the material and territorial scope of the EU and UK GDPR. Clearview had argued that scraping billions of online images for sale to foreign law enforcement placed it outside GDPR, but the tribunal rejected that claim and aligned with the Information Commissioner's Office. The tribunal found Clearview's activities constitute behavioural monitoring and adopted a broad interpretation that includes automated processing. The judgment warns against over-extending exemptions for national security or law enforcement and affirms that outsourcing to private firms cannot remove legal accountability. AWO represented an intervention and had filed a complaint in 2021.
Read at Privacy International
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]