Thread by @doctorow

You've heard of Clearview AI: they're the grifty facial recognition system with ties to violent white nationalist terrorists that scraped social media for training data and then covertly sold unsupervised access to cops, schools and businesses.

pluralistic.net/2020/03/06/rob…

1/

As the Clearview story dribbled out in the press, the company insisted that it was a responsible custodian of our faces and could be relied upon to wield power with prudence and caution.

Then its entire customer database leaked.

pluralistic.net/2020/02/28/plu…

2/

The company's in legal trouble but it has deep pockets, thanks to the public monies it has trousered and the wealthy investors who showered it with capital - men like John Catsimatidis, owner of New York's Gristedes groceries.

nytimes.com/2020/03/05/tec…

3/

That capital has allowed to company to acquire a terrifying legal weapon: the services of Floyd Abrams, the "First Amendment" lawyer who successfully argued Citizens United, clearing the way for unlimited corporate bribery in the US political process.

techdirt.com/articles/20200…

4/

Abrams's argument is that there is a speech interest in Clearview's ability to flog our faces to governments and corporations, that this is "talking about us" and thus "speech" protected by the First Amendment.

6/

Now, I know a lot of really top-notch #1A lawyers, and some true Free Speech believers, and collectively, they sometimes support things I do not - defending the speech rights of people who want to exterminate others' speech rights, say.

7/

Likewise, they sometimes fail to champion causes I believe in, like the need to enforce competition law to protect pluralism in venues for speech so that firms do not end up with undue control over our public discourse.

locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-d…

8/

But despite these differences, I respect these people, because they have a consistent set of well-articulated principles that come from a place of deep moral conviction that is ultimately grounded in protecting the views of disfavored minorities from bullies and autocrats.

9/

Floyd Abrams's positions do not hew to that honest morality. Instead, he defends contradictory speech positions seemingly based on who is signing his paycheck.

10/

For example, he argued that SOPA - which would remove internet users' speech without due process in the name of defending copyright - did not violated the First Amendment.

techdirt.com/articles/20111…

11/

As @EFF Exec Director Cindy Cohn likes to say, "We know you love the First Amendment, sir, we just wish you'd share."

12/

As is so often the case with Abrams's speech positions, this Clearview business will has profound implications for our democratic fundamentals. In this case, the idea that the First Amendment protects the conveyance of private information is irreconcilable with privacy law.

13/

That is: if laws restricting the disclosure of private information violate the First Amendment, then your privacy violates my right to free speech: I can spy on you and everything you do, and sell or give away the information I glean, and you can't do shit about it.

14/

A precedent upholding Clearview's right to sell our faces would be a potentially fatal blow to the longrunning, hard-fought battle to get a US federal privacy statute with a private right of action, something this country DESPERATELY needs.

15/

Which is ironic, because the Constitutional bases for so many US privacy decisions turn on the First Amendment: your ability to speak freely depends on your ability to speak privately, so that powerful entities like Abrams's clients can't retaliate against you.

16/

Meanwhile, I'm guessing Abrams would - if paid - argue that nondisclosure agreements crammed down the throats of employees and other people with weak negotiating positions DON'T violate the 1A, because people like Abrams love the First Amendment, but never want to share.

17/

Image:
Cryteria
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9…

CC BY (modified):
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.…

eof/