Illinois Court Rejects Clearview’s Attempt to Halt Lawsuit Against Privacy-Destroying Surveillance
CHICAGO — A court in Illinois today denied Clearview AI’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) challenging the company’s capture of millions of Illinoisans’ unique identifying faceprints without their knowledge or consent. Today’s ruling, which allows the case to proceed, rejects Clearview’s argument that its privacy-destroying business is shielded from regulation by the First Amendment.
The case, ACLU v. Clearview AI, was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Illinois, and law firm Edelson PC on behalf of the ACLU, the ACLU of Illinois, the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, the Sex Workers Outreach Project, the Illinois State Public Interest Research Group, and Mujeres Latinas en Acción. According to the lawsuit, Clearview violated — and continues to violate — the privacy rights of Illinois residents under BIPA, which requires companies to get people’s consent before capturing their biometric identifiers, like faceprints.
“Without regulations like BIPA, companies like Clearview could end privacy as we know it,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Clearview tried to argue that it has a First Amendment right to capture our faceprints without our consent. It failed. This ruling protects our clients' rights, and sends a strong message to lawmakers across the country that they can protect privacy without running afoul of the First Amendment.”
The face surveillance company has captured more than three billion faceprints from images available online, including those of Illinois residents — all without the knowledge or consent of those pictured. Clearview has offered access to this database to numerous private and governmental entities, enabling covert surveillance on a massive scale.
BIPA requires companies to give notice to and get consent from people before capturing their biometric identifiers, including faceprints. This is because the involuntary capture of biometric identifiers — which cannot be changed — poses greater risks to an individual’s security, privacy, and safety than the capture of other identifiers, such as names and addresses.
The groups are asking the court to order Clearview to delete faceprints gathered from Illinois residents without their consent and cease capturing new faceprints unless they comply with BIPA’s consent procedures.
Additional statements from parties involved in the lawsuit are below:
“Today’s decision shows that it is still possible for individuals to take control of their personal information from Big Tech, and legislation like BIPA is the key,” said Rebecca Glenberg, senior staff counsel with the ACLU of Illinois. “We must continue to fight for the right to protect our privacy through control of our personal information.”
"Much of Mujeres's work centers on protecting privacy and ensuring the safety of the survivors, adults and children who seek our help, and today's decision allows us to keep doing that work," said Linda X. Tortolero, President and CEO of Mujeres Latinas en Acción.
More information about this case is here: /cases/aclu-v-clearview-ai
Privacy & Technology
ACLU v. Clearview AI
Privacy & Technology
ACLU v. Clearview AI
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.