355
An AI firm harvested billions of photos without consent. Britain is powerless to act
(www.politico.eu)
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
355 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
60076 readers
3262 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Collecting personal data from EU citizens whilst they are in the EU is doing business in the EU, which is why the court ruled the law did apply. Did you read the article?
Clearview was not fined specifically because of a provision in that same law that says such data collection is permitted if they were doing this business on behalf of foreign law enforcement. So the UK court ruled the law does apply, but that Clearview wasn't in breach. The UK court used EU law to determine Clearview was not in breach of EU law. The fine was not removed because Clearview is outside of their jurisdiction, which they're simply not.
Yeah, I'm going to take the judgement as the truth over your opinion of a fictional ECJ judgement,, especially as the UK GDPR law is exactly the same as the EU one.
Please provide a link that shows otherwise
I think I understand your confusion now.
For starters, we're talking about the exact same ruling. And I think the snippet you posted will help me explain the issue.
GDPR is an EU law. It applies to all companies collecting data on EU citizens. If a company does, it falls under the jurisdiction of the GDPR and European (member state) courts (in this case a UK court). The UK court clearly held that it has jurisdiction, and could apply a penalty if Clearview were to be in breach of the law.
However, the court is not normally the one to hand out these fines. Instead, that is delegated to each country's data protection agency, which in the UKs case is the ICO. Now, the exact conditions under which the ICO is allowed to fine a company is defined in the GDPR. It defines the jurisdiction of the data protection agencies.
One of those conditions states that the ICO is not to have jurisdiction over data collection done for foreign law enforcement (that's usually covered by international treaties instead). The ICO for example can't fine the FBI or NSA or something.
In the case of Clearview, the ICO argued that sinced Clearview is a private company, they were not covered by this exclusion. Clearview argues that the sole purpose of the data collection is for foreign law enforcement, so that they are covered by that exclusion. Note that Clearview didn't argue that they can't be fined because they're not an EU company.
The court has ruled that yes, the GDPR applies to Clearview, but also that Clearview is covered by the exclusion outlined in the GDPR for foreign law enforcement, and thus that the ICO does not have the jurisdiction to fine them (again, note the difference between the jurisdiction of the law/court and that of the ICO). So GDPR applies, but Clearview is not in breach.
Hypothetically, had Clearview sold this data to other private companies instead of law enforcement agencies, then Clearview could not have argued that they were covered by the GDPR exemption, and thus the court would have ruled that the ICO does have the jurisdiction to fine them.
So in conclusion:
I hope this makes a bit more sense now.