{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-09-30T07:13:40.447Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"fir","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"unknown","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":3,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-facebook-video-selfie-face-scan-failed-account-lockout-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My 5-year-old account got hit with a random security check.'; 'The app asked for a video face scan, but it failed completely.'; 'my face and physical definition have changed a lot'; 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster's five-year-old Facebook account was put through a security check that asked for a video face scan, and the scan failed; the poster attributes this to changes in their appearance and says the AI did not recognise them.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account and attribution; no messages from Facebook were published."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Then it asked for ID.'; 'I use a shortened nickname on my profile for basic privacy'; 'the automated system instantly rejected my government ID for a name mismatch'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Facebook then asked for ID, and an automated system rejected the poster's government ID because the profile uses a shortened nickname.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the post does not say the ID check used AI."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It’s pretty gutting.'; 'locked out of years of memories, friends, and active Marketplace listings'; 'a way to bypass the lock screen to download my archive data and photos'; 'hoping someone here has navigated this specific deadlock or found a way to reach a human'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they are locked out of years of memories, friends and active Marketplace listings, describes the loss as gutting, and is seeking a way to reach a human reviewer or download their data.","causal_attribution":"Poster's own statement of the effect."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The user will upload a video selfie and we’ll use facial recognition technology to compare the selfie to the profile pictures on the account they’re trying to access.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Meta says that, when people verify their identity with a video selfie to regain access to a compromised account, it uses facial recognition technology to compare the selfie with the profile pictures on the account.","causal_attribution":"General product description by Meta; it does not establish how this check was decided."}],"effects":[{"label":"locked out of a five-year-old account with years of photos, contacts and active Marketplace listings","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"distress at the loss ('pretty gutting')","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/1wsrvdh/lost_my_5year_account_after_military_personal/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-29: full self-text retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-facebook-facescan-poster"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://about.fb.com/news/2024/10/testing-combat-scams-restore-compromised-accounts/","kind":"company_blog","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Meta newsroom post first published 21 October 2024 with later updates, fetched 2026-09-29 (200). Describes the feature in general; it does not address this account.","independence_group":"meta-newsroom"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["The date of the security check and the poster's location.","Why the security check was triggered and whether a human reviewed the face scan or the ID.","Whether the poster regained access or obtained a data download."],"geography":{"basis":"The post says only 'Where I live' without naming a place; the comments add nothing. Unknown after review.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a Facebook video face-scan security check, which the poster describes as AI, failing to recognise them and, with an ID rejection, locking them out of their account; described with attribution and without corroboration. Meta's own description of video-selfie verification is cited as context only. Personal circumstances the poster gives for their changed appearance are summarised, not reproduced. No handle is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says a video face scan in Facebook's security check failed and that 'The AI' did not recognise them. Meta's newsroom documents that video selfies used to recover compromised accounts are compared with profile pictures using facial recognition, without saying whether a human reviews the result or covering routine security checks; the ID rejection is attributed by the poster to an 'automated system' and is not established as AI.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a Facebook user says a video face-scan security check failed to recognise them after their appearance changed, an automated ID check then rejected their government ID over a nickname, and they were locked out of a five-year-old account","summary":"In a public post to r/facebook on 28 September 2026, a user writes that their five-year-old Facebook account was hit with a security check that asked for a video face scan, which 'failed completely'. They say their face had changed a lot through recent life circumstances and 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.' Facebook then asked for ID, and 'the automated system instantly rejected' their government ID because their profile uses a shortened nickname. The poster says they are locked out of years of memories, friends and active Marketplace listings and are looking for a way to reach a human or download their data. Meta has said that video selfies used to regain access to compromised accounts are compared with the account's profile pictures using facial recognition; whether this check worked that way is not known. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-28","aiSystem":"Facebook's video face-scan security check (Meta describes video-selfie verification for account recovery as using facial recognition technology); the specific system is not named in the post","aiProduct":"Facebook video face-scan check","aiCompany":"Meta","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster reports that a Facebook video face-scan check failed to recognise them and an automated ID check rejected their ID over a nickname, locking them out of a five-year-old account with years of photos, contacts and active Marketplace listings, which they describe as 'pretty gutting' (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster, locked out of their own account. Commenters describing their own lockouts are not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/facebook/comments/1wsrvdh/lost_my_5year_account_after_military_personal/","primarySourceLabel":"r/facebook, 28 September 2026: public first-person post about a failed AI face scan and an ID rejected over a nickname (title shortened)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T03:21:50.784414+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:37.118566+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","facebook","meta","facial-recognition","video-selfie","account-lockout","identity-verification","made-decision-about"]},{"id":"2026-england-gemini-meet-notetaker-kept-transcribing-prospects-after-host-left-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My boss was in a meeting with a prospective client and his business partner'; 'Gemini Notetaker was on.'; 'my boss said goodbye and left the meeting, and the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were looking at.'; 'What they didn't know was that Gemini was still taking notes'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'it was on meet.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"During a Google Meet pitch with Gemini note-taking on, the agency's boss left at the end, the prospective client's two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and competing agencies, and Gemini kept taking notes of that discussion.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the poster does not say they attended the meeting and describes reading the conversation in the notes and transcript."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My boss sent me the notes and transcript from the meeting to create a follow-up deck'; 'They named the other agency they were looking at and talked about personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The boss sent the poster the notes and transcript to build a follow-up deck from them; the partners had named a competing agency and talked about personal details of the people they had spoken to.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of what they received and were asked to do."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I assumed the notetaker stops when the person who activates them leaves'; 'I don't think they were aware because the things they spoke about were very in detail and slightly scathing towards my boss' proposal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed; the poster says they had assumed the note-taker stops when the person who started it leaves.","causal_attribution":"The poster's inference from the content of the discussion; commenters disputed it, arguing Meet notifies all participants."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Google Meet informs all meeting participants that notes are being taken and the pencil icon appears on all participants' screens.'; 'The meeting organizer and participants internal to the host’s organization can start or stop notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Google's help page says Meet informs all participants when notes are being taken, shows a pencil icon on all participants' screens, and lets only the organizer and participants internal to the host's organization start or stop notes.","causal_attribution":"General product documentation; it does not establish what the partners saw in this meeting."}],"effects":[{"label":"two prospective clients' private discussion after the host left the call was transcribed and summarised without their apparent knowledge","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the notes, including a named competing agency and personal details, were passed to agency staff to shape a follow-up pitch","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-29: full self-text retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-meet-notetaker-poster"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/pckanew/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The poster's own reply in the thread (archive API, 2026-09-29); a near-identical second reply (pckasgw) adds 'it was on meet.'","independence_group":"reddit-meet-notetaker-poster"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/pckasgw/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The poster's second reply, stating the call was on Google Meet (archive API, 2026-09-29).","independence_group":"reddit-meet-notetaker-poster"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://support.google.com/meet/answer/14754931?hl=en","kind":"company_documentation","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Google Meet Help page for \"Take notes for me\", fetched 2026-09-29 (200). Describes the feature in general; it does not address this meeting.","independence_group":"google-meet-help"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether the partners saw or understood Meet's note-taking notice after the host left.","The date of the meeting and the partners' location.","Whether the follow-up deck was made or the prospective client learned of the transcript.","Where the call participants were located."],"geography":{"basis":"The poster titles the post '(England)', answering the subreddit's instruction to say whether the poster is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; that locates the poster and the law they ask about, not the call. The post does not say where the boss or the prospective clients were during the Google Meet call. Unknown after review.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI note-taker capturing and summarising people who were not its users, with the notes then used commercially, described with attribution and without corroboration. Google's documentation of participant notification is included as context. No handle, company or client name is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster names Gemini note-taking in a Google Meet call as the tool that kept producing notes and a transcript after the host left; Google's help page documents the feature. No notes or screenshots were published.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: an agency employee in England says Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients after the agency's boss left the call, and that the boss passed their private post-meeting discussion to staff to shape a follow-up pitch","summary":"In a public post to r/LegalAdviceUK on 28 September 2026, an employee of a marketing agency in England writes that their boss pitched a prospective client and the client's business partner on a Google Meet call with Gemini note-taking switched on. After the boss said goodbye and left, the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were considering, and Gemini kept taking notes. The boss then sent the employee the notes and transcript, which named a competing agency and included 'personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call', and asked for a follow-up deck built on what the partners liked and disliked. The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed. Google's help page says Meet tells all participants when notes are being taken; whether the partners noticed is not known. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-28","aiSystem":"Gemini note-taking in Google Meet ('Gemini Notetaker' in the poster's words; Google's help page calls the feature \"Take notes for me\")","aiProduct":"Gemini note-taking in Google Meet","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An agency employee reports that Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients' private discussion after the agency's host left the call, and that the boss passed the notes, including a named competing agency and personal details, to staff to shape a follow-up pitch; the poster believes the partners were unaware (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people: 'the two business partners' who stayed on the call and whose discussion was transcribed. They were not the users of the note-taker (the agency's boss was). The poster, who reports discomfort at being asked to use the notes, is not counted. Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/","primarySourceLabel":"r/LegalAdviceUK, 28 September 2026: \"My boss recorded a transcript of a meeting without consent (England)\" (public first-person post)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T03:21:48.445579+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.507533+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","gemini","google-meet","meeting-notetaker","transcription","privacy","work","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-san-jose-officer-flock-alpr-data-domestic-violence-accuser","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Chief Joseph: 'The officer accessed license plate reader data and provided that to a suspect in a domestic violence situation, which enabled that suspect to locate a victim'; 'accused of accessing Flock camera data on his personal phone to help a family member last spring'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the officer used his personal phone to access the Flock camera system and then provided the location of a vehicle to his cousin. The cousin subsequently used the information to track down his accuser, according to our partner the Bay Area News Group.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A San Jose police officer accessed the department's Flock license-plate-reader data on his personal phone and gave a vehicle's location to a relative who was a suspect in a domestic-violence case, enabling him to locate the woman accusing him.","causal_attribution":"The chief's public account, carried by NBC Bay Area, and ABC7's report drawing on the Bay Area News Group; the locating of the accuser is the reported consequence."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'we immediately placed this officer on administrative leave. We launched a criminal investigation into his conduct. We referred that investigation to the district attorney's office and we ultimately terminated'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the officer's case was submitted to the State of California P.O.S.T. for a decertification investigation'; 'Neither the officer nor the cousin has been criminally charged.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The officer was placed on leave, criminally investigated, referred to the district attorney and fired; the case was submitted to California POST for decertification; neither the officer nor the cousin has been charged.","causal_attribution":"Departmental actions as announced; charging status per ABC7 on 13 September."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'he has made changes to the policy to ensure the data cannot be accessed on a personal device'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'officers are no longer permitted to access the system on their personal devices'; 'testing new smart auditing tools to flag possible access without a lawful purpose'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The department barred access to the system from personal devices and is testing auditing tools to flag access without a lawful purpose.","causal_attribution":"Policy responses as reported by both outlets."}],"effects":[{"label":"a domestic-violence accuser was located by the suspect using her vehicle's plate-reader location data passed on by an officer","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-jose-police-fired-flock-camera/4141719/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-11T17:29-07:00; Robert Handa; the chief's on-camera quotes).","independence_group":"nbc-bay-area"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://abc7news.com/post/san-jose-police-officer-fired-allegedly-sharing-flock-camera-data-suspect-domestic-violence-case-authorities-say/19825592/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-13T22:49Z; KGO; cites the Bay Area News Group for the cousin locating his accuser).","independence_group":"abc7-bang"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services","relationships"],"unknowns":["The date of the disclosure is given only as 'last spring' by the chief; the incident date is left unknown rather than inferred.","What happened after the suspect located the victim is not reported; no injury or further offence is described in the inspected sources.","The officer's and the cousin's identities and the status of the domestic-violence case are not reported in the inspected sources.","The Bay Area News Group original cited by ABC7 was not inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: San Jose Police Department's camera network and the locating of the victim, San Jose, California (both reports). The victim's residence is not stated beyond the San Jose case; no court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional privacy and safety case: automated license-plate-reader records about a domestic-violence accuser were passed by an officer to the suspect, who used them to find her, as stated publicly by the police chief and reported by two local outlets. The victim, officer and suspect are unnamed in the sources and here; the AI component generated the location record and the misuse is recorded as a human act.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The police chief states that the officer accessed the department's Flock automated license-plate-reader data and provided it to the suspect, enabling him to locate the victim; ABC7 describes the system as the Flock camera system accessed on a personal phone. The automated readers generated the vehicle-location record about the victim; the disclosure was a human act.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"San Jose: police officer fired after passing Flock license-plate-reader location data to a relative accused of domestic violence, who used it to find his accuser","summary":"San Jose's police chief announced on 11 September 2026 that an officer had been fired after accessing the department's Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader data on his personal phone and giving a vehicle's location to his cousin, a suspect in a domestic-violence case, who used it to locate the woman accusing him. The chief called it 'a betrayal of the public trust', said the officer was placed on leave, criminally investigated and referred to the district attorney, and that the case was submitted to California's peace-officer standards commission for decertification; neither the officer nor the cousin has been charged. The department has since barred access to the system from personal devices and is testing auditing tools. Neither the victim nor the officer is named in the inspected reports.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-11","aiSystem":"Flock Safety automated license plate readers (San Jose Police Department camera network)","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A woman who had accused a man of domestic violence was located by him after a police officer passed him her vehicle's automated license-plate-reader location data; the inspected reports describe the locating but no further consequence.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the domestic-violence accuser whom the suspect located using the data (NBC Bay Area, ABC7).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-jose-police-fired-flock-camera/4141719/","primarySourceLabel":"NBC Bay Area, 11 September 2026: the chief's announcement and quotes","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-16T03:16:38.30859+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:51.775618+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","police","domestic-violence","privacy","san-jose","california","institutional-use"]}]}