After Clearview ai Gathered billions of photos from public websites including Instagram, Venmo and LinkedIn to create a law enforcement facial recognition tool, many concerns have been raised about the company and its code-breaking tool. Beyond the privacy and legal implications of what Clearview AI has done, questions have arisen about whether the tool works as advertised: can a company really find the face of one particular person in a database of billions?
The Clearview AI app has been in the hands of law enforcement for years before being verified for accuracy by an independent third party. Now, after two rounds of federal testing last month, instrument accuracy is no longer a major concern.
New York-based Clearview has been named one of the Top 10 from nearly 100 facial recognition providers to federal test are designed to identify which tools are best for finding the right face when viewing photos of millions of people. Clearview performed less on a different version of the test, which simulates the use of facial recognition to provide access to buildings, for example, to verify that someone is an employee.
“We are delighted,” said Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That. “This reflects our real use case.”
The company also has proven itself well last month, in a test called a one-to-one test, its ability to match two different photos of the same person, mimicking the face check that people use to unlock their smartphones.
The positive results were “a shot in the hand for the sales department,” Mr Ton-Tata said.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology administers Facial recognition provider tests for two decades. Since these trials began, the report Notes (edit)“Face recognition has undergone an industrial revolution with algorithms becoming increasingly tolerant of poorly lit and other low quality images, as well as poorly positioned subjects.”
Clearview made an impressive debut on the charts for one-to-many searches, but the leaders were SenseTime, a Chinese company, and Cubox from South Korea. In 2019, the Department of Commerce blacklisted SenseTime and 27 other Chinese organizations, as their products were implicated in China’s campaign against Uighurs and other Muslim minorities. Axios has reported that the name was later changed to “Beijing SenseTime”, which limited the blacklisting effect.
Aside from accuracy, questions remain about the legality of the Clearview tool. Authorities in Canada And in Australia said Clearview violated its laws by not obtaining the consent of the citizens whose photos are included in the database and that the company is fighting privacy claims in Illinois and Vermont.