Latest news with #ClearviewAI
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
National Post
a day ago
- Politics
- National Post
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? Article content Article content These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. Article content Article content Article content The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. Article content Article content What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. Article content Article content First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a ' pivotal time ' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Article content Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper.
CBC
15-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Parts of Alberta's personal information protection law ruled unconstitutional
Social Sharing Parts of Alberta's personal information protection legislation have been ruled unconstitutional. But the ruling from Court of King's Bench Justice Colin Feasby also upheld an order to stop an American facial recognition company from collecting images of Albertans. Clearview AI scrapes the internet and social media for images of people and adds them to a database, which it markets to law enforcement agencies as a facial recognition tool. Canada's privacy commissioner, along with commissioners from Alberta, B.C. and Quebec, issued an order in 2021 for Clearview AI to stop operating in the country and delete images of Canadians collected without their consent. Police used the company's services on a trial basis before commissioners launched an investigation. Clearview AI, which has not operated in Alberta since 2020, applied for a judicial review of the order as well as a ruling on the constitutionality of Alberta's personal information protection legislation. Feasby, in a decision released last week, says the order stands, but parts of Alberta's legislation are unconstitutional. Clearview AI did not respond to a request for comment. Clearview AI violated Canadian privacy law with facial recognition: report 4 years ago Duration 1:55 The judge's decision says regulations under Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act don't properly address privacy considerations posed by the internet and its restrictions for requiring consent are too broad. It says the company argued that Alberta's privacy commissioner misinterpreted what "publicly available" means under that act, as the legislation permits entities to collect personal information without consent from publicly available sources. "The public availability exception to the consent requirement is really a source-based exception," Feasby writes, adding that the internet, let alone social media, isn't specifically listed as a publicly available source of information. Instead, Alberta's rules say publicly available personal information includes that which is "contained in a publication, including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper, whether in printed or electronic form." Since social media isn't listed, Clearview argued that Alberta's commissioner didn't take the phrase "but not limited to" far enough by not including social media, the decision says. The company cited case law "where it is established that an individual 'can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in what he or she knowingly exposes to the public'." However, the act has an exception on the collection of publicly available information without consent, based on "reasonable use." The commissioners previously decided Clearview's web scraping for a facial recognition database wasn't a reasonable use of publicly available information. Feasby agreed, saying Alberta has a "substantial interest in protecting personal information from being used in a facial recognition database," since people likely don't expect their social media posts to wind up in a "potentially harmful" database. But the judge also ruled in the company's favour. He says the publicly available exception was too broad, as it allows the privacy commissioner to choose who it enforces the rules against, noting Alberta hasn't penalized other web scraping companies like Google. "The commissioner's decision to take enforcement action against Clearview and not others who collect, use and disclose personal information publicly available on the internet suggests that some collection, use and disclosure of personal information publicly available on the internet is not problematic," the judge writes. To remedy the issue, the judge says the "including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper" clause of the exception should be struck and simply replaced with "publication." Act out of date, minister says "This leaves the word 'publication' to take its ordinary meaning, which I characterize as 'something that has been intentionally made public,"' he says. Technology Minister Nate Glubish, the minister responsible for the legislation, said Wednesday he wasn't surprised by the ruling, adding the act is "badly out of date." He said a committee was struck last year to review the legislation and submitted recommendations for updates. "We're reviewing those recommendations, and we're looking forward to working over the coming summer to ensure that we're ready to bring forward some modernizations to PIPA in the very near future," said Glubish. "Our goal is to make sure that Alberta has the strongest privacy protections in the country, and we're confident we're going to be able to deliver on that." Since the order is upheld, Clearview is still required to cease collecting images of Albertans and delete those already collected. The company argued its software prevented it from deleting images, because it's not clear which images were collected from and taken in Alberta. But the judge found that wasn't a valid reason. Feasby ordered the company to report within 50 days on steps it has taken to comply.
Global News
14-05-2025
- Business
- Global News
Alberta's personal information protection law ruled partly unconstitutional
Parts of Alberta's personal information protection legislation have been ruled unconstitutional. But the ruling from Court of King's Bench Justice Colin Feasby also upheld an order to stop an American facial recognition company from collecting images of Albertans. Clearview AI scrapes the internet and social media for images of people and adds them to a database, which it markets to law enforcement agencies as a facial recognition tool. Canada's privacy commissioner, along with commissioners from Alberta, B.C. and Quebec, issued an order in 2021 for Clearview AI to stop operating in the country and delete images of Canadians collected without their consent. Police used the company's services on a trial basis before commissioners launched an investigation. Clearview AI, which has not operated in Alberta since 2020, applied for a judicial review of the order as well as a ruling on the constitutionality of Alberta's personal information protection legislation. Story continues below advertisement Feasby, in a decision released last week, says the order stands, but parts of Alberta's legislation are unconstitutional. Clearview AI did not respond to a request for comment. 2:06 Privacy investigation finds U.S. tech firm violated Canadian rules with facial-recognition tool The judge's decision says regulations under Alberta's Personal Information Protection Act don't properly address privacy considerations posed by the internet and its restrictions for requiring consent are too broad. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy It says the company argued that Alberta's privacy commissioner misinterpreted what 'publicly available' means under that act, as the legislation permits entities to collect personal information without consent from publicly available sources. 'The public availability exception to the consent requirement is really a source-based exception,' Feasby writes, adding that the internet, let alone social media, isn't specifically listed as a publicly available source of information. Story continues below advertisement Instead, Alberta's rules say publicly available personal information includes that which is 'contained in a publication, including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper, whether in printed or electronic form.' Since social media isn't listed, Clearview argued that Alberta's commissioner didn't take the phrase 'but not limited to' far enough by not including social media, the decision says. The company cited case law 'where it is established that an individual 'can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in what he or she knowingly exposes to the public.'' But the act has an exception on the collection of publicly available information without consent, based on 'reasonable use.' The commissioners previously decided Clearview's web scraping for a facial recognition database wasn't a reasonable use of publicly available information. Feasby agreed, saying Alberta has a 'substantial interest in protecting personal information from being used in a facial recognition database,' since people likely don't expect their social media posts to wind up in a 'potentially harmful' database. But the judge also ruled in the company's favour. He says the publicly available exception was too broad, as it allows the privacy commissioner to choose who it enforces the rules against, noting Alberta hasn't penalized other web scraping companies like Google. 'The commissioner's decision to take enforcement action against Clearview and not others who collect, use and disclose personal information publicly available on the internet suggests that some collection, use and disclosure of personal information publicly available on the internet is not problematic,' the judge writes. Story continues below advertisement To remedy the issue, the judge says the 'including, but not limited to, a magazine, book or newspaper' clause of the exception should be struck and simply replaced with 'publication.' 'This leaves the word 'publication' to take its ordinary meaning, which I characterize as 'something that has been intentionally made public,'' he says. Technology Minister Nate Glubish, the minister responsible for the legislation, said Wednesday he wasn't surprised by the ruling, adding the act is 'badly out of date.' He said a committee was struck last year to review the legislation and submitted recommendations for updates. 'We're reviewing those recommendations, and we're looking forward to working over the coming summer to ensure that we're ready to bring forward some modernizations to PIPA in the very near future,' said Glubish. 'Our goal is to make sure that Alberta has the strongest privacy protections in the country, and we're confident we're going to be able to deliver on that.' Since the order is upheld, Clearview is still required to cease collecting images of Albertans and delete those already collected. The company argued its software prevented it from deleting images, because it's not clear which images were collected from and taken in Alberta. But the judge found that wasn't a valid reason. Feasby ordered the company to report within 50 days on steps it has taken to comply. Story continues below advertisement Last year, a B.C. judge also upheld the order delivered by that province's privacy commissioner.
CTV News
14-05-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Alberta's personal information protection law ruled partly unconstitutional
EDMONTON — Parts of Alberta's personal information protection legislation have been ruled unconstitutional. But a judge is upholding an order to stop an American facial recognition company from collecting images of Albertans. The company, Clearview AI, scrapes the internet for images of people and adds them to a database, which it markets to law enforcement agencies as a facial recognition tool. Canada's privacy commissioner, and commissioners from Alberta, B.C. and Quebec, issued an order in 2021 for Clearview AI to stop operating in the country and delete images it collected of Canadians without their consent. The company filed for a judicial review of the order as well as a ruling on the constitutionality of Alberta's personal information protection legislation. A judge has decided to uphold the order, but ruled that parts of the province's legislation are unconstitutional. The judge says regulations under the legislation don't properly address privacy concerns posed by the internet and its restrictions for requiring consent are too broad. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 14, 2025. Jack Farrell, The Canadian Press
