Clearview AI built a massive facial recognition database by scraping 30 billion photos from Facebook and other social media platforms without users’ permission, which law enforcement has accessed nearly a million times since 2017[1].

The company markets its technology to law enforcement as a tool “to bring justice to victims,” with clients including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security. However, privacy advocates argue it creates a “perpetual police line-up” that includes innocent people who could face wrongful arrests from misidentification[1:1].

Major social media companies like Facebook sent cease-and-desist letters to Clearview AI in 2020 for violating user privacy. Meta claims it has since invested in technology to combat unauthorized scraping[1:2].

While Clearview AI recently won an appeal against a £7.5m fine from the UK’s privacy watchdog, this was solely because the company only provides services to law enforcement outside the UK/EU. The ruling did not grant broad permission for data scraping activities[2].

The risks extend beyond law enforcement use - once photos are scraped, individuals lose control over their biometric data permanently. Critics warn this could enable:

  • Retroactive prosecution if laws change
  • Creation of unauthorized AI training datasets
  • Identity theft and digital abuse
  • Commercial facial recognition systems without consent[1:3]

Sources:


  1. Business Insider - Clearview AI scraped 30 billion images from Facebook and other social media sites ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. BBC - Face search company Clearview AI overturns UK privacy fine ↩︎

    • Zerush@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Yes, but I don’t believe that now in 2025 are less logged images, but more, because improved AI since than.

      • solrize@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        The date is relevant so people don’t think it’s some new Trump thing that just happened. No problem with posting the link but I think it’s best to include “(2023)” in the title.