Comment by shakna | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shakna | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Clearview AI does not have a place of business in France or the EU, it does not have any customers in France or the EU, and does not undertake any activities that would otherwise mean it is subject to the GDPR.

> To be clear, Clearview AI has not violated any law nor has it interfered with the privacy of Australians. Clearview AI does not do business in Australia, does not have any Australian users.

> The UK ICO Commissioner’s assertions are factually and legally incorrect. The company is considering an appeal and further action. Clearview AI provides publicly available information from the internet to law enforcement agencies. To be clear, Clearview AI does not do business in the UK, and does not have any UK customers at this time.

> Clearview AI’s technology is not available in Canada and it does not operate in Canada.

This time, and the last three times, Clearview have made the same legal argument. That because they have no physical basis in a country, and because their customers aren't in that country (though several times that has occurred post-breach), they cannot possibly have breached that country's laws.

Despite the privacy laws of every nation being around the _citizen_, not their physical location. All four places have extraterritoriality baked into their privacy laws, and all four have trade agreements with the US in place that could mean that they could ask the US to enforce compliance and make it into a diplomatic issue.

How many more times do their lawyers have to be told the same thing before they try and come up with a new argument?

Trying to apply law to a company in another country using your country’s laws is a bit difficult unless your country is the United States.

I'm guessing EU has enough power to pull such a minor thing through without issues.

Just raising tarrifs on some US made stuff, until this is resolved, will make many larger and stronger companies phone the US administration directly and make a deal.

Enforcing foreign judgements of those lacking jurisdiction is a tall order and certainly not minor. The precedent alone means a forceful approach may get them refusing from sheer spite. Politically it would be suicidal to be seen as weak.

As for how well tarrifs worked, see the story of the Chicken Tax and light trucks.

Meh... diplomacy is diplomacy... germans threathen the russians with an embargo, russians close down the gas pipes, they make a deal, and it's business as usual. Same thing is happening (although with less media coverage) between many countries daily.

Wishing something is true doesn't make it true.

How many more times do these bodies need to pass "orders" that don't result in any action before they come up with a new approach?

The US does not have GDPR. Period. Flat out. Full stop. Once you understand that, things will make a lot more sense.

And no, extraterritoriality means absolute zero here. That french citizen traveling in America? Heads up, US Customs does not have to respect to GDPR. Neither does the walmart he shops at. Neither does Amazon if he orders something online.

Claiming they do is weird, that's not how it works.

Before we are snarking about clearview having to come up with new arguments, let's evaluate how well their current arguments are working?

Pretty darn well.

And my guess is the US government, rather than shutting them down, will PAY them to do their stuff, ESPECIALLY on overseas nationals. This is exactly the type of big government "anti terrorism" surveillance style databases govts love.

> Heads up, US Customs does not have to respect to GDPR.

Customs is part of a sovereign nation. What customs can and can't do has precious little bearing on what companies can and can't do. It's basically irrelevant.

> Neither does the walmart he shops at. Neither does Amazon if he orders something online.

Sure, if both are OK with not being able to operate in the EU _and_ believe the US government will take the political heat for refusing to enforce the EUs laws.

We also don't strictly _have_ to extradite criminals to other countries. But we usually do.

International law functions nothing like domestic law, because there is no higher power to say "no, you can't do that". If the EU can get the US to punish US companies through diplomacy, force or trades, then that's how things work. If they can't, then it's not how things work.

My guess is that the US won't shield them. It's not critical for US defense, largely redundant with data available from Facebook, and we're already fighting to keep our existing tech giants abroad. Clearview is more useful as a sacrificial pawn than trying to get it crowned a queen.

The political heat for refusing to enforce EU laws? Is this a serious claim?

American's by and large don't want others laws enforced here. Not China's, not middle eastern laws, and they fought a war of independence against having European laws apply in the US (ie, the US killed folks over this).

A current political issue is partly the US enforcement of its laws overseas, which has rubbed many countries the wrong way. Because of the significance of the US in the current financial system the US has exercised really outsized power internationally.

> We also don't strictly _have_ to extradite criminals to other countries. But we usually do.

As far as I know a country won’t extradite one of their citizens for something that isn’t illegal in their home country.

Or extradite for something that is legal in the country else we’d be seeing a bunch of Saudi expat women getting extradited for gasp driving a car or something.

Thailand was mulling over extraditing Nur Sajat, a Malaysian trans woman, on charges of blasphemy for "cross-dressing," a crime implicitly defined in its Sharia court system. I'm not sure where happened in her case, but the very fact Thailand didn't reject Malaysia's request immediately suggests people are extradited even when the charges wouldn't apply in the extraditing country.

Sure, their laws affect their citizens. Clearview AI isn't a French citizen. French laws don't apply.

How many more times does France need to be told to fuck off before it stops trying to legislate in other countries?

edit: hilarious that all the people critical of the US just assume other people are American.

I'm curious, do you also think it's wrong when the US applies its own laws worldwide where they concern its citizens (e.g. FATCA, Hague Invasion Act.)?

Even Draco knew that making unenforceable laws just breeds contempt for the law. Regardless of the answer to that question it still is a poor decision which makes them look like a tinpot dictatorship trying overseas critics in absentia.

How many times do US company need to be told to fuck off before they stop exploiting French citizens ?

What about Julian Assage? US laws shouldn't apply to him yet they want to extradite and trial him for things done outside US juridiction.

It comes down to jurisdiction. EU can only enforce its GDPR within its member countries.

...and within trade agreements with other countries, which are many...

I warned people about this garbage when GDPR came out and was shouted down for it. It's the same as the fucking copyright laws we're all burdened with.

What did you try to warn them about? That they will have more control over how companies use their PI? Doesn't seem very surprising that you got "shouted" down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com