Did the RCMP use Clearview AI facial recognition in violation of Canada's Privacy Act?

Yes. Canada's Privacy Commissioner found that the RCMP contravened the Privacy Act when it collected personal information through Clearview AI.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner found in 2021 that the RCMP's collection of facial images and associated information from Clearview AI contravened section 4 of the Privacy Act because Clearview had collected the underlying information unlawfully. Clearview records showed 521 searches from RCMP accounts across at least 19 accounts, far more than the 78 'uses' the RCMP initially reported. The RCMP did not accept the Commissioner's interpretation that it had contravened the Act, but it agreed to implement corrective recommendations and stopped using Clearview after the service ceased operating in Canada.

Yes — with an important qualification. Canada's Privacy Commissioner concluded that the RCMP contravened section 4 of the Privacy Act by collecting personal information through Clearview AI. Clearview's records showed 521 searches from RCMP-linked accounts. The RCMP disagreed with the Commissioner's legal conclusion, but accepted recommendations to strengthen privacy assessments, controls and training.

The RCMP genuinely used Clearview's facial-recognition service. Clearview records showed 521 searches from RCMP-linked accounts, including accounts associated with victim identification. The Privacy Commissioner found that the resulting collection of personal information fell outside a lawful RCMP operating program or activity and therefore contravened section 4 of the Privacy Act. The investigation also found significant weaknesses in how the RCMP assessed privacy risks before adopting the technology.

The confirmed finding is a regulatory finding by the federal Privacy Commissioner, not a criminal conviction or court judgment against the RCMP. The RCMP disputed the Commissioner's legal reasoning, arguing that section 4 did not require it to verify a private supplier's compliance with privacy law, although it accepted the recommended policy and control changes. The case also does not establish that every police use of facial recognition is unlawful; legality depends on the technology, source of data, purpose, authority and safeguards.

Some surveillance claims are exaggerated, but this specific one is documented. Separating confirmed privacy violations from broader unsupported surveillance theories is exactly why a True verdict matters.

A binding court ruling overturning the Privacy Commissioner's section 4 finding, a successful legal review establishing that the RCMP's Clearview collection was lawful, or authoritative new records materially changing the factual account of RCMP use would require revising this conclusion. A policy change governing future facial-recognition use would not erase the historical regulator finding.

Primary Office of the Privacy Commissioner investigation/report establishing the finding that RCMP use of Clearview AI contravened section 4 of the Privacy Act.

The RCMP used Clearview AI facial-recognition searches — Supported Clearview records showed 521 RCMP-linked searches — Supported The federal Privacy Commissioner concluded the RCMP's collection contravened section 4 of the Privacy Act — Supported The RCMP accepted that legal interpretation — False; the RCMP disputed the Commissioner's legal reasoning The case proves every police use of facial recognition is unlawful — False

Canada

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Did the RCMP use Clearview AI facial recognition in violation of Canada's Privacy Act? Canada fact check evidence

Fact check: Did the RCMP use Clearview AI facial recognition in violation of Canada's Privacy Act? What current Canadian evidence shows.