<story><title>Police relied on Clearview AI and put the wrong person in jail</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/facial-recognition-false-arrests.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>danesparza</author><text>Oh, this is simple.  Clearview AI needs to get sued for defamation or slander.&lt;p&gt;In the United States, falsely accusing someone can be considered defamation or slander, depending on the circumstances.&lt;p&gt;Defamation is a legal term that refers to the act of making false statements about someone that damage their reputation. If the false statements are made in writing, such as in a blog post or social media post, it is called libel. If the false statements are made verbally, it is called slander.&lt;p&gt;To prove defamation or slander, the person who was falsely accused must demonstrate that the statements were false (he can), that they were published or spoken to a third party (they were -- to the police department), that they caused harm to the person&amp;#x27;s reputation (he lost a week from work and was put in jail -- not to mention countless articles that mention this fact), and that the person making the false statements acted with actual malice or negligence (they provided a service for money and didn&amp;#x27;t check their facts). Actual malice means that the person making the false statements knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.  I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure &amp;#x27;reckless disregard for the truth&amp;#x27; would be pretty easy to prove in this case -- considering Clearview probably can&amp;#x27;t say specifically why this person selected for arrest.&lt;p&gt;If a person is found guilty of defamation or slander, they may be required to pay damages to the person who was falsely accused to compensate for the harm caused to their reputation. The amount of damages can vary depending on the extent of the harm and the specific circumstances of the case.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tantalor</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s going to be really easy for them to weasel out by claiming the match was like &amp;quot;99% confidence&amp;quot; or something, so not actually false per se. This is supported by the facts: &amp;quot;one of the alleged fraudsters looked like Mr. Reid&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;They can also claim their technology does not make an accusation, it provides a similarity score that LEO can use in their investigations. This is also supported by the facts: sheriff’s officer insisted it was a &amp;quot;positive match&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;The sheriff&amp;#x27;s officer actually gives up the game here, revealing they improperly relied on the similarity score to deduce a suspects guilt, but an actually competent prosecutor would know better. The fault lies with the LEO in this case. Good luck suing them.</text></comment>
<story><title>Police relied on Clearview AI and put the wrong person in jail</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/facial-recognition-false-arrests.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>danesparza</author><text>Oh, this is simple.  Clearview AI needs to get sued for defamation or slander.&lt;p&gt;In the United States, falsely accusing someone can be considered defamation or slander, depending on the circumstances.&lt;p&gt;Defamation is a legal term that refers to the act of making false statements about someone that damage their reputation. If the false statements are made in writing, such as in a blog post or social media post, it is called libel. If the false statements are made verbally, it is called slander.&lt;p&gt;To prove defamation or slander, the person who was falsely accused must demonstrate that the statements were false (he can), that they were published or spoken to a third party (they were -- to the police department), that they caused harm to the person&amp;#x27;s reputation (he lost a week from work and was put in jail -- not to mention countless articles that mention this fact), and that the person making the false statements acted with actual malice or negligence (they provided a service for money and didn&amp;#x27;t check their facts). Actual malice means that the person making the false statements knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.  I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure &amp;#x27;reckless disregard for the truth&amp;#x27; would be pretty easy to prove in this case -- considering Clearview probably can&amp;#x27;t say specifically why this person selected for arrest.&lt;p&gt;If a person is found guilty of defamation or slander, they may be required to pay damages to the person who was falsely accused to compensate for the harm caused to their reputation. The amount of damages can vary depending on the extent of the harm and the specific circumstances of the case.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>hypersoar</author><text>My guess is that some other law or tort would be a better fit, but I&amp;#x27;ll note that the &amp;quot;actual malice&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;negligence&amp;quot; are different standards with the latter being a lower bar. The former only applies to public figures.</text></comment>