Apple Has Blocked Clearview AI's iPhone App for Violating Its Rules

An iPhone app built by controversial facial recognition startup Clearview AI has been blocked by Apple, effectively banning the app from use. From a report: Apple confirmed to TechCrunch that the startup "violated" the terms of its enterprise program. The app allows its users -- which the company claims it serves only law enforcement officers -- to use their phone camera or upload a photo to search its database of three billion photos. But BuzzFeed News revealed that the company -- which claims to only cater to law enforcement users -- also includes many private sector users, including Macy's, Walmart, and Wells Fargo. Clearview AI has been at the middle of a media -- and legal -- storm since its public debut in The New York Times last month. The company scrapes public photos from social media sites, drawing ire from the big tech giants which claim Clearview AI misused their services. But it's also gained attention from hackers. On Wednesday, Clearview AI confirmed a data breach, in which its client list was stolen.

Good PR

[aeropage]

Now, we see if Apple just goes ahead and does the exact same thing themselves when the privacy furor dies down.

Based on their precedent activities with China, it's not looking positive.

Re:

[lactose99]

Money is money right?

Re:

[aeropage]

All the way down to the root..

Re: Good PR

[NoMoreACs]

Youâ(TM)re kidding, right?

Re:

[aeropage]

Not in the least.

Re:

[AHuxley]

Or the NSA.

Alternative Title

[phalse phace]

The app allows its users -- which the company claims it serves only law enforcement officers -- to use their phone camera or upload a photo to search its database of three billion photos.

Alternative title: "Apple Decides How You Can And Cannot Use The iDevice You Paid For"

Re:

[shilly]

When consumers share your concerns about Apple's mean refusal to bless them with open access to malware, I'm sure they'll stop buying devices. Meanwhile...

Time for a class action lawsuit

[film photo]

Stealing photo without the copyright holders permission and using it for profit. Isn't the internet great?

Should be broken up for privacy violations

[WillAffleckUW]

The company should be broken up and sold as parts, the databases deleted, and the stocks should be voided entirely with only bond holders paid back at 50% NPV.

Re:

[WillAffleckUW]

Clearview.

Apple should be broken up after Google, Google should be after Facebook.

I'm confused?

[CoolStoriesBro]

What the heck does this have to do with the coronavirus?

I do not trust techcrunch.com

[daniel23]

whenever I click on a link to that site (on slashdot, never see them liked anywhere else) what I get is a sorry chromium icon and the error message:

This site can’t be reached

guce.advertising.com’s server IP address could not be found.

Try:

Checking the connection
Checking the proxy, firewall, and DNS configuration
ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED

"techcrunch" is nothing but a shell for guce.advertising. My trust for the indepedence and reliability of whatever is put there as filler contet in between the ads is

So What?

[sexconker]

It fucking looks at PUBLIC photos.
If you don't like it, don't post your photos publicly.

NEXT OUTRAGE, PLEASE

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What is an Enterprise License?

[gnasher719]

Lot's of posts here without any understanding what is actually going on.

For iOS development you can get a "Developer License" which lets you put apps on the App Store, or you can get an "Enterprise License" which allows you to distribute apps within your enterprise, and within your enterprise only, with the app not being reviewed by Apple at all. The app is _allowed_ to go against usual privacy rules, because you are only allowed to distribute it within your enterprise.

Following the linked page, this

Re:

[gnasher719]

... and then ClearView builds the app with the police enterprise license.

Re:

[jtara]

ClearView's use case is a difficult one, and one I have encountered myself.

What do you do when you have an app that is not of use to the public, or indeed that you might not want to public to obtain, but you need to distribute it to people who are not direct employees?

I worked on an app for a non-profit organization that created apps used during energy audit walk-troughs. This are the (usually free to consumer) programs where somebody will come to your house, and take notes about windows, heating/cooling pl

Awful

[SuperDre]

And this is why appstores should be open and not controlled by one company. If Appke decides after clearing the app they don't like it (due to some public media outcry) they just decide to remove it. And on a closed platform like iOS, which is very popular, you can't do a thing about it.. And then people bitch about how in china the goverment blocks apps they don't like, Apple is exactly the same...

Re: Awful

[gnasher719]

SuperDre, this app isnâ(TM)t and never was on the AppStore. ClearView, the company, signed a contract with Apple that allows them to distribute an app that is not reviewed by Apple to ClearView employees, and ClearView employees only. At this point Apple cares not one bit what the app does and about the awful reputation of ClearView, they only cared that ClearView was in clear breach of a contract between two companies by letting non-employees install the app. They were in blatant and intentional viola