OP Travels to Chicago To Oppose Clearview AI Settlement in Federal Court

Oakland Privacy’s 2022 Privacy Rights Fellow and current legislative advocate Yadi Younse traveled halfway across the country to object to a proposed class action settlement against Clearview AI, the notorious facial recognition company that scraped the Internet to produce what they claim is a database of 30 billion faceprints (almost 4x the population of the entire world) and sell it for profit.

Younse got 3 minutes in front of a judge to object to the settlement and called out the lack of meaningful relief for class members.

Clearview AI is not ordered to cease and desist from further scraping the images of class members from the Internet nor do they have to pay any immediate compensation. Instead, class members are forced to become hostile shareholders in the company, owning a non-majority stake, and can only be compensated in the event of an initial public offering or a company sale.

Privacy activists, who were coordinated with assistance from Just Futures Law, were joined by the attorney generals of 23 states who submitted a friend of the court brief objecting to the settlement. Illinois federal judge Sharon Coleman has taken the final approval of the settlement under advisement.

Read Oakland Privacy’s press release here.

The Latest on Age Verification Laws: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

On January 15 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the parties to and amici of the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. The legal issue at hand is the validity of a preliminary injunction that the district court of the 5th Circuit granted to the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), the nonprofit non-partisan trade association for the adult industry (the Industry), blocking the implementation of Texas’s age verification law, HB 1181.

Like several other laws that have been passed in different states, HB 1181 sought to force would-be visitors to websites that host Industry content. Specifically, per the law, a site must verify the age of a visitor if at least 1/3 of that site’s hosted content qualifies as “harmful to minors,” in an attempt to protect children from the harmful effects of consuming pornographic material. However, it is possible that this broad and generic language will be applied to a significant amount of non-pornographic material as well, including R-rated movies. HB 1181 will harm the Industry and it will not protect children. For a more detailed description of how this will happen, refer to my essay on California’s version of an age verification bill, AB 3080.

Oakland Privacy Hiring 2025-2026 Privacy Rights Fellow

Application Deadline extended to Friday February 21st at midnight Pacific time.

Oakland Privacy has once again been generously funded by the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment for a part-time fellow to aid us in our work and help us expand its scope.

The 2025 Privacy Rights Fellowship begins in March of 2025 for a duration of one year.

This is a unique opportunity to do hands-on implementation of enhanced privacy rights and enact social change beyond research and white papers.

Please read the description and application. Forward to others who might be interested or apply yourself. Applications are due by February 14, 2025.

What’s The Deal With Shotspotter?

Oakland is among many cities across the country grappling with whether to keep or dump the controversial gunshot detection system, Shotspotter in the wake of ongoing concerns about false alarms, and over-policing.

Chicago recently ended their contract, the largest in the nation, to much fanfare earlier this year as mayor Brandon Johnson fulfilled his campaign promise. Oakland, after a robust public process, is due to reconsider use in 2025.

Interested in what the deal is with this police tech? Watch our explainer video, created by USF interns Lucia Gifford-Groves and Audrey Orr to get up to speed.

Prominent Human Rights Groups Call on CA Governor to Protect Data from Trump

Human rights organizations called for Governor Newsom and other California leaders to take immediate action to protect Californians’ data privacy from anticipated attempts by federal and out-of-state law enforcement agencies to violate residents’ fundamental rights under the incoming Trump-Vance administration.

In addition to Oakland Privacy, groups from California that are calling for action include Consumer Attorneys of California, Courage California, Economic Security CA, California LGBTQ Health & Human Services Network, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, and NextGen California. National groups endorsing bold action by state leaders to proactively confront the data privacy threats posed by a second Trump administration include Accountable Tech, EPIC – the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, GreenLatinos, Media Alliance, Public Citizen, and UltraViolet Action.

Elon Musk, Disinformation and Us

On November 14, X, formerly known as Twitter until its acquisition by billionaire Elon Musk, filed suit in federal court to overturn a recently passed California law, AB 2655 (Berman). AB 2655, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, originated from the election disinformation advocacy group CITED, and seeks to compel social media sites like X to proactively take down false materials, including deep fakes, about candidates and elections during the periods before, during and after elections.

Musk’s opposition to the bill, as a foremost purveyor of disinformation, is probably not hard to understand. However, pretty much every civil liberties group was also appalled by the bill’s aggressive prior restraint of political speech, and take-down first approach, including us. In fact, Oakland Privacy advocacy director Tracy Rosenberg testified not once, but twice, against the bill in legislative hearings this past session. Among other things: she called it “a broad censorship regime of blocking content”.

Since everything you say can and will be held against you, these comments found themselves in District Court in Mr. Musk’s complaint pp 30-31.