guess which three-letter organization wrote these words in 2020!
Finally, Clearview’s faceprinting does not become a matter of public concern just
because the company sells this service to law enforcement agencies. That would prove too much.
All personal data might be used to solve crimes, but not all collection of personal data implicates
a matter of public concern.
Clearview’s faceprinting is not a matter of public concern
if you guessed the Electronic Frontier Foundation—you got it!
EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Such mandates strike at the foundation of the free and open internet. They create unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers for adults and young people to access information and express themselves online. They hurt small and open-source...
@htsuka.bsky.social have some questions about statements in https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/ab-1043s-internet-age-gates-hurt-everyone and curious which version of the bill you're describing. it seems california responded to your prompting in https://www.eff.org/files/2025/05/15/2025-05-14effconcernsletter.pdf and dropped the censorship but kept the surveillance
I was confused about 1798.501 (b) (1) — but you do absolutely confirm the worst:
A.B. 1043 also requires application and software developers to collect this age bracket information when a user want to use that software or application.
That was very nonobvious to me. I really appreciate this.
this is in regards to:
A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.
https://bsky.app/profile/hipsterelectron.bsky.social/post/3mhl43igpa22v
the interpretation of the EFF lawyer is that when an application is downloaded and launched, that is considered to be a "request" from the developer for this signal.
this concerned me greatly and i was genuinely thankful for that point.
I was confused about 1798.501 (b) (1) — but you do absolutely confirm the worst: > A.B. 1043 also requires application and software developers to collect this age bracket information when a user want to use that software or application. That was very nonobvious to me. I really appreciate this.
but i'm going to break dramatic irony and now take this line as a statement from an organization who is very savvy, whose lawyers are very smart, and who sends amicus briefs like OP.
consider the distinction in the text from this page https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/your-states-child-safety-law-unconstitutional-try-comprehensive-data-privacy
It Is Comparatively Easy to Write Data Privacy Laws That Are Constitutional
[...]
EFF made this argument in support of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
go to that link. read it.
Above all, EFF agrees with the ACLU that Clearview should be held accountable for invading the biometric privacy of the millions of individuals whose faceprints it extracted without consent.
[there's an ellipsis here]
But
and then they mention the rape victim who by the way has no clear relationship to their argument and i am not going to refute because it's cynical and it's shocking and it's intended to make you stop reading.
Comprehensive data privacy legislation is the best way to hold tech companies accountable in our surveillance age, including for harm they do to children. Well-written privacy legislation has the added benefit of being constitutional—unlike the flurry of laws that restrict content behind age verification requirements that courts have recently blocked. Such misguided laws do little to protect kids while doing much to invade everyone’s privacy and speech.
let's mention the earlier parts of their amicus brief:
Using computer code to generate mathematical representations of faces does not reduce First Amendment protections.
absolutely brain destroying logic. you will take poison damage
Courts have consistently held that computer code is protected speech.
the thrilling conclusion:
More to the point,
yep. "does not reduce" is a troll. they trolled you
the faceprints at issue in this case are not themselves “functional” computer code that can be “run,” but rather mathematical representations of biometric identifiers saved in digital storage
the EFF writes this in a pdf as if they've never heard of postscript
excuse me, if i may interject for a moment:
the faceprints at issue in this case are not themselves “functional” computer code that can be “run,” but rather mathematical representations of biometric identifiers saved in digital storage!
Clearview extracts faceprints from billions of face photos, absent any reason to think any particular person in those photos will engage in a matter of public concern.
this is their argument against it. actively brain destroying
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of these people have not and will not engage in matters of public concern in relation to the biometric information that Clearview extracts from their photos.
the real purpose of this is to justify splitting the line in OP across the page break so it can't be searched
Clearview’s sole purpose is to sell the service of identifying people in probe photos, devoid of any journalistic, artistic, scientific or other purpose.
copyright was never mentioned here. "more to the point"
It makes this service available to a select set of paying customers who are contractually forbidden from redistribution of the faceprinting.
the contract does not define standards for enforcing this which is why law enforcement can and do abuse access for personal matters. this is important because AB 1043 does impose that (we'll get back to that now). you can regulate surveillance. the EFF chooses to actively mislead whenever this is raised.
And, similar to the judgment underlying defamation as a viable cause of action in Dun & Bradstreet, BIPA represents a considered judgment by the Illinois legislature that faceprinting is damaging to the privacy, speech, and informational security interests of its citizens.
see above post: the illinois legislature is not a plaintiff when it writes laws—it represents its voting constituents. in that light, this is a wildly reactionary thing to say which i'm sure will come out again soon.
but again, this entire section is so they can split the clearview line across pages
all of this matters because when the EFF lawyer said about AB 1043 on march 12 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/ab-1043s-internet-age-gates-hurt-everyone
A.B. 1043 also requires application and software developers to collect this age bracket information when a user want to use that software or application.
which again is an interpretation of this line: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025
A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.
the EFF was misleading their audience, and attempting to inculcate exactly the compliance we've seen. other lawyers (responsible ones who wish to protect their clients) follow their lead. here's why i believe this:
(f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.
a developer is a person (they did not specify "natural person" here). contrast with child:
(d) “Child” means a natural person who is under 18 years of age.
under 18 means they have fewer (if any) rights. a developer has no such constraints.
i believe the idea that a person has "requested a signal", purely because "the application is downloaded and launched" is a textbook case of compelled speech. the EFF can say more:
EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Such mandates strike at the foundation of the free and open internet. They create unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers for adults and young people to access information and express themselves online. They hurt small and open-source...
EFF filed an amicus brief today in support of Apple's fight against a court order compelling the company to create specific software to enable the government to break into an iPhone. The brief is written on behalf of 46 prominent technologists, security researchers, and cryptographers who develop and rely on secure technologies and services that are central to modern life. It explains that the court’s unprecedented order would violate Apple’s First Amendment rights.
46! this is an amicus they want you to read. it sets a precedent they can use later.
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/03/03/16cm10sp_eff_apple_v_fbi_amicus_court_stamped.pdf
they are firey! they are invigorated! andrew crocker also wrote the BIPA amicus brief!
straight off you will find this doesn't quite add up:
its Order places a significant burden on the free speech rights of Apple and its programmers by compelling them to write code and then to use their digital signature to endorse that code to the FBI, their customers and the world.
[least important part to this but: the lack of an oxford comma introduces linguistic plausible deniability. there are two valid parse trees]
actually, i'm shocked. this line does add up. the accounting error occurred earlier:
EFF filed an amicus brief today in support of Apple's fight against a court order compelling the company to create specific software to enable the government to break into an iPhone. The brief is written on behalf of 46 prominent technologists, security researchers, and cryptographers who develop...
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/03/02/fbi-apple-magistrate-order.pdf this file is linked from the above "deeplinks" url and is from the central district of CALIFORNIA! and our good friends from the department of justice are asking the fruit corp to ask not what their country can do for them, but what fruit can do for our country.
you know this is OFFICIAL!!! because it is from a TYPEWRITER! there are STAMPS! it has been LOGGED. previously, it was PROPOSED. a blue gel pen has made a perfectly horizontal line through that word. presumably this is no longer PROPOSED
unfortunately i do need to check whether the central district court of CA used typewriters throughout 2016 because even without it being hosted on eff dot org this is very clearly a propaganda document
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California
Along with the Central District of Illinois, this court is the only district court referred to by the name "Central" – all other courts with similar geographical names instead use the term "Middle".
this is where (?) a (?) courthouse for the county is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Federal_Building_and_Courthouse_(Santa_Ana)
but they didn't use that. they used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Street_Courthouse
The House Un-American Activities Committee met in the building in 1947 to gather information on Hollywood personalities suspected of Communist involvement. In 1973 the federal government case against Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the "Pentagon Papers" was heard in the courthouse.[3]
that page only cites the us government.....why is GSA so proud about that........anyway october of 2016 (the same year, 8 months later) the courthouse moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Courthouse_(First_Street,_Los_Angeles)
1940-2016 is an extremely normal time span for a courthouse. oh but that page does have a clue!
Emphasis was on the building's being sustainable, secure and cost-effective, according to the GSA which oversaw the project to build the new courthouse, and to optimize court operations, address security concerns, and provide space for the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. It consolidates many functions that previously were spread across multiple buildings.
ok so in 2016 there was a massive injection of funding. all the citations are again to GSA. which has killed the url. and IA is oooh "under ddos" again spooooooky
so we learned something useful and didn't answer our question. let's go to the court's website https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/
Cases of Interest
LA Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v City of Los Angeles, et al
Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft MDL Case
Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration MDL
oh right when we held a car manufacturer liable once that one time for killing people and it didn't set any precedent?
oh wait this did answer my question and was not a waste of time. both questions https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Final%20Judgment%20EL%20cases%203935.pdf
(1) toyota paid a settlement to the class action suit, thus ensuring it would fail to set precedent
(2) that is a printed pdf in 2013
also....this is all orders https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/newsworthy/cases-of-interest-all?field_case_name_tid=%22Toyota%20Motor%20Corp.%20Unintended%20Acceleration%20MDL%22
so i guess it didn't go to court or there'd be arguments?
i have a real problem with this case in particular but i can't be distracted. we have our answer. typewriter and stamps are bedazzled
so. the doj (who was able to use digital technology in the microsoft suit) and the central district court of CA (who was using pdfs to extract a monetary sum from toyota. and also kia. the LA court doing that shit is impressively racist) https://www.eff.org/files/2016/03/02/fbi-apple-magistrate-order.pdf
ok i retyped out some of it but i'm not typing out "assistant us attorney" 3 times. the point is your eye is drawn to the word "Terrorism" near all the numbers and addresses because it's the only identifying part of the text they didn't bedazzle. your goes upwards from terrorism to the top. obviously you're supposed to assume the male is degraded by being under the female attorneys
Eileen Decker
US Attorney
Patricia Donahue
Chief, National Security Division
Tracy Wilkinson
Chief, Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes
Allen Chiu
Terrorism and Export Crimes
the next does a split screen. the stamp goes on top of this section which makes it seem perfunctory. not crafted text
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZED DURING
THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH
WARRANT ON A BLACK LEXUS IS300
(1) matter. search. yeah. this is great. keep it going
(2) gotta name the us corporate brand and make it look natural.......SEIZED! you're on fire! DURING? the seizing WASN'T the significant event?
(3) the EXECUTION (gasp) of a SEARCH (crowd makes confused sounds)
(4) WARRANT! (it was legal!!! it was legal!!!! warrant means it's legal!!!!) on a BLACK (half the crowd pulls out white hoods) LEXUS (the white hoods stay on) IS300 (confused angry racist noises)
ok anyway this is just a fucked up unserious document
scenario: you are the doj, who sued microsoft 20 years prior and can use computer programs.
requesting an order
22 directing Apple Inc . ("Apple") to assist law enforcement agents in
23 enabling the search of a digital device seized in the course of a
24 previously issued search warrant in this matter .
(the OCR is impeccable i.e. searchable. anyway)
For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
i honestly feel they are making these words up. but here's the scenario:
Apple shall assist in enabling the search of a cellular telephone,
ok. i don't know why this isn't a gag order like every other search order but ok
on the Verizon Network
telecommunications act of 1996 means verizon has that and will give it to the doj. apple is not not making their phones invisible in a way that circumvents a SIM card. you can't connect to the fucking network without a unique identifier connected to the payment method. apple can't do that
they can spend the next decade making billboards about privacy and then steal stuff grapheneos invented
(the "SUBJECT DEVICE")
this makes it sound like a nuclear weapon
pursuant to a warrant of this Court
WE HAVE A WARRANT!!!!! THAT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD!!!!!!
by providing
reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in
obtaining access to the data on the SUBJECT DEVICE.
that's........isn't this from a movie
Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish
ok so we made up a legal-sounding term "reasonable technical assistance" and then we're gonna say what that means which is how law works. like willful neglect
the following three important functions:
"functions" is not a term of art
(1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled;
(2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE
for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth,
Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE;
(3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE,
software running on the device will not purposefully
introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what
is incurred by Apple hardware.
"when the us government is trying to convince you to build them a harness for depriving citizens of 1st, 4th, hell why not 3rd amendment rights, we will be HEREBY ORDERING you provide access to the SUBJECT DEVICE like a doctor who villain.
we are NOT AWARE of any alternative METHOD to PERFORM this besides PUBLICLY REQUISITIONING you. PASSCODES are how devices are secured. keep your PASSCODE secure.
BLUETOOTH and WIFI are protocols. 4G is not a protocol. we do NOT know where this device is
we know of your """"AUTO-ERASE""""" function. we will not define nor mention this again, because of the passcodes"
Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is
not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software
file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can
be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE.
this isn't a legal term and the government doesn't ask. anyone yeah that sounds legal include it but don't limit it
The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory ("RAM") and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device's flash memory.
ok we went from "passcodes" to "RAM" and yes we correctly capitalized iOS on the typewriter. the partitions the phone shows the end user are the only partitions we know of
The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone
"a unique identifier of the phone" ohhhhhhh man THAT's fun to think about. "a"
so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE.
we are publicly asking you to develop an end-to-end product specifically for us without pay and of course since we have a WARRANT!!!!!!! we are also publicly describing to you how to limit it
The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI.
i don't know or care enough about ios but i bet DFU is script kiddie shit
Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2.
trolling. you're supposed to find paragraph 2 like this is a way people write for a WARRANT!!!!!!! and say wow this typewriter shit sucks
The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility;
completely insane thing to say
if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.
environmental storytelling through me through you through the typewriter through the black lexus is300
the verizon network is something apple can access
If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.
this is how legal talk works when there is a WARRANT!!!!!! no. the government cannot imagine a way to solve this. but maybe apple can
Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of providing this service.
this is a real document that we provided to apple. we let them set the cost. apple. to the government. we just do that.
Although Apple shall make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity of data on the SUBJECT DEVICE, Apple shall not be required to maintain copies of any user data as a result of the assistance ordered herein. All evidence preservation shall remain the responsibility of law enforcement agents.
now THIS! this is significant.
because it's the exact opposite of what AB 1043 claims to require
we don't win anything
To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order.
COMPLETELY FUCKING UNSERIOUS
so the government types out an order for apple to the hacker stuff with the passcodes and set the price and your place or mine
it is not remotely reminiscent of any attempt to undermine security i have had the misfortune to observe since then
the government says "including but limited to" then describes releasing a version of the software for the iphone that does the hacker stuff with the passcodes
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/03/03/16cm10sp_eff_apple_v_fbi_amicus_court_stamped.pdf
anyway the eff's compelled speech line is extremely limited. to review:
that its Order places a significant burden on the free speech rights of Apple and its programmers by compelling them to write code and then to use their digital signature to endorse that code to the FBI, their customers and the world.
and it fucks up the rhythm cause "write code" hardly makes sense. and nobody mentioned the digital signature?
the EFF is the one saying apple's blatant DRM protects against government overreach—ooh wait i have a fun fact
the maintainer of osxfuse may or may not have been trying to extort twitter inc when we wanted to ship the git fuse layer? because he had a signing key and could therefore sign code particularly the kernel module with our fixes? oh and then a few months later that wasn't a problem
DRM: it protects innovation!
Apple’s code and digital signature, separately and together,
lost lovers......torn apart......romeo.....juliet......forever..........
code and digital signature, separately and together https://blog.yossarian.net/2023/05/21/PGP-signatures-on-PyPI-worse-than-useless
i have so many more receipts but now is not the time
this is about whether app developers (persons, not necessarily natural) can be made to perform speech. the EFF's argument
code and digital signature, separately and together
you know i'll give them one thing. they are shameless
oh holy shit they keep going. ok now there is more context i have on this. it's not good context
@hipsterelectron i am a little confused why there’s so little interest in the compelled speech angle of that bill, like:
the first two i could see passing a constitutional review on the basis that the state of california has a valid interest in protecting children (setting aside whether it does that well, because it’s the intent that matters afaict). number three… i don’t see how that passes.
d@nny disc@ mc²
trystimuli