Last year, the judge in the Illinois state case likewise rejected Clearview’s First Amendment defense. However, while Clearview’s faceprinting is entitled to First Amendment protection, these cases should be judged by an intermediate test-as opposed to the “strict” test that is even more protective of speech-because it does not address a matter of public concern, and Clearview has solely commercial purposes. Thus, EFF has long advocated for First Amendment protection of the right to record on-duty police. As we have explained in our amicus briefs in these Clearview cases, the First Amendment protects not just expression, but also the necessary predicates to expression, including the collection and creation of information. And: EFF would have taken a different path to arrive at intermediate scrutiny. It explained that the State of Illinois has an important interest: “facial biometrics are readily observable and present a grave and immediate danger to privacy, individual autonomy, and liberty.” The court emphasized the plaintiffs’ allegation that faceprints “are not public information.” Further, wrote the judge, BIPA is “narrowly tailored” to the government’s interest, because it protects privacy while “allowing residents to share their biometric information through its consent provision.”ĮFF agrees that intermediate scrutiny is the correct test, and that BIPA passes this test. The federal judge held that BIPA passes this test. The O’Brien test considers, among other factors, whether the government has “an important interest,” and whether the speech restraint is “greater than necessary” to advance that interest. O’Brien (1968), which concerned the prosecution of a person who publicly burned his draft card to protest the Vietnam War. The federal judge explained that it would apply the First Amendment’s “intermediate scrutiny standard” for a restraint on activity that has “both speech and nonspeech elements.” This test originated in United States v. This is an important victory for our privacy over Clearview’s profits. This week, the judge in the federal cases rejected Clearview’s First Amendment defense, denied the company’s motion to dismiss, and allowed the lawsuits to move forward. We disagree and filed an amicus brief saying so in each case. In both federal and Illinois courts, Clearview argues that the First Amendment bars these BIPA claims. ![]() It also faces another suit, brought by the ACLU and ACLU of Illinois, in state court. Clearview now faces many consolidated BIPA lawsuits in federal court. For example, police in Miami worked with Clearview to identify participants in a Black-led protest against police violence.Ĭlearview’s faceprinting violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ( BIPA), which requires opt-in consent to collect someone’s faceprint. ![]() ![]() One of the worst offenders is Clearview AI, which extracts faceprints from billions of people without their consent and uses these faceprints to help police identify suspects. ![]() So EFF supports bans on government use of this dangerous technology, and laws requiring corporations to get opt-in consent from a person before taking their faceprint. Face surveillance is a growing menace to racial justice, privacy, free speech, and information security.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |