It provides a searchable platform of facial images (i.e., mere information) that cannot be searched using behavioural terms and, it contends, this does not amount to monitoring.Ĭlearview is not obliged to comply with the enforcement or monetary penalty notices until the appeal is determined. Moreover, Clearview argues that its processing of personal data does not involve monitoring behaviour. Its clients are foreign governments and contractors, and their use of Clearview's services also falls outside the scope of the GDPR and UK GDPR. The ICO relied on Article 3(2)(b) of the UK GDPR which provides that the UK GDPR has extra-territorial scope where the company in question engages in processing activities related to the monitoring of the behaviour of data subjects in the UK, as far as the relevant behaviour takes place within the UK.Ĭlearview maintained that, as a US-based and US firm, it is not subject to the GDPR or UK GDPR. The principal point in contention concerned the ICO's jurisdiction to issue the enforcement and monetary penalty notices to Clearview. The appeal raises important questions about the use of facial recognition technology and the extent to which individuals can control their personal data. The appeal outcome is expected imminently. The First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (FTT) heard Clearview's appeal in November 2022.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |