U.S. surveillance and facial recognition firm Clearview AI has won a court appeal in the United Kingdom after being accused of alleged infractions related to the U.K’s general data protection regulation (GDPR).
Originally, the company was fined nearly $10 million for breaches of the U.K.’s GDPR in May of 2022. The recent victory will see that fine rescinded unless the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) further appeals the ruling.
Per a U.K. court tribunal led by Tribunal Judge Lynn Griffin, whether Clearview AI (called “CV” throughout the documents) ran afoul of GDPR is immaterial due to the jurisdictional limits on applying GDPR to foreign companies.
According to court documents released Oct. 17:
“Whether or not CV has infringed the Articles of GDPR or UK GDPR as alleged or at all was not the issue before us. That would be the subject of any substantive hearing were this case to go forward.”
The document goes on to state that, despite the fact that Clearview AI has billions of images in its facial recognition and AI surveillance system (including, according to experts, those sourced from “public” internet repositories originating in the U.K.) the U.K’s ICO doesn’t have the jurisdiction to offer GDPR protection to its citizenry in this case.
In reference to Clearview AI, the court document states “it is a foreign company providing its service to ‘foreign clients, using foreign IP addresses, and in support of the public interest national security and criminal law enforcement functions’, such functions being targeted at behaviour within their jurisdiction and outside of the UK.”
In essence, it appears as though the appeal’s approval sets a legal precedent wherein the U.K. court system’s stance on enforcing GDPR has been relegated to only those companies firmly within the U.K.’s purview.
In contrast, Clearview AI has been sued and fined multiple times in Europe via the E.U. ‘s GDPR with fines being levied in France, Italy, and Greece. In Sweden, the local police authority was fined more than $300K for its illegal use of Clearview AI products in 2021.
However, regarding these and other judgments, Clearview AI has managed to avoid following the court’s orders in at least some instances. Despite, for example, being fined $20 million for GDPR breaches in France in October of 2022, the company refused payment and was found in breach of that order as of May of 2023.
Currently, Clearview AI holds what appears to be a unique position within the U.S. tech ecosystem. Despite continuing allegations that its software and services violate civil rights and privacy protections afforded all U.S. citizens, the company’s close ties with law enforcement have, according to some experts, afforded it a level of protection inconsistent with U.S. laws against unwarranted surveillance and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
As such, it is nearly impossible for most people to have their data removed from the company’s datasets and systems.
Per Clearview AI’s Privacy Policy page, “currently, only those who are a resident of one of the following states may submit a consumer request for access, opt-out, and/or delete.” Those states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, and Virgina.
Individuals outside of those areas have, so far, no explicit recourse to have their images, likeness, and other data removed from the company’s dataset.
The same document states explicitly that Clearview AI “may have sold this category of personal information [face vectors and photographs] to law enforcement, governmental agencies, authorized contractors of law enforcement or government agencies, security and national security professionals.”
Those living in the aforementioned U.S. states wishing to opt-out, must submit a “headshot” photograph, verify their government-issued identification, and provide “any additional information” required by the company in order to have their request for removal reviewed.
The government has said the £3 cap would stay in place for another year, until December 2025.
But speaking on Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips, Transport Secretary Louise Haugh indicated the government was considering abolishing the cap beyond that point to explore alternative methods of funding.
She said: “We’ve stepped in with funding to protect it at £3 until 31 December next year. And in that period, we’ll look to establish more targeted approaches.
“We’ve, through evaluation of the £2 cap, found that the best approach is to target it at young people.
“So we want to look at ways in order to ensure more targeted ways, just like we do with the concessionary fare for older people, we think we can develop more targeted ways that will better encourage people onto buses.”
Pressed again on whether that meant the single £3 cap would be removed after December 2025, and that other bus reliefs could be put in place, she replied: “That’s what we’re considering at the moment as we go through this year, as we have that time whilst the £3 cap is in place – because the evaluation that we had showed, it hadn’t represented good value for money, the previous cap.”
Advertisement
It comes after Ms Haigh also confirmed that HS2 would not run to Crewe.
There had been reports that Labour could instead build an “HS2-light” railway between Birmingham and Crewe.
But Ms Haigh said that while HS2 would be built from Birmingham to Euston, the government was “not resurrecting the plans for HS2”.
“HS2 Limited isn’t getting any further work beyond what’s been commissioned to Euston,” she added.
Last month the prime minster confirmed the £2 bus fare cap would rise to £3 – branded the “bus tax” by critics – saying that the previous government had not planned for the funding to continue past the end of 2024.
He said that although the cap would increase to £3, it would stay at that price until the end of 2025 “because I know how important it is”.
Manchester mayor to keep £2 cap
The cap rise has been unpopular with some in Labour, with Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham opting to keep the £2 cap in place for the whole of 2025, despite the maximum that can be charged across England rising to £3.
The region’s mayor said he was able to cap single fares at £2 because of steps he took to regulate the system and bring buses back into public ownership from last year.
He also confirmed plans to introduce a contactless payment system, with a daily and weekly cap on prices, as Greater Manchester moves towards a London-style system for public transport pricing.
Under devolution, local authorities and metro mayors can fund their own schemes to keep fares down, as has been the case in Greater Manchester, London and West Yorkshire.
Shelves will not be left empty this winter if farmers go on strike over tax changes, a cabinet minister has said.
Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, said the government would be setting out contingency plans to ensure food security is not compromised if farmers decide to protest.
Farmers across England and Wales have expressed anger that farms will no longer get 100% relief on inheritance tax, as laid out in Rachel Reeves’s budget last month.
Welsh campaign group Enough is Enough has called for a national strike among British farmers to stop producing food until the decision to impose inheritance tax on farms is reversed, while others also contemplate industrial action.
Asked by Trevor Phillips if she was concerned at the prospect that shelves could be empty of food this winter, Ms Haigh replied: “No, we think we put forward food security really as a priority, and we’ll work with farmers and the supply chain in order to ensure that.
“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be setting out plans for the winter and setting out – as business as usual – contingency plans and ensuring that food security is treated as the priority it deserves to be.”
From April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
However, farmers – who previously did not have to pay any inheritance tax – argue the change will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay.
Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union, said he had “never seen the united sense of anger that there is in this industry today”.
“I don’t for one moment condone that anyone will stop supplying the supermarkets,” he said.
“We saw during the COVID crisis that those unable to get their food were often either the very most vulnerable, or those that have been working long hours in hospitals and nurses – that is something we do not want to see again.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:06
Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change
Explaining why the tax changes were so unpopular, he said food production margins were “so low”, and “any liquid cash that’s been available has been reinvested in farm businesses” for the future.
“One of the immediate changes is that farms are going to have to start putting money into their pensions, which many haven’t previously done,” he said.
“They’re going to have to have life insurance policies in case of a sudden death. And unfortunately, that was cash that would previously have been invested in producing the country’s food for the future.”
Sir Keir has staunchly defended the measure, saying it will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
However, the Conservatives have argued the changes amount to a “war on farmers” and have begun a campaign targeting the prime minister as a “farmer harmer”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:19
‘Farmers’ livelihoods are threatened’
Speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said he was happy with farmers protesting against the budget – as long as their methods and tactics were “lawful”.
“What the Labour government has done to farmers is absolutely shocking,” he said.
“These are farmers that, you know, they’re not well off particularly, they’re often actually struggling to make ends meet because farming is not very profitable these days. And of course, we rely on farmers for our food security.
Addressing the possible protests, Mr Philp said: “I think people have a right to protest, and obviously we respect the right to protest within the law, and it’s up to parliament to set where the law sits.
“So I think providing they’re behaving lawfully, legally, then they do have a right to protest.”