AI Sees All: Is Your Data Safe?
Explores how Big Data and AI erode personal privacy, fueling concerns about corporate and state surveillance. What are the safeguards?
Topics: technology, politics, individual and values
Example
Companies and governments increasingly use AI to analyse personal data. A clear case is Clearview AI, a US company that copied billions of photos of faces from the internet, without consent, to build a facial recognition search tool sold to police. On 3 September 2024, the Dutch Data Protection Authority fined Clearview EUR 30.5 million, saying its database was illegal under EU data protection law. Clearview says it does not operate in the EU and that the law does not apply to it.
Key facts
- On 3 September 2024 the Dutch Data Protection Authority fined Clearview AI EUR 30.5 million for building an illegal database of faces scraped without consent.
Limitations
- A fine shows a regulator's judgement, not whether it can be collected; Clearview disputes EU jurisdiction, so the case also shows the limits of national privacy law against foreign firms.
Evaluations
technology evaluation
Support
Clearview shows how cheap computing turns public photos into a searchable map of faces, a capability that did not exist a decade earlier.
Counterargument
Police say such tools help identify suspects and victims, including in child abuse cases, so the technology can serve public safety.
Rebuttal
A useful tool can still be built unlawfully; the Dutch regulator objected to collecting faces without consent, not to identification as such.
Additional support
Facial recognition can be less accurate for some groups, so errors can lead to wrongful arrests, a known risk of relying on it.
politics evaluation
Support
The EUR 30.5 million fine shows European regulators using data protection law to push back against a powerful surveillance business.
Counterargument
Clearview says EU law does not reach it, and fines on firms without assets in the EU are hard to enforce, which limits national regulation.
Rebuttal
Enforcement is difficult, but the fine still makes it risky for EU police or companies to use Clearview, shrinking its market.
Additional support
Regulators in other countries, including France, Italy and the UK, also took action against Clearview, showing a coordinated response across borders.
individual and values evaluation
Support
People who posted photos online never agreed to have their faces stored by a police search tool, which shows how AI erodes control over personal data.
Counterargument
Photos posted publicly were never fully private, so some argue that people cannot expect protection for what they chose to share.
Rebuttal
Sharing a photo with friends is not consent to permanent biometric tracking; data protection law exists because context matters.
Additional support
The case shows why privacy is valued not only for secrecy but for freedom: being identifiable anywhere can chill attending protests or clinics.
Sources
- Hunton Andrews Kurth (Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Blog) (2024-09-04): Dutch Regulator Fines Clearview AI 30.5 Million Euros
More GP guides for this example
Topic guides
- Society and Culture GP Examples
- Politics and Governance GP Examples
- Science and Technology GP Examples