|
→Johnson and new source: Reply
|
||
(34 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{GA|09:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)|page=1|subtopic=Computing and engineering|oldid=1229531900}} |
|||
{{WPBS| |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Mass surveillance |importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |importance=Low}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{reqphoto}} |
|||
{{Annual_readership}} |
{{Annual_readership}} |
||
Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
== COI == |
== COI == |
||
There is some serious [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] or something going on- the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&oldid=937583964#Technology current 'technology' section] looks like it's straight out of the company's PR. Then there's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&diff=937524032&oldid=937519317 additions like this], straight off the company's website and removing some neutrality in favor of what was on the `cv_consumer` reference from their website and restating their political connections in a more favorable way. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&diff=937565548&oldid=937564714 removed the worst of it] but it needs discussion. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 23:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
There is some serious [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] or something going on- the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&oldid=937583964#Technology current 'technology' section] looks like it's straight out of the company's PR. Then there's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&diff=937524032&oldid=937519317 additions like this], straight off the company's website and removing some neutrality in favor of what was on the `cv_consumer` reference from their website and restating their political connections in a more favorable way. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&diff=937565548&oldid=937564714 removed the worst of it] but it needs discussion. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 23:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
== Peacock tag == |
== Peacock tag == |
||
I removed the <nowiki>{{peacock}}</nowiki> tag from the page. Basically every word is cited, some specific examples would be helpful. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
I removed the <nowiki>{{peacock}}</nowiki> tag from the page. Basically every word is cited, some specific examples would be helpful. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Possible source == |
== Possible source == |
||
[https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-alt-right_n_5e7d028bc5b6cb08a92a5c48?ri18n=true&ncid=newsltushpmgtrackhate The Far-Right Helped Create The World's Most Powerful Facial Recognition Technology]. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
[https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-alt-right_n_5e7d028bc5b6cb08a92a5c48?ri18n=true&ncid=newsltushpmgtrackhate The Far-Right Helped Create The World's Most Powerful Facial Recognition Technology]. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Already used it, from the dot-com version of huffpo. See the ref named "huff_Far", used in three places including "far-right clique". [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
:Already used it, from the dot-com version of huffpo. See the ref named "huff_Far", used in three places including "far-right clique". [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
Line 36: | Line 35: | ||
== Request Edit - Proposed Addition of Article Citation == |
== Request Edit - Proposed Addition of Article Citation == |
||
{{ |
{{edit COI|D|V}} |
||
Information to be added to the article: Reference citation to recently published article "Some Observations on the Clearview AI Facial Recognition System- From Someone Who Has Actually Used It...." https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/ |
Information to be added to the article: Reference citation to recently published article "Some Observations on the Clearview AI Facial Recognition System- From Someone Who Has Actually Used It...." https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/ |
||
Line 44: | Line 43: | ||
Location for the Proposed Citation Addition: A citation to my article may be either at the end of the Reception section referencing the piece or alternatively cited in the See Also section to provide readers with the option to understand the actual user functionality provided by Clearview to police officers. |
Location for the Proposed Citation Addition: A citation to my article may be either at the end of the Reception section referencing the piece or alternatively cited in the See Also section to provide readers with the option to understand the actual user functionality provided by Clearview to police officers. |
||
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/ |
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/ --[[User:Techlawyer|Techlawyer]] ([[User talk:Techlawyer|talk]]) 04:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
⚫ |
[[User: |
||
:How does this meet [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:RS]]. It may have great merit, but I can't see that it was "reliably published". [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
:How does this meet [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:RS]]. It may have great merit, but I can't see that it was "reliably published". [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
Line 53: | Line 50: | ||
== links/subjects for inclusion == |
== links/subjects for inclusion == |
||
* https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/clearview-ai-faces-class-action-privacy-suit/ |
* https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/clearview-ai-faces-class-action-privacy-suit/ |
||
* https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/another-clearview-ai-data-breach-adds-to-lawsuits-requested-preliminary-injunction/ |
* https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/another-clearview-ai-data-breach-adds-to-lawsuits-requested-preliminary-injunction/ |
||
Line 61: | Line 57: | ||
[[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 19:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 19:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/eff-testifies-law-enforcement-use-face-recognition-presidential-commission-law "EFF Testifies Today on Law Enforcement Use of Face Recognition Before Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice"] [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC) |
:* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/eff-testifies-law-enforcement-use-face-recognition-presidential-commission-law "EFF Testifies Today on Law Enforcement Use of Face Recognition Before Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice"] [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Jessica Medeiros Garrison sources for expansion == |
|||
These would work well in an article, but she doesn't have one. Putting here for future use. |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/10/13/washingtons-most-powerful-women-2021/#Local-Public-Powers Washingtonian, Washington’s Most Powerful Women 2021, Oct 13 2021]: "Jessica Medeiros Garrison, vice president of government affairs at Clearview AI. The firm’s innovative facial-recognition technology frightens a lot of civil-libertarians. Garrison is involved in selling it." |
|||
* [https://altoday.com/archives/43481-mountain-brook-resident-jessica-garrison-named-one-of-washingtons-most-powerful-women Alabama Today, Mountain Brook resident Jessica Garrison named one of ‘Washington’s most powerful women’, Beth Cann, Dec 27 2021]: born in Rhode Island, "After graduating from the University of Alabama in 1997, Garrison served as director of legislative affairs and public information in the office of Bill Pryor while he was Alabama Attorney General. She graduated from the University of Alabama School of Law in 2000." |
|||
* [ The Homewood Star: Garrison named one of ‘Washington’s Most Powerful Women’: Mountain Brook resident attracts attention for role with tech firm Clearview AI, Jesse Chambers, Dec 31 2021]: "...a Mountain Brook resident since 2011 who lives in Crestline. ... “We are now recognized as the most accurate algorithm in the Western world,” Garrison said. ... “I had every intention of being a Bama cheerleader when I arrived on campus,” she said. “I had led my high school squad.” ... “The prolific preying upon and abusing children is something I don't think our society grasps, yet,” Garrison said. “There are so very many threats lying in wait for children — from infants to teens. The more I have learned, the more committed I am to using all weapons in my arsenal to fight back and to effect change. We can no longer ignore the problems. My work with Clearview AI certainly provides answers.”" |
|||
⚫ | [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 19:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Several irrelevant sources == |
|||
I just stumbled into this article, and was surprised to find several (like, almost 10) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&diff=prev&oldid=1167176047 sources that seemed totally unrelated to the claims being made]. I think someone needs to comb through the references in this article to ensure that's not happening elsewhere too. It seems to me there's a likely case of [[WP:OVERCITE]], and possibly [[WP:REFBOMB]] in parts of this article. [[User:StereoFolic|StereoFolic]] ([[User talk:StereoFolic|talk]]) 05:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Sheesh, you're right, [[User:StereoFolic|StereoFolic]]! That's awful! I found lots of overciting, but only one example of what you highlighted. Thanks for noticing!--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 15:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Editorial Comments == |
|||
Some new sources have come out on this topic an the article is strongly biased in some areas so I am working on some improvement. Draft is temporarily here. I will fix my editorial remarks before adding info from new sources. |
|||
Several instances on nonencyclopedic style which I will correct. |
|||
I plan to consolidate the Far-Right connections into its own section rather than have them spread throughout. |
|||
I did all this and added a new source. I would like some feedback. [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 21:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]]! You have done good work, e.g. removing a heavily over-wikilinked passage of marginally-related names/companies, and some consolidation in addition to what you referred above. |
|||
#Please be aware that Clearview AI settled with the ACLU in 2022, agreeing to offer its services to law enforcement and government agencies '''ONLY'''. Some of the changes I made a few weeks prior to yours were updates that informed of that. (I do consider it important to retain some history of the company's practices, before the ACLU settlement.) You reintroduced older content, e.g. in the lead, it now says Clearview offers its services to governments, law enforcement, '''and other actors'''. Has Clearview broken terms of the ACLU agreement recently? If so, refer me to the source, about who these "other actors" are? |
|||
Thanks for the feedback [[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]]. I said other actors because they are selling to schools which I think is technically not in violation of the ACLU agreement but does not really fall into government or law enforcement. That is sourced in the article already. Here is a link: https://www.reuters.com/technology/clearview-ais-facial-recognition-tool-coming-apps-schools-2022-05-24/ [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
# I have no problem with consolidating certain details in a "far-right" section, but the HuffPo source is dated, and isn't the best in terms of WP:RS. I'd like to replace it with something else if possible. I'll look around, to see if I can find anything more WP:WS. |
|||
The article had another source on this matter which was from AI now. It was published in blog form and I did not think it met WP:RS . I do not think Huffpost is the best. I am not a left-leaning person and I was tempted to remove all the references to Far-right activity since the sources does not seem to be great but I was worried that I was then implementing my own bias. After checking the source I do think the Huffpost journalist is correct that there is some connection between this company and the Far-right however it is hard to say in an unbiased and well sourced manner what that connection really is. If you want to add with better sources or remove the section entirely I will support either option. [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
#I'll continue looking through the revised and updated article. I'll note any concerns that warrant a response here, but I won't make any changes until you have had a chance to respond here. I'll just fix some minor formatting and get rid of extra/white spaces.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 14:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]], there are several instances of overcites, i.e. the same information / news story coverage by multiple sources are each referenced. That is inconsistent with WP:MOS (and adds nothing) so I'm going to clean those up, where possible. At most, I will retain two rather than, say, five! Also, I did some research on Clearview's customer base. I find no indication that Clearview is selling their surveillance services (and image database) to anyone other than law enforcement and government agencies. In other words, they are abiding by the terms of their settlement with the ACLU... '''HOWEVER''', Clearview's L.E. and government agency customer base is '''NOT''' limited to the US, so I will make sure to indicate that and retain article coverage about it. I don't feel that foreign governments, e.g. Non-Zealand, should be considered "actors", so I will remove that word from lead.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 15:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
As stated above actors was mearly meant to refer to schools so if you feel like saying schools in the title then I am on board. Otherwise I am not sure. [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]], I made some minor changes. The customer list from the Buzzfeed data breach needs to be trimmed, particularly for companies that never used the application and don't have Wikipedia articles. I won't do any further edits until you have a chance to share your thoughts here.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::You are clear to do further edits [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 16:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{done}} I have responded. You can continue with edits. I made a small change to the history section where part of the timeline was not in order. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Czarking0|contribs]]) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
== Best In The World == |
|||
@Grayfell I would like you to restore the section on them being one of the best facial recognition algorithms in the world. The NIST study which I used as a source is reputable and unbiased. WP:PROMO does not apply because this information is the summary of a government funded comparative study. If you think "best" is too vague then I think it is fair to clarify what the metrics of the study are; however, the algorithm's performance is notable and the article is worse off with the reader unaware of how good their algorithm is compared to the state of the art.[[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:If you cannot figure out how to summarize this neutrally it doesn't belong. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 21:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, your cited source doesn't support this, anyway: |
|||
:{{tq|In a field of over 300 algorithms from over 200 facial recognition vendors, Clearview ranked among the top 10 in terms of accuracy, alongside NTechLab of Russia, Sensetime of China and other more established outfits. '''But''' the test that Clearview took reveals how accurate its algorithm is at correctly matching two different photos of the same person, '''not''' how accurate it is at finding a match for an unknown face in a database of 10 billion of them.}}[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/technology/clearview-ai-test.html] (emphasis added) |
|||
:The article also says {{tq|...Oddly, Clearview submitted its algorithm for the former test, rather than the latter one, which is what its product is built to do.}}[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/technology/clearview-ai-test.html] |
|||
:The source is very clearly skeptical of the company's grandiose PR claims. For us to pass along these claims without any context would be misrepresenting those sources, in addition to being over-promotional and misleading. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 21:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok then I will just say "Clearview's algorithm is in the top 10 for accuracy of matching two faces of the same person." I am offended that you accuse me of passing on their grandiose PR claims. I have not read their PR claims and am adding this claim from that source. [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 23:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Your addition highlighted one specific aspect of a source without including the context provided by that same source. All sources must be evaluated in context, and the significance of this one study should be included. Regardless of your intentions, placing this in the lead without context is promotional. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 01:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_AI&diff=prev&oldid=1178809841 adjusted] the wording in the body to include this context, per the cited source. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 01:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{Talk:Clearview AI/GA1}} |
|||
== Evansville police personal usage == |
|||
[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/cop-busted-for-unauthorized-use-of-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-resigns/ ars technica article for expansion] [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Johnson and new source == |
|||
Moving a comment here from the GA review -- {{u|FeralOink}}, when a GA review is completed it's best to add comments to the article talk page rather than the review, since the review may be archived and hence not immediately visible to editors looking at the article talk page. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I wanted to clarify one point and also bring attention to an important new source that [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] added less than a month ago. First, I agree that it was not appropriate to describe Charles Johnson as a troll here. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]], you were correct! Do note though that the reason we need to mention Johnson is that he was a co-founder and partial owner '''NOT''' a customer. Mike had written above: "...but why do we need to even mention Johnson as a customer? What does it tell us about Clearview? Is there some evidence of collusion or political leanings on Clearview's side, that they gave him an account?" |
|||
Mike's points are still valid, about not placing undue emphasis on Johnson, merely a passing mention, which is exactly what the article currently has. Here's why: Johnson v. Clearview AI, Inc. dated May 20, 2024. That's the source recently added by CzarKing1. See pages one through three. It states there that the company was founded in Feb 2017. On 24 Nov 2018, Ton-That and Richard Schwartz removed Johnson from the company, although Johnson retained 10% ownership but no longer had any role in running it. This new source, about the outcome of the lawsuit as documented in the Justia link, provides additional information for someone to add to the article in the section about legal matters. To summarize, Johnson sued the other two because he said they agreed to give him money for marketing after he left in 2018, and that he didn't get as much as he expected. Three out of the four counts by Johnson against the two Clearview guys were dismissed by the court. (Clearview isn't trying to get the first count dismissed.) I'm not sure if this is the right place for these remarks, so you can move them (or I will, if you prefer) to a new section if that is better.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hey Feral, I glad you brought extra attention to this. I had not added the Johnson v Clearview lawsuit to the legal cases section because I did not see sources that indicate that suit's notability. In fact there are several law suits that Clearview was involved in which are not mentioned. This is because I did not think it was justified for this company profile to dig through the court fillings themselves unless another source showed that the info in the court filings was notable and there were factual matters to verify in the fillings. |
|||
:I did reference this suit in the history ownership section since the owners of the company and how it was founded are demonstrably notable via other sources and that suit seemed like the best source to verify Johnson's ownership. If you think more should be said about Johnson let me know and I am happy to dig into it more. [[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clearview AI article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Clearview AI has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 17, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photographbeincluded in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
IAR by putting this as the top section, feel free to cross out or add to this list:
tedder (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a sourceable connection to FindFace and the NTechLab algorithm ? Seems oddly coincidental. Alexpl (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is some serious conflict of interest or something going on- the current 'technology' section looks like it's straight out of the company's PR. Then there's additions like this, straight off the company's website and removing some neutrality in favor of what was on the `cv_consumer` reference from their website and restating their political connections in a more favorable way. I removed the worst of it but it needs discussion. tedder (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the {{peacock}} tag from the page. Basically every word is cited, some specific examples would be helpful. tedder (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Far-Right Helped Create The World's Most Powerful Facial Recognition Technology. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works. |
Information to be added to the article: Reference citation to recently published article "Some Observations on the Clearview AI Facial Recognition System- From Someone Who Has Actually Used It...." https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/
Explanation of Issue: The Clearview AI article references citations (articles, comments) but none of the authors/cited sources have any hands on experience in actually using Clearview AI in terms of its end user functionality in the hands of a police officer/criminal investigator. The article that I recently published provides readers with exactly what is missing from the current Clearview AI article discussion and I believe adds valuable practical understanding of how Clearview is used by police. I am not aware of any other published article on Clearview that has been authored by an actual law enforcement end user of Clearview. The unique perspective of my article was supported by, for example, Professor Jonathan Zittrain (who is quoted in the Clearview AI article) on Twitter thanking me for the piece as very helpful to describe how the system works. https://twitter.com/zittrain/status/1250805605478076417?s=21 and https://twitter.com/zittrain/status/1250806281474097155?s=21
Location for the Proposed Citation Addition: A citation to my article may be either at the end of the Reception section referencing the piece or alternatively cited in the See Also section to provide readers with the option to understand the actual user functionality provided by Clearview to police officers.
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/some-observations-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-system-blatt/ --Techlawyer (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in the lawsuit injunction update: "it is clear [the data they] unlawfully collected and possess are not safe or secure." tedder (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These would work well in an article, but she doesn't have one. Putting here for future use.
tedder (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled into this article, and was surprised to find several (like, almost 10) sources that seemed totally unrelated to the claims being made. I think someone needs to comb through the references in this article to ensure that's not happening elsewhere too. It seems to me there's a likely case of WP:OVERCITE, and possibly WP:REFBOMB in parts of this article. StereoFolic (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some new sources have come out on this topic an the article is strongly biased in some areas so I am working on some improvement. Draft is temporarily here. I will fix my editorial remarks before adding info from new sources.
Several instances on nonencyclopedic style which I will correct.
I plan to consolidate the Far-Right connections into its own section rather than have them spread throughout.
I did all this and added a new source. I would like some feedback. Czarking0 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback FeralOink. I said other actors because they are selling to schools which I think is technically not in violation of the ACLU agreement but does not really fall into government or law enforcement. That is sourced in the article already. Here is a link: https://www.reuters.com/technology/clearview-ais-facial-recognition-tool-coming-apps-schools-2022-05-24/ Czarking0 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article had another source on this matter which was from AI now. It was published in blog form and I did not think it met WP:RS . I do not think Huffpost is the best. I am not a left-leaning person and I was tempted to remove all the references to Far-right activity since the sources does not seem to be great but I was worried that I was then implementing my own bias. After checking the source I do think the Huffpost journalist is correct that there is some connection between this company and the Far-right however it is hard to say in an unbiased and well sourced manner what that connection really is. If you want to add with better sources or remove the section entirely I will support either option. Czarking0 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above actors was mearly meant to refer to schools so if you feel like saying schools in the title then I am on board. Otherwise I am not sure. Czarking0 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have responded. You can continue with edits. I made a small change to the history section where part of the timeline was not in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarking0 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell I would like you to restore the section on them being one of the best facial recognition algorithms in the world. The NIST study which I used as a source is reputable and unbiased. WP:PROMO does not apply because this information is the summary of a government funded comparative study. If you think "best" is too vague then I think it is fair to clarify what the metrics of the study are; however, the algorithm's performance is notable and the article is worse off with the reader unaware of how good their algorithm is compared to the state of the art.Czarking0 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a field of over 300 algorithms from over 200 facial recognition vendors, Clearview ranked among the top 10 in terms of accuracy, alongside NTechLab of Russia, Sensetime of China and other more established outfits. But the test that Clearview took reveals how accurate its algorithm is at correctly matching two different photos of the same person, not how accurate it is at finding a match for an unknown face in a database of 10 billion of them.[1] (emphasis added)
...Oddly, Clearview submitted its algorithm for the former test, rather than the latter one, which is what its product is built to do.[2]
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 04:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running Earwig finds the following:
Will look at the sources next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
Once these are resolved I'll do a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike. Tracking progress in line, I hope you are ok with that Czarking0 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to hold off reading through and making more detailed comments until that's addressed; in the meantime I'll do the spotchecks:
One minor rewording needed out of five checks; this is a pass for the spotcheck once that issue is fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
I'm going to pause the review here, because I think addressing the structure will change the article quite a bit, and I'd like to wait till that's done before doing a full pass through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearview has shrouded itself in secrecy, avoiding debate about its boundary-pushing technology. When I began looking into the company in November, its website was a bare page showing a nonexistent Manhattan address as its place of business. The company’s one employee listed on LinkedIn, a sales manager named “John Good,” turned out to be Mr. Ton-That, using a fake name. For a month, people affiliated with the company would not return my emails or phone calls. While the company was dodging me, it was also monitoring me. At my request, a number of police officers had run my photo through the Clearview app. They soon received phone calls from company representatives asking if they were talking to the media — a sign that Clearview has the ability and, in this case, the appetite to monitor whom law enforcement is searching for.
Czarking0 (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some points as your answers above address them; feel free to post after each point if you like (I think it's easier to follow the individual answers that way). FYI, the Wikipedia indenting syntax is pretty opaque, but there's a simple rule that helps: copy whatever the last indent was (e.g. "*" or "*:" or whatever) and then add a ":" for indent and a "*" for an indented bullet. It's worth getting right per WP:INDENTMIX because otherwise it becomes a mess for non-sighted readers who use screen readers, which don't handle mixed-up indents very well. So if you want to reply to a bullet point of mine, with a "*", you'd put "*:" to reply with an indent but no bullet, and "**" to reply with an indented bullet. Then I might reply to that with "**:".
Re your last point, I think we can source "right-wing" easily enough, but "troll" is a POV term that we can't use per WP:NPOV (for which a good summary is that it should be impossible for a reader of the article to tell where the sympathies of the writers of the article lie). We need to be accurate, though we don't have to be complimentary if the facts aren't complimentary. I don't know this person so I don't know what the right description is, but something like "Right-wing blogger" would be fine. If we need to emphasize that they deliberately post things with the intention of causing trouble, we need to find a source that states that factually and cite that in support of the description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I believe that the history, marketing, and legal challenges sections are now significantly improved. I am most curious if you have other concerns with those sections?
If not I will move on to the list. I really do think it is notable; however, as you pointed out there are quite a few lines that are not sourced. I can go confirm/remove all those and then we will see where we stand? Czarking0 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for this pass. The lists look fine now. I think the main problem with the article initially was organization, which is why it's taking multiple passes for me to give you this feedback. It's getting there, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czarking0 (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've done so much to improve the article that I'm not going to go through and strike the remaining points above; I'll just read through again and note any outstanding issues here. I did read your comments above and will include responses below.
That's it for this pass. I read through the legal section again; a couple of bits of info have been moved elsewhere and I think this is OK now -- it's still a bit fragmented but that's just the nature of the information that has to be conveyed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ars technica article for expansion tedder (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving a comment here from the GA review -- FeralOink, when a GA review is completed it's best to add comments to the article talk page rather than the review, since the review may be archived and hence not immediately visible to editors looking at the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to clarify one point and also bring attention to an important new source that Czarking0 added less than a month ago. First, I agree that it was not appropriate to describe Charles Johnson as a troll here. Mike Christie, you were correct! Do note though that the reason we need to mention Johnson is that he was a co-founder and partial owner NOT a customer. Mike had written above: "...but why do we need to even mention Johnson as a customer? What does it tell us about Clearview? Is there some evidence of collusion or political leanings on Clearview's side, that they gave him an account?"
Mike's points are still valid, about not placing undue emphasis on Johnson, merely a passing mention, which is exactly what the article currently has. Here's why: Johnson v. Clearview AI, Inc. dated May 20, 2024. That's the source recently added by CzarKing1. See pages one through three. It states there that the company was founded in Feb 2017. On 24 Nov 2018, Ton-That and Richard Schwartz removed Johnson from the company, although Johnson retained 10% ownership but no longer had any role in running it. This new source, about the outcome of the lawsuit as documented in the Justia link, provides additional information for someone to add to the article in the section about legal matters. To summarize, Johnson sued the other two because he said they agreed to give him money for marketing after he left in 2018, and that he didn't get as much as he expected. Three out of the four counts by Johnson against the two Clearview guys were dismissed by the court. (Clearview isn't trying to get the first count dismissed.) I'm not sure if this is the right place for these remarks, so you can move them (or I will, if you prefer) to a new section if that is better.--FeralOink (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]