Cle­ar­view AI threa­tens penal­ty payment if it con­ti­nues to refu­se to cooperate

In Febru­ary 2020, a com­plaint had been filed against Cle­ar­view AI with the Ham­burg data pro­tec­tion com­mis­sio­ner. The com­pa­ny ope­ra­tes a facial reco­gni­ti­on app. In the opi­ni­on of the aut­ho­ri­ty, Cle­ar­view AI had only ina­de­qua­te­ly ans­we­red que­sti­ons about its busi­ness model. With for­mal Infor­ma­ti­on coll­ec­tion noti­ce the data pro­tec­tion com­mis­sio­ner now wants to force the company’s coope­ra­ti­on. If the com­pa­ny does not pro­vi­de com­pre­hen­si­ve and meaningful ans­wers to the que­sti­ons posed in the noti­ce by mid-Sep­tem­ber, the com­pa­ny faces a penal­ty payment of up to EUR 170,000.

Cle­ar­view AI Busi­ness Model

The Cle­ar­view AI facial reco­gni­ti­on app is based on an archi­ve of pho­tos publicly available on the Inter­net. Cle­ar­view AI appar­ent­ly copied more than three bil­li­on pho­tos, e.g. from social net­works such as Face­book, Insta­gram and Twit­ter. Among them are said to be Pho­tos of peo­p­le from the Euro­pean Uni­on are loca­ted. The start-up then eva­lua­ted the­se for bio­me­tric data. The soft­ware is desi­gned to help secu­ri­ty agen­ci­es iden­ti­fy unknown peo­p­le from pho­tos. When a Cle­ar­view cus­to­mer uploads a pho­to of a per­son to the app, Cle­ar­view AI matches it with the pho­tos in its database.

GDPR requi­re­ments likely to pose chal­lenges to busi­ness model

Cle­ar­view AI had not respon­ded to the Ham­burg Data Pro­tec­tion Commissioner’s pre­vious que­sti­ons pri­ma­ri­ly becau­se, in its view, the Euro­pean Gene­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Regu­la­ti­on (GDPR) does not app­ly at all. Here, the Ham­burg data pro­tec­tion com­mis­sio­ner takes a dif­fe­rent view. Cle­ar­view AI also has cus­to­mers who­se employees are loca­ted in the EU and who­se beha­vi­or as users of the app is in any case moni­to­red by set­ting coo­kies. Accor­ding to Art. 3(2)(b) of the GDPR, the scope of appli­ca­ti­on of the GDPR is ope­ned and Cle­ar­view AI is obli­ged to pro­vi­de information.

Howe­ver, the back­ground to the noti­ce seems to be less about user track­ing. Rather, the Ham­burg data pro­tec­tion com­mis­sio­ner is con­cer­ned by the “mass and unpro­vo­ked” coll­ec­tion of images online, which makes “indi­vi­du­als iden­ti­fia­ble through bio­me­tric ana­ly­sis” and end­an­gers “pri­va­cy on a glo­bal sca­le. Inde­ed, Cle­ar­view AI’s busi­ness model is likely to face major chal­lenges in com­ply­ing with the GDPR requi­re­ments for bio­me­tric ana­ly­sis of pho­tos. Under the GDPR, the coll­ec­tion and fur­ther use of bio­me­tric data is only allo­wed under strict con­di­ti­ons (Art. 9(2) GDPR). Expli­cit con­sent for data pro­ce­s­sing would pro­ba­b­ly have to be obtai­ned from EU data sub­jects in accordance with Art. 9(2)(a) GDPR. With bil­li­ons of pho­tos, this would be a chal­len­ging undertaking.

No lawful use of the app by EU law enforce­ment agencies

EU law enforce­ment agen­ci­es are not allo­wed to use the app so far. Accor­ding to the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board lacks a legal basis for the use of bio­me­tric facial reco­gni­ti­on by Euro­pean law enforce­ment agen­ci­es. At the same time, the Euro­pean Data Pro­tec­tion Board announ­ced its inten­ti­on to deve­lop gui­de­lines regu­la­ting the use of auto­ma­ted facial reco­gni­ti­on by Euro­pean law enforce­ment agencies.

Coope­ra­ti­on of super­vi­so­ry authorities 

Cle­ar­view AI has also attrac­ted inte­rest from data pro­tec­tion aut­ho­ri­ties out­side the EU. The UK and Austra­li­an data pro­tec­tion aut­ho­ri­ties laun­ched a July 2020 joint inve­sti­ga­ti­on against Cle­ar­view AI. Both also want to coope­ra­te with other data pro­tec­tion aut­ho­ri­ties. The Cle­ar­view AI case cle­ar­ly shows that data pro­tec­tion aut­ho­ri­ties are incre­a­sing­ly thin­king out­side the natio­nal box and not only taking up sub­jects under review from other aut­ho­ri­ties, but also incre­a­sing­ly coope­ra­ting. It will be inte­re­st­ing to see whe­ther Cle­ar­view AI is impres­sed by the thre­at of a fine and the coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween the authorities.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be