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...
@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