Clearview AI, Inc. is an American facial recognition company, providing software primarily to law enforcement and other government agencies.[1] The company's algorithm matches faces to a database of more than 20 billion images collected from the Internet, including social media applications.[2] Founded by Hoan Ton-That, Charles C. Johnson,[3] and Richard Schwartz, the company maintained a low profile until late 2019, when its usage by law enforcement was first reported.[4]
Use of the facial recognition tool has been controversial. Several U.S. senators have expressed concern about privacy rights and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sued the company for violating privacy laws on several occasions. U.S. police have used the software to apprehend suspected criminals.[5][6][7] Clearview's practices have led to fines and bans by EU nations for violating privacy laws, and investigations in the U.S. and other countries.[8][9][10] In 2022, Clearview reached a settlement with the ACLU, in which they agreed to restrict U.S. market sales of facial recognition services to government entities.
Trump tasked Palantir Technologies and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to compile and merge data across federal agencies into a master list containing information on every American.[14]The New York Times estimated such collection would entail roughly 314 areas, including Americans' Social Security numbers, disability status, bank accounts, student debt, medical claims, credit history, alimony paid, charitable contributions, child support, gambling income, IP addresses, educational attainment, marital status, criminal history, voting records, and more. Trump's efforts to gather this data were described as having "elbowed past the objections of career staff, data security protocols, national security experts and legal privacy protections".[15]
The move received criticism from privacy experts and civil society groups, who noted the siloed nature of government data made it hard to hack and leak in a single data breach. It was also criticized for potentially allowing Trump to target and harass his political opponents and grant the president "untold surveillance power".[14] Trump made requests to all 50 states to give his administration access to all personally sensitive data held by them on American citizens, saying it needed the data to verify election integrity, to identify waste and fraud and to keep ineligible immigrants off benefit rolls. Critics described such efforts as an attempt to monitor immigrants and ideological opponents, surveil Americans, and spread false claims of fraud.[16] The moves broke longstanding norms and legal protections.[17]
Palantir has been criticized for its involvement in expanding government surveillance through artificial intelligence and facial recognition technologies.[18][19] Critics have raised concerns about its contracts under the Trump administration, which enable deportations and the aggregation of sensitive data on Americans.[20][21] Supporters say that Palantir does not collect, store, or sell data itself but rather provides software that helps clients analyze data they already possess, while clients retain control and rights over their own information.[22][23]
Flock Group Inc., doing business as Flock Safety,[24] is an American manufacturer and operator of security hardware and software, particularly automated license plate recognition (ALPR), video surveillance, and gunfire locator systems, and supporting software to integrate the data gathered by these technologies. Founded in 2017, Flock operates such systems under contract with law enforcement agencies, neighborhood associations, and private property owners. As of 2025, Flock says that it operates in over 5,000 communities across 49 U.S. states, and perform over 20 billion scans of vehicles in the U.S. every month.[25][26][27] Flock Safety's network of cameras, utilizing image recognition and machine learning, can share data with police departments and can be integrated into predictive policing platforms like Palantir.[28]
Flock differs from its competitors in that it markets their services not just to law enforcement, but also to homeowner associations and similar community organizations as tools for crime prevention. They claim that their systems aid criminal investigations; however, they are widely described by critics as an example of mass surveillance, and their efficacy and effects on privacy and other civil liberties are the subject of extensive public scrutiny, debate, and litigation.[29]
Official seal of the Information Awareness Office – a U.S. agency which developed technologies for mass surveillance
Under the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, the U.S. Postal Service photographs the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces in 2012. The U.S. Postmaster General stated that the system is primarily used for mail sorting, but the images are available for possible use by law enforcement agencies.[34] Created in 2001 following the anthrax attacks that killed five people, it is a sweeping expansion of a 100-year-old program called "mail cover" which targets people suspected of crimes. Together, the two programs show that postal mail is subject to the same kind of scrutiny that the National Security Agency gives to telephone calls, e-mail, and other forms of electronic communication.[35]
Mail cover surveillance requests are granted for about 30 days, and can be extended for up to 120 days. Images captured under the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program are retained for a week to 30 days and then destroyed.[34] There are two kinds of mail covers: those related to criminal activity and those requested to protect national security. Criminal activity requests average 15,000 to 20,000 per year, while the number of requests for national security mail covers has not been made public. Neither the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program nor the mail cover program require prior approval by a judge. For both programs the information gathered is metadata from the outside of the envelope or package for which courts have said there is no expectation of privacy. Opening the mail to view its contents would require a warrant approved by a judge.[35]
The Total Information Awareness program, of the Information Awareness Office, was formed in 2002 by the Pentagon and led by former rear admiral John Poindexter.[37] The program designed numerous technologies to be used to perform mass surveillance. Examples include advanced speech-to-text programs (so that phone conversations can be monitored en-masse by a computer, instead of requiring human operators to listen to them), social network analysis software to monitor groups of people and their interactions with each other, and "Human identification at a distance" software which allows computers to identify people on surveillance cameras by their facial features and gait (the way they walk). The program was later renamed "Terrorism Information Awareness", after a negative public reaction.
In 1999 two models of mandatory data retention were suggested for the US. The first model would record the IP address assigned to a customer at a specific time. In the second model, "which is closer to what Europe adopted", telephone numbers dialed, contents of Web pages visited, and recipients of e-mail messages must be retained by the ISP for an unspecified amount of time.[41][42] In 2006 the International Association of Chiefs of Police adopted a resolution calling for a "uniform data retention mandate" for "customer subscriber information and source and destination information."[43] The U.S. Department of Justice announced in 2011 that criminal investigations "are being frustrated" because no law currently exists to force Internet providers to keep track of what their customers are doing.[44]
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was involved in a lawsuit (Hepting v. AT&T) against the telecom giant AT&T Inc. for its assistance to the U.S. government in monitoring the communications of millions of American citizens. Recently[when?] the documents, which were exposed by a whistleblower who had previously worked for AT&T, and showed schematics of the massive data mining system, were made public.[45][46]
Internet communications
The FBI developed the computer programs "Magic Lantern" and CIPAV, which it can remotely install on a computer system, in order to monitor a person's computer activity.[47]
The NSA has been gathering information on financial records, Internet surfing habits, and monitoring e-mails. It has also performed extensive surveillance on social networks such as Facebook.[48] Recently, Facebook has revealed that, in the last six months of 2012, they handed over the private data of between 18,000 and 19,000 users to law enforcement of all types—including local police and federal agencies, such as the FBI, Federal Marshals and the NSA.[49] One form of wiretapping utilized by the NSA is RADON, a bi-directional host tap that can inject Ethernet packets onto the same target. It allows bi-directional exploitation of Denied networks using standard on-net tools. The one limitation of RADON is that it is a USB device that requires a physical connection to a laptop or PC to work. RADON was created by a Massachusetts firm called Netragard. Their founder, Adriel Desautels, said about RADON, "it is our 'safe' malware. RADON is designed to enable us to infect customer systems in a safe and controllable manner. Safe means that every strand is built with an expiration date that, when reached, results in RADON performing an automatic and clean self-removal."[50]
The NSA is also known to have splitter sites in the United States. Splitter sites are places where a copy of every packet is directed to a secret room where it is analyzed by the Narus STA 6400, a deep packet inspection device.[51] Although the only known location is at 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco, California, expert analysis of Internet traffic suggests that there are likely several locations throughout the United States.
Advertising data
In September 2022 the EFF and AP revealed their investigation into the use of advertising IDs to develop the Fog Reveal database.[52][53] Fog Reveal aggregates location data from mobile applications, which is then supplied as a service to United States law enforcement agencies.
Intelligence apparatus to monitor Americans
Infographic showing the extent of U.S. mass surveillance after 9/11
Since the September 11 attacks, a vast domestic intelligence apparatus has been built to collect information using FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators. The intelligence apparatus collects, analyzes and stores information about millions of (if not all) American citizens, most of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Every state and local law enforcement agency is to feed information to federal authorities to support the work of the FBI.[54]
The PRISM special source operation system was enabled by the Protect America Act of 2007 under President Bush and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which legally immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with US intelligence collection and was renewed by Congress under President Obama in 2012 for five years until December 2017. According to The Register, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 "specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of U.S. citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant" [citation needed] when one of the parties is outside the U.S.
PRISM was first publicly revealed on 6 June 2013, after classified documents about the program were leaked to The Washington Post and The Guardian by Edward Snowden.
Telephones
In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were cooperating illegally with the National Security Agency to monitor the phone records of U.S. citizens, and storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database. This report came on the heels of allegations that the U.S. government had been conducting electronic surveillance of domestic telephone calls without warrants.[55]
Law enforcement and intelligence services in the United States possess technology to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones in order to listen to conversations that take place nearby the person who holds the phone.[56][57][58]
U.S. federal agents regularly use mobile phones to collect location data. The geographical location of a mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily (whether it is being used or not), using a technique known multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the phone.[59][60]
As worldwide sales of smartphones began exceeding those of feature phones, the NSA decided to take advantage of the smartphone boom. This is particularly advantageous because the smartphone combines a myriad of data that would interest an intelligence agency, such as social contacts, user behavior, interests, location, photos and credit card numbers and passwords.[61]
An internal NSA report from 2010 stated that the spread of the smartphone has been occurring "extremely rapidly"—developments that "certainly complicate traditional target analysis."[61] According to the document, the NSA has set up task forces assigned to several smartphone manufacturers and operating systems, including Apple Inc.'s iPhone and iOS operating system, as well as Google's Android mobile operating system.[61] Similarly, Britain's GCHQ assigned a team to study and crack the BlackBerry.[61]
Under the heading "iPhone capability", the document notes that there are smaller NSA programs, known as "scripts", that can perform surveillance on 38 different features of the iPhone 3 and iPhone 4 operating systems. These include the mapping feature, voicemail and photos, as well as Google Earth, Facebook and Yahoo! Messenger.[61]
Law enforcement agencies have expanded their surveillance capabilities through the automated analysis of various personal data in big data analytics which includes predictive policing systems to support investigative and patrol activities[62].
The FBI collected nearly all hotel, airline, rental car, gift shop, and casino records in Las Vegas during the last two weeks of 2003. The FBI requested all electronic data of hundreds of thousands of people based on a very general lead for the Las Vegas New Year's celebration. The Senior VP of The Mirage went on record with PBS' Frontline describing the first time they were requested to help in the mass collection of personal information.[63]
Surveillance cameras
Wide-area motion imagery (WAMI), also known as wide-area persistent surveillance, is a form of airborne surveillance system that collects pattern-of-life data by recording motion images of an area larger than a city – in sub-meter resolution. This video allows for anyone within the field of regard to be tracked – both live and retroactively, for forensic analysis. The use of sophisticated tracking algorithms applied to the WAMI dataset also enables mass automated geo-location tracking of every vehicle and pedestrian.[64] WAMI sensors are typically mounted on manned airplanes, drones, blimps and aerostats. WAMI is currently in use on the southern border of the US and in the past has been deployed in Baltimore,[65]Dayton,[citation needed] and Compton, California in 2012.[66][67][68] An aerial motion imagery surveillance system was deployed more narrowly in Lancaster, California starting in 2012.[67][69][70][71] WAMI systems such as ARGUS WAMI are capable of live viewing and recording a 68 square mile area with enough detail to view pedestrians and vehicles and generate chronographs.[citation needed] These WAMI cameras, such as Gorgon Stare, Angelfire, Hiper Stare, Hawkeye and ARGUS,[72] create airborne video so detailed that pedestrians can be followed across the city through forensic analysis. This allows investigators to rewind and playback the movements of anyone within this 68 square mile area for hours, days or even months at a time depending on the airframe the WAMI sensors are mounted on. JLENS, a surveillance aerostat scheduled for deployment over the east coast of the US, is a form of WAMI that uses sophisticated radar imaging along with electro-optical WAMI sensors to enable mass geo-location tracking of ground vehicles.
There has been some resistance to the domestic deployment of WAMI. Its use in Compton, California was intentionally hidden from the public, including from the mayor, because the sheriff's department believed many people would object to the program.[73][68][74][71] The Compton program was revealed and publicized by the American Civil Liberties Union,[75] Teame Zazzu,[64] and The Center for Investigative Reporting.[68][67][76]
After becoming aware of the deployment of WAMI system in her jurisdiction, Compton Mayor Aja Brown proposed requiring that the public be notified before authorities implement monitoring equipment.[68]
PeSEAS[77] and PerMIATE[78] software automate and record the movement observed in the WAMI video.[79] This technology uses software to track and record the movements of pedestrians and vehicles using automatic object recognition software across the entire frame, generating "tracklets" or chronographs of every car and pedestrian movements. 24/7 deployment of this technology has been suggested by the DHS on spy blimps such as the recently killed Blue Devil Airship.[80]
Traffic cameras, which were meant to help enforce traffic laws at intersections, have also sparked some controversy, due to their use by law enforcement agencies for purposes unrelated to traffic violations.[81] These cameras also work as transit choke-points that allow individuals inside the vehicle to be positively identified and license plate data to be collected and time stamped for cross reference with airborne WAMI such as ARGUS and HAWKEYE used by police and Law Enforcement.[82]
The Department of Homeland Security is funding networks of surveillance cameras in cities and towns as part of its efforts to combat terrorism.[83] In February 2009, Cambridge, MA rejected the cameras due to privacy concerns.[84]
In July 2020, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) used a camera network in the city's Business Improvement District amid protests against police violence.[85] The report claims that the SFPD's usage of the camera network went beyond investigating footage, likening the department's access to real-time video feeds as "indiscriminate surveillance of protestors."[85]
Earlier in 2012, Congress passed a US$63 billion bill that will grant four years of additional funding to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Under the bill, the FAA is required to provide military and commercial drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace by October 2015.[87]
In February 2013, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department explained that these drones would initially be deployed in large public gatherings, including major protests. Over time, tiny drones would be used to fly inside buildings to track down suspects and assist in investigations.[88] According to The Los Angeles Times, the main advantage of using drones is that they offer "unblinking eye-in-the-sky coverage". They can be modified to carry high-resolution video cameras, infrared sensors, license plate readers, listening devices, and be disguised as sea gulls or other birds to mask themselves.[88]
Declan McCullagh (23 April 2008). "FBI, politicos renew push for ISP data retention laws". CNET. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 17 March 2009. Based on the statements at Wednesday's hearing and previous calls for new laws in this area, the scope of a mandatory data retention law remains fuzzy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months).
Clement, Andrew; Obar, Jonathon (2015). "Canadian Internet "Boomerang" Traffic and Mass NSA Surveillance". Canadian Internet "Boomerang" Traffic and Mass NSA Surveillance: Responding to Privacy and Network Sovereignty Challenges. University of Ottawa Press. pp.17–20. doi:10.2307/j.ctt15nmj3c.5. JSTORj.ctt15nmj3c.5.
Data Priest & William M. Arkin (20 December 2010). "Monitoring America". Top Secret America, A Washington Post Investigation. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
Donohue, Laura K. (2014). "Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 37 (3): 757–816.
Dilworth, Makeda (August 23, 2012). "'Eye in the Sky' takes off". The Antelope Valley Times. Palmdale, California: The Antelope Valley Times LLC. Archived from the original on 2012-08-25.
Schulz & Pike 2014: "'The system was kind of kept confidential from everybody in the public,' [Compton WAMI project supervisor and L.A. County sheriff's sergeant Doug] Iketani said. 'A lot of people do have a problem with the eye in the sky, the Big Brother, so in order to mitigate any of those kinds of complaints, we basically kept it pretty hush-hush.'"
