Talk:Clearview AI

Sources for expansion

IAR by putting this as the top section, feel free to cross out or add to this list:

• https://onezero.medium.com/this-is-the-ad-clearview-ai-used-to-sell-your-face-to-police-8997c2a6f0a8

tedder (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Findface

Is there a sourceable connection to FindFace and the NTechLab algorithm ? Seems oddly coincidental. Alexpl (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

COI

There is some serious conflict of interest or something going on- the current 'technology' section looks like it's straight out of the company's PR. Then there's additions like this, straight off the company's website and removing some neutrality in favor of what was on the `cv_consumer` reference from their website and restating their political connections in a more favorable way. I removed the worst of it but it needs discussion. tedder (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

All of Bibodidad's contributions up to now are to this article.WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As are the WP:SPA IPs 98.180.170.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2604:2000:1406:23B:8C75:BE17:2B93:612 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). tedder (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Peacock tag

I removed the {{peacock}} tag from the page. Basically every word is cited, some specific examples would be helpful. tedder (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible source

The Far-Right Helped Create The World's Most Powerful Facial Recognition Technology. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Already used it, from the dot-com version of huffpo. See the ref named "huff_Far", used in three places including "far-right clique". tedder (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Request Edit - Proposed Addition of Article Citation

Information to be added to the article: Reference citation to recently published article "Some Observations on the Clearview AI Facial Recognition System- From Someone Who Has Actually Used It...." https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/

Explanation of Issue: The Clearview AI article references citations (articles, comments) but none of the authors/cited sources have any hands on experience in actually using Clearview AI in terms of its end user functionality in the hands of a police officer/criminal investigator. The article that I recently published provides readers with exactly what is missing from the current Clearview AI article discussion and I believe adds valuable practical understanding of how Clearview is used by police. I am not aware of any other published article on Clearview that has been authored by an actual law enforcement end user of Clearview. The unique perspective of my article was supported by, for example, Professor Jonathan Zittrain (who is quoted in the Clearview AI article) on Twitter thanking me for the piece as very helpful to describe how the system works. https://twitter.com/zittrain/status/1250805605478076417?s=21 and https://twitter.com/zittrain/status/1250806281474097155?s=21

Location for the Proposed Citation Addition: A citation to my article may be either at the end of the Reception section referencing the piece or alternatively cited in the See Also section to provide readers with the option to understand the actual user functionality provided by Clearview to police officers.

Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/ --Techlawyer (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

How does this meet WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. It may have great merit, but I can't see that it was "reliably published". Doug Weller talk 09:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed- linkedin is not considered a reliable source, as it's all self-published (e.g., the same as a blog). Having a unique point of view doesn't override that. tedder (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Declined due to lack of reliable sourcing. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

links/subjects for inclusion

• https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/clearview-ai-faces-class-action-privacy-suit/
• https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/another-clearview-ai-data-breach-adds-to-lawsuits-requested-preliminary-injunction/
• https://www.channelfutures.com/mssp-insider/breach-of-clearview-ai-server-exposed-source-code-secret-keys-and-more
• https://securityboulevard.com/2020/04/what-the-clearview-ai-breach-tells-us-about-cybersecurity-today/

in the lawsuit injunction update: "it is clear [the data they] unlawfully collected and possess are not safe or secure." tedder (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• "EFF Testifies Today on Law Enforcement Use of Face Recognition Before Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice" tedder (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Jessica Medeiros Garrison sources for expansion

These would work well in an article, but she doesn't have one. Putting here for future use.

• Washingtonian, Washington’s Most Powerful Women 2021, Oct 13 2021: "Jessica Medeiros Garrison, vice president of government affairs at Clearview AI. The firm’s innovative facial-recognition technology frightens a lot of civil-libertarians. Garrison is involved in selling it."
• Alabama Today, Mountain Brook resident Jessica Garrison named one of ‘Washington’s most powerful women’, Beth Cann, Dec 27 2021: born in Rhode Island, "After graduating from the University of Alabama in 1997, Garrison served as director of legislative affairs and public information in the office of Bill Pryor while he was Alabama Attorney General. She graduated from the University of Alabama School of Law in 2000."
• [ The Homewood Star: Garrison named one of ‘Washington’s Most Powerful Women’: Mountain Brook resident attracts attention for role with tech firm Clearview AI, Jesse Chambers, Dec 31 2021]: "...a Mountain Brook resident since 2011 who lives in Crestline. ... “We are now recognized as the most accurate algorithm in the Western world,” Garrison said. ... “I had every intention of being a Bama cheerleader when I arrived on campus,” she said. “I had led my high school squad.” ... “The prolific preying upon and abusing children is something I don't think our society grasps, yet,” Garrison said. “There are so very many threats lying in wait for children — from infants to teens. The more I have learned, the more committed I am to using all weapons in my arsenal to fight back and to effect change. We can no longer ignore the problems. My work with Clearview AI certainly provides answers.”"

tedder (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Several irrelevant sources

I just stumbled into this article, and was surprised to find several (like, almost 10) sources that seemed totally unrelated to the claims being made. I think someone needs to comb through the references in this article to ensure that's not happening elsewhere too. It seems to me there's a likely case of WP:OVERCITE, and possibly WP:REFBOMB in parts of this article. StereoFolic (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sheesh, you're right, StereoFolic! That's awful! I found lots of overciting, but only one example of what you highlighted. Thanks for noticing!--FeralOink (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Editorial Comments

Some new sources have come out on this topic an the article is strongly biased in some areas so I am working on some improvement. Draft is temporarily here. I will fix my editorial remarks before adding info from new sources.

Several instances on nonencyclopedic style which I will correct.

I plan to consolidate the Far-Right connections into its own section rather than have them spread throughout.

I did all this and added a new source. I would like some feedback. Czarking0 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Czarking0! You have done good work, e.g. removing a heavily over-wikilinked passage of marginally-related names/companies, and some consolidation in addition to what you referred above.

1. Please be aware that Clearview AI settled with the ACLU in 2022, agreeing to offer its services to law enforcement and government agencies ONLY. Some of the changes I made a few weeks prior to yours were updates that informed of that. (I do consider it important to retain some history of the company's practices, before the ACLU settlement.) You reintroduced older content, e.g. in the lead, it now says Clearview offers its services to governments, law enforcement, and other actors. Has Clearview broken terms of the ACLU agreement recently? If so, refer me to the source, about who these "other actors" are?

Thanks for the feedback FeralOink. I said other actors because they are selling to schools which I think is technically not in violation of the ACLU agreement but does not really fall into government or law enforcement. That is sourced in the article already. Here is a link: https://www.reuters.com/technology/clearview-ais-facial-recognition-tool-coming-apps-schools-2022-05-24/ Czarking0 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

1. I have no problem with consolidating certain details in a "far-right" section, but the HuffPo source is dated, and isn't the best in terms of WP:RS. I'd like to replace it with something else if possible. I'll look around, to see if I can find anything more WP:WS.

The article had another source on this matter which was from AI now. It was published in blog form and I did not think it met WP:RS . I do not think Huffpost is the best. I am not a left-leaning person and I was tempted to remove all the references to Far-right activity since the sources does not seem to be great but I was worried that I was then implementing my own bias. After checking the source I do think the Huffpost journalist is correct that there is some connection between this company and the Far-right however it is hard to say in an unbiased and well sourced manner what that connection really is. If you want to add with better sources or remove the section entirely I will support either option. Czarking0 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

1. I'll continue looking through the revised and updated article. I'll note any concerns that warrant a response here, but I won't make any changes until you have had a chance to respond here. I'll just fix some minor formatting and get rid of extra/white spaces.--FeralOink (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Czarking0, there are several instances of overcites, i.e. the same information / news story coverage by multiple sources are each referenced. That is inconsistent with WP:MOS (and adds nothing) so I'm going to clean those up, where possible. At most, I will retain two rather than, say, five! Also, I did some research on Clearview's customer base. I find no indication that Clearview is selling their surveillance services (and image database) to anyone other than law enforcement and government agencies. In other words, they are abiding by the terms of their settlement with the ACLU... HOWEVER, Clearview's L.E. and government agency customer base is NOT limited to the US, so I will make sure to indicate that and retain article coverage about it. I don't feel that foreign governments, e.g. Non-Zealand, should be considered "actors", so I will remove that word from lead.--FeralOink (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As stated above actors was mearly meant to refer to schools so if you feel like saying schools in the title then I am on board. Otherwise I am not sure. Czarking0 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Czarking0, I made some minor changes. The customer list from the Buzzfeed data breach needs to be trimmed, particularly for companies that never used the application and don't have Wikipedia articles. I won't do any further edits until you have a chance to share your thoughts here.--FeralOink (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are clear to do further edits Czarking0 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have responded. You can continue with edits. I made a small change to the history section where part of the timeline was not in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarking0 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Best In The World

@Grayfell I would like you to restore the section on them being one of the best facial recognition algorithms in the world. The NIST study which I used as a source is reputable and unbiased. WP:PROMO does not apply because this information is the summary of a government funded comparative study. If you think "best" is too vague then I think it is fair to clarify what the metrics of the study are; however, the algorithm's performance is notable and the article is worse off with the reader unaware of how good their algorithm is compared to the state of the art.Czarking0 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot figure out how to summarize this neutrally it doesn't belong. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, your cited source doesn't support this, anyway:

In a field of over 300 algorithms from over 200 facial recognition vendors, Clearview ranked among the top 10 in terms of accuracy, alongside NTechLab of Russia, Sensetime of China and other more established outfits. But the test that Clearview took reveals how accurate its algorithm is at correctly matching two different photos of the same person, not how accurate it is at finding a match for an unknown face in a database of 10 billion of them.[1] (emphasis added)

The article also says ...Oddly, Clearview submitted its algorithm for the former test, rather than the latter one, which is what its product is built to do.[2]

The source is very clearly skeptical of the company's grandiose PR claims. For us to pass along these claims without any context would be misrepresenting those sources, in addition to being over-promotional and misleading. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok then I will just say "Clearview's algorithm is in the top 10 for accuracy of matching two faces of the same person." I am offended that you accuse me of passing on their grandiose PR claims. I have not read their PR claims and am adding this claim from that source. Czarking0 (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your addition highlighted one specific aspect of a source without including the context provided by that same source. All sources must be evaluated in context, and the significance of this one study should be included. Regardless of your intentions, placing this in the lead without context is promotional. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording in the body to include this context, per the cited source. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clearview AI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 04:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Running Earwig finds the following:

• Source: "Clearview has created more than 200 accounts for users at five Ukrainian government agencies, which have conducted more than 5,000 searches. Clearview has also translated its app into Ukrainian ... from three agencies in Ukraine, confirming that they had used the tool. It has identified dead soldiers and prisoners of war, as well as travelers in the country,..." Article: "Clearview had created over 200 accounts for users at five Ukrainian government agencies, which have conducted more than 5,000 searches, and that Clearview has also translated its app into Ukrainian. Ton-That provided emails from officials of three agencies in Ukraine, confirming that they had used the tool to identify dead soldiers and prisoners of war, as well as travelers in the country." See WP:CLOP; this needs to be rewritten in your own words.

Will look at the sources next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

• Can we avoid the use of The Daily Dot? Per WP:RS/PS it's not a very good source. Here you're using it as one of three citations covering the same information; if the other sources cover the same ground I'd drop this one.

 Done

• Similarly, the use of The Next Web is discouraged. This article seems to be just an opinion piece rehashing other sources, so not a great source regardless.

 Done Kept the claim but have a much better source

• What makes cpomagazine.com a reliable source? The about page just says it is corporately owned, which is a good start, but does it have editorial control over what it publishes or is it a one-person operation? If we can't find that out, does it have a good reputation or get cited by other reliable sources?

 Done could not find material to establish RS. Kept the text for now. Will rework in another bullet point

• What makes publicola.com a reliable source? Per the about page it seems to be a one-person operation.

WIP I do not believe it is a one-person operation as the contact for the publication is not the author of the source. Working on establishing RS.

I don't know if I should consider a reddit thread but this makes me think not RS

• The New York Post is not a reliable source.

 Done

• You cite Fight for the Future for a comment they made; it's a reliable source for that, but is the "shady surveillance vendor" comment notable enough to include in this article if nobody else mentions it?

 Done I think this is semi-notable as some other sources mention them. However, I grouped them under "other commentators" since the remarks from the senator are much more notable

• What makes Biometricupdate.com a reliable source? You cite them as one of four sources saying some information "was not received positively", but I think rather than using the passive we need to say who did not receive it positively, and for that we need reliable sources. Biometricupdate.com's own reaction to the news is not noteworthy but if they're reliable then their report of others' reactions might be.

 Done The sourced articles showed some of the sources they used for their reporting. I did not make any determination on RS, but I did rework the article a bit so they are no longer a source.

• How confident can we be that the document in documentcloud.org is authentic? What guarantees that? Is the claimed uploader authenticated?

 DoneThe document is contributed by Buzzfeed and is linked to in this Buzzfeed News Article.

• FYI, the mississauga.com link is dead. This is not a problem for GA, but you may want to find an archived link for it.

 Done

• FN 91 is described in the citation as 980 CFPL which is a name I can't find at the linked page; it seems to be a Global News page.

980 CFPL is in the top tagline next to the author's name

• techdirt.com appears to be a group blog, and hence not reliable.

 Done

• What makes noyb.eu a reliable source?

It is a source for a POV claim about the views of that organization. I think this is a question of notability of the POV claim not reliability? For notability, this is difficult for me to say. As far as privacy groups go are there really any truly notable ones? On the other hand, I think it would be a disservice to the reader to not include any remarks from self-described privacy advocates as some of them could be interpreted as notable to a reader in the more narrow privacy context. This group has gotten some attention and has their own WP article though I do not think is is very good. At least some think they are notable.

Once these are resolved I'll do a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Tracking progress in line, I hope you are ok with that Czarking0 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure; I have this watchlisted and will keep an eye. Will be intermittently busy the next few days but should be able to get back here whenever you're ready for me to look at the article again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok Mike, I appreciate your insight. Your comments have made be understand several flaws with this article. I have responded to all your comments. If there are any changes that are unsatisfactory just let me know.

If you think it should just be failed here I would not be offended. However, if you want to keep the review going I will continue to work on it. Czarking0 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

No need to think about failing it; questions about sources are very common in GA reviews. It'll be some time tomorrow before I can go through your replies but I'm sure the reliability issues can be sorted out, if there are any left over after the changes you've made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)