20 ms·

Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer

• kstrauser 4y ago
  I’m thrilled to see facial recognition applied against people in a position to speak out loudly against it. A lot of people seem OK with it when it’s policing the bad parts of town. This is their reminder that it can be used against them, too.
  • mijoharas 4y ago
    When put in those terms it's a classic example of progress along the "Shitty Tech Adoption Curve"[0] [0] https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1331633102762831873 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1331633102762831873
  • bboygravity 4y ago
    I don't think what a lot of people think about facial recognition is very relevant for its adoption or evolution? CCTV and facial recognition are both used around the world accross cultures and political systems and not 1 citizen voted for (or against) them. Not in totalitarian regimes nor in countries that pretend to be democratic.
    • kstrauser 4y ago
      Democracies have more luck voting against them: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-bans-use-of-facial-recognition-14101253.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-bans-use...
    • oceanplexian 4y ago
      It’s because we aren’t governed by a democracy, we’re governed by a massive administrative state. Some middle manager vying for a promotion decides adding cameras will benefit him in some way, privacy be damned. For example, TSA recently started doing facial recognition in airports and most passengers were just happily going along with it last time I went through security. The public is expected to submit and comply, there’s no democracy anywhere in that process.
      • kstrauser 4y ago
        I get the lack of resistance to the TSA thing. I’m not saying my opinion here is the correct one, but here’s how I see it: That ship has sailed. You no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an airport. Courts have ruled that safety concerns override privacy considerations inside them. Alright, well, if this is the system we’re stuck with, then we might as well make it efficient. Now we have TSA PreCheck where you can give up all pretense of personal privacy in exchange for a relatively pleasant airport experience. And the facial recognition kiosks I’ve seen don’t seem inherently more invasive than having a human security guard doing their functional equivalent, and we’ve had that for many years. I’m not thrilled about the situation, but feel powerless to change it. It seems like the majority of my countrymen think this a good tradeoff, so I can’t say I’m fully on the right side of the argument anyway. So if stuck with a system I can’t change, and most people don’t want to change, if this makes the practical experience of dealing with that system faster and less unpleasant, then fine. So be it.
        • LarryMullins 4y ago
          > TSA PreCheck That system was created to avoid what you mention earlier, privileged people in society being inconvenienced and feeling motivated to speak out against these systems. Instead of subjecting the movers and shakers to the full brunt of the TSA, such people are allowed to opt out of the tyranny for a small (to them) fee.
          • saratogacx 4y ago
            You're overselling this a bit. TSA Precheck is $78 for 5 years. If you are able to afford to travel by air and do so more than a few times a decade, it isn't that cost prohibitive.
            • LarryMullins 4y ago
              I've gotten plane tickets for less than $78. I think asking that much for what they're actually doing (checking your name against their terror watch list, then flipping a flag on your row in their database) is obscene. It should be free. It's not free, because if it were free then everybody would apply for the lineskip privilege and it would cease to be a lineskip privilege because now everybody is in that line. So, like amusement parks selling lineskip passes, they price it high enough to discourage most people from buying it.
  • commandlinefan 4y ago
    > it can be used against them, too Is it facial recognition that's the problem here, or the policy itself? In theory, they could hand out pictures of everybody who wasn't allowed in to the security staff and use low-tech facial recognition to enforce the same policy - assuming it was scalable, would it be OK then? I remember reading that IBM got into trouble when it first computerized its personnel files because some exec noticed that the computer could scan through all the personnel files and fire people who were close to retirement to save on paying out their pensions. It would have been prohibitively expensive to pay a person to do that, but with the computer, it was a quick SQL query (or whatever query language IBM used back then). The problem wasn't that the personnel files were computerized, it was that they were being used in a very evil way.
    • kstrauser 4y ago
      You're right: it's the policy that's bad. However, facial recognition is what makes enforcing that policy possible, and society and the law haven't changed quickly enough to deal with the repercussions. For instance, say 18 year old "Joe" gets caught stealing soda from a fast food place. The manager kicks him out and bans him from the store. Fast forward a decade, when Joe walks back into the store with his wife and kid to buy a quick meal. Without facial recognition: Joe's grown up and matured. The manager was either replaced years ago, or doesn't remember the incident, or vaguely remembers but doesn't care about it anymore. Joe and his family pay, eat, and leave. With facial recognition: the system notices that someone on its "do not allow" list has entered the store and summons police to deal with the trespasser. When human judgment is involved, we rarely deal with absolutes. A lifetime ban isn't really for life. It's until both parties grow up and the situation cools down. A ban on a competitor's employees isn't absolute. Maybe you won't serve the owner, but if his dishwasher comes to your place on a date, you're not gonna hassle the kid. We're really, really bad at designing automated systems that handle nuance. It's way easier to write code like `if photo_hash in banned_people: ...`.
      • bmitc 4y ago
        Why is the policy bad? They are preventing employees from a law firm in active litigation with them from attending their venues while the litigation takes place. It's not some draconian thing.
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    Oddly, me too. Things change only when a representative sufficiently well connected person/high status individual is inconvenienced by the current system. Lately, this seems to be the way to actually change things. << A lot of people seem OK with it when it’s policing the bad parts of town. This is their reminder that it can be used against them, too. What is fascinating is that AI recognition did not reach individual homes yet ( say.. won't let you add family members to 'approved' members to open doors, but maybe I should not be giving ideas ). I did hear about it being a toy for the rich though.
  • test6554 4y ago
    Just because you have someone on camera committing a crime in this age of deep fakes is no guarantee that they are guilty... But it definitely provides police with a suspect to investigate further. The most devastating tool for fighting crime is not increasing the penalties or making jail more miserable. No, the most effective way to stop crime is by drastically increasing the chances of getting caught and correctly sentenced.
    • kstrauser 4y ago
      I’m wholeheartedly against facial recognition in legal systems. The fact is that they don’t work well, and they specifically have a bad tendency to identify the wrong black person much more often than they misidentify white people. From [3] below: > Asian and African American people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white men, depending on the particular algorithm and type of search. Native Americans had the highest false-positive rate of all ethnicities, according to the study, which found that systems varied widely in their accuracy. One. Hundred. Times. The camera may say it recorded John Smith breaking into a house, but it’s incredibly likely that it was actually Ron Jones. Who’s the jury going to believe, though: John Smith who was at home with his girlfriend at the time, or the hugely expensive video system that the city just bought? Facial recognition doesn’t work. It’s bullshit tech, and we should stop using it until we make it deliver on its promises AND decide how to deal with its ramifications. [1] https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination-in-face-recognition-technology/ https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discriminatio... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recognize-black-faces-equally/ https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recogni... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/federal-study-confirms-racial-bias-many-facial-recognition-systems-casts-doubt-their-expanding-use/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/federal...
      • LarryMullins 4y ago
        I think it's possible that multispectral imaging may solve the difficulties these systems have with dark skin. However even if this were resolved, I would still oppose these systems because I don't want to live in a panopticon prison society, even if all the technology works correctly and never makes a false accusation. I think such a society is aesthetically disgusting. Furthermore, an accurate system is not the same as a morally just system. A ubiquitous system which recognizes people with 100% accuracy could be used for evil if it ever fell into the wrong hands. Such powerful systems should never be created in the first place, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
  • berniedurfee 4y ago
    I’m shocked someone at MSG HQ decided it would be fun to troll a law firm. Good luck with that!
  • shadowgovt 4y ago
    Is the issue the facial recognition of the fact that it's legal to not serve a member of the public because their employer is suing your company? If the venue manager had kicked her out because he personally recognized her, would that be better?
  • faangiq 4y ago
    You are going to be pretty excited over the next few years …
• Moto7451 4y ago
  Yesterday’s Dolan Family Drama: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044818#34060122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044818#34060122
• MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  A lawyer and a Rockettes show today, could be an angry tweeter and their tesla tomorrow or your Facebook post and a healthcare provider.
  • xdavidliu 4y ago
    nit: transpose “Rockettes show” with “Lawyer” to get the correct parallel construction
    • MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      Aha!
  • version_five 4y ago
    Yes this was exactly my thought. Every day we hear about someone kicked off google without recourse, often because of an automated decision incorrectly made. How long until people are banned from public venues for the same reason? For a long time now, governments have failed to modernize laws and regulations, and companies have stepped in with their own vigilante systems. We don't need more regulation, but we need updated standards for how technology like facial recognition can be aligned with previous norms and laws that came into existence when mass surveillance and communication tech didnt exist
    • phkahler 4y ago
      >> but we need updated standards for how technology like facial recognition can be aligned with previous norms and laws Can we just make personal data collection and sharing illegal? We got by before this was even possible.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • thesuitonym 4y ago
      > We don't need more regulation, but we need updated standards Otherwise known as regulations. If it's just a standard that's not enforceable, companies will not comply.
• irrational 4y ago
  > It’s un-American to do this. This seems like a very American thing to do all of this. The lawsuit, the facial recognition, the counter lawsuit. So very American.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • rrdharan 4y ago
    Actually it sounds very European to me - banning known hooligans from soccer stadiums? https://www.wired.com/story/soccer-world-cup-biometric-surveillance/amp https://www.wired.com/story/soccer-world-cup-biometric-surve... https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15435620/champions-league-final-cardiff-facial-recognition https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15435620/champions-league...
    • KptMarchewa 4y ago
      You don't need any facial recognition for that, just get their ID to check if they are not banned while selling them tickets.
      • xeromal 4y ago
        Seems pretty weird to require IDs for a simple ticket to a show.
        • KptMarchewa 4y ago
          We're talking about football games, not a show in this subthread.
          • xeromal 4y ago
            They're all the same to me. Entertainment.
            • 4y ago
• tedd4u 4y ago
  How do you suppose they got her photo (and associated it with her identity)? Is there someone at MSG (or their facial recognition vendor) whose job it is to look her up on Facebook (Or her employer’s “about” page)?
  • lavishlatern 4y ago
    Common practice for the websites of law firms (and some other fields like private equity) to have the headshots of all employees on their website with job title and description in a nice table. Example of a different firm where you can even filter by school: https://www.wlrk.com/attorneys/?asf_l=View%20All https://www.wlrk.com/attorneys/?asf_l=View%20All
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • unreal37 4y ago
    Probably she is associated with that firm on LinkedIn... It's not easy to imagine how someone gets a database of photos of employees of a law firm. I'd bet she self-identified as being an employee and posted to social media about it.
• Sugimot0 4y ago
  Another chapter in the corporate hellscape of the US. Now your job search includes research on corporate factions and their relations, any outting you attend is preceded by research of corporate ownership and faction relations or security measures in place in order to know if you can attend or attempt to bypass said measures.
  • walterbell 4y ago
    > corporate hellscape of the US For multi-national corporations, global clique analysis of investors, supply chains, competitors and regulators may be required.
• Jerrrry 4y ago
• vagabund 4y ago
  As unsurprising as it is absurd if you're familiar with the petulant child that is James Dolan.
  • HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Yea I think the bigger issue here is just that Dolan is an oligarch heir piece of shit and we need to rethink how inheritance works. The facial recognition stuff is an issue, but if dolan had to actually work for any of the stuff he's got I think he'd behave very differently.
    • Apocryphon 4y ago
      Hey, HN was just talking about him yesterday! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496
• defen 4y ago
  Radio City Music Hall is a private venue, they can ban or exclude anyone they want, as long as it's not due to membership in a protected class. You don't have a right to attend a Rockettes show, and if she doesn't like this policy she can start her own Christmas Spectacular show.
  • guerrilla 4y ago
    Why are you working against your own interest?
    • renewiltord 4y ago
      Working against one's own interest because one believes in a higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call "being principled".
      • RC_ITR 4y ago
        Sure but this whole “being principled” thing is so weird when people focus exclusively on the laws. Sure they can do this without anyone getting sued, but they can still face consequences for doing it (like people not going to see the Rockettes). People like the OP seem to forget that legality is not the ultimate moral code.
        • fullshark 4y ago
          Being compelled by the state to do something you don't want to do (e.g. provide a service to someone) is what they are objecting to in principle I think, and they see THAT as a potential slippery slope more so than the opposite issue (being unable to pay for services due to societal freeze out).
          • RC_ITR 4y ago
            Again, I’m not arguing laws in this branch of the thread. I’m just saying people who lean on “the law is this, they are in the right” ignore a major part of society and commerce to their own detriment.
• mannykannot 4y ago
  "A spokesperson for MSG reiterated in a statement that safety is their highest priority and that facial recognition is just one of the methods they use. MSG Entertainment also said it is confident their policy is in compliance with all applicable laws, including the New York State Liquor Authority." Why do spokespersons frequently speak in non-sequiturs? They simply underline the absence of any good argument. I hope it isn't because many people don't realize this, though I fear it might be so. I also hope the second sentence will turn out to be as logically incoherent as the first.
  • voidmain0001 4y ago
    This explains why MSG called out the NYSLA - https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirnbaum/2022/12/07/madison-square-garden-could-face-disciplinary-action-on-liquor-license-after-billionaire-dolans-ban-on-lawyers/?sh=73c019001ad0 https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirnbaum/2022/12/07/madis...
    • mannykannot 4y ago
      Thanks for the link. Notice that there is no claim here that it is a safety issue. If MSG fears certain employees may reveal things it does not want known, it should constrain those employees from contact with the public within its venues.
      • pixl97 4y ago
        Yea, I would go on to state that MSG is 'fucking dumb'. Now, I don't know how things work in NY, but at least where I'm from the lawyers do not go to your place of business and ask questions. They go to the courts and put in a filing for demands. If anyone shows up to question employees it's going to be private investigators that are seemingly unaffiliated and you won't know to block them in the first place (NY law might be different here). To me this screams "MSG is doing illegal/contract breaking shit"
        • cryptonector 4y ago
• gedy 4y ago
  I morbidly enjoy this idea, but only as an extreme form of tort reform.
• hnuser847 4y ago
  TL;DR A personal injury lawyer ("in a wreck, need a check?") was banned from an attending a show. She attended anyway and was asked to leave. Computers were involved.
  • mcphage 4y ago
    > was banned from an attending a show. Weird that they still sold her a ticket, though.
    • patja 4y ago
      It is possible that the tickets were bought by someone else for the group without individually assigned names.
• habibur 4y ago
  Employee - Employer is here a lawyer based on the law firm. Before you click the title and waste your time.
  • worik 4y ago
    Do lawyers have fewer human rights?
• itronitron 4y ago
  This is a service I think some parents would be eager to sign up for, although since the woman kicked out was chaperoning a school field trip it seems like poor judgment on the part of MSG.
• vleon42 4y ago
  I am torn actually unsure on what would be morally correct: 1. I, as an individual, am allowed to deny entry to persons I dislike from my private property. 2. I, as an individual, am allowed to deny entry to persons affiliated with a business I dislike from my private property. 3. I, as a business owner (eg: a restaurant), am allowed to deny entry to persons I dislike (eg: a previous patron who was violent) from my business. 4. I, as a business owner (eg: a restaurant), should I not be allowed to deny entry to persons affiliated with a business I dislike (eg: the next door restaurant employee who is copying my menu) from my business?
  • 0xdeadbeefbabe 4y ago
    5. Block people who are likely to have a medical emergency at your business.
  • worik 4y ago
    > 1. I, as an individual, am allowed to deny entry to persons I dislike from my private property. If you were not letting other, strangers, in for money. (Unsure if "for money" matters) then you are not, or should not, be so allowed. If you are in trade than (in civilised jurisdictions) you cannot refuse to trade with a person because of prejudice and/or bigotry.
  • dehrmann 4y ago
    The less dramatic version of 2 is a bouncer saying "no, you're friends with Bob, and Bob always causes trouble."
    • CaptainZapp 4y ago
      Except that you're not standing in the queue to be processed by the bouncer, but you have a valid ticket, which they sold to you.
      • Zak 4y ago
        Venues should be required to refund tickets if a person is denied entry provided they weren't previously told they were banned from the venue.
• dehrmann 4y ago
  Interesting. I think she knows she has no case, but realized her eviction put them in violation of their liquor license, fighting back where it really hurt. Banning lawyers might not be the best idea.
  • toomuchtodo 4y ago
    The problem is that her eviction has no case, so might as well weaponize the liquor license to arrive at a similar outcome. They got Capone on tax evasion. Picking a fight with sophisticated legal practitioners seems…poorly thought out? High level, perhaps private venues shouldn’t be able to ban someone from a venue simply because of who employs them? Perhaps craft the legislation around annual patrons served.
  • BizarroLand 4y ago
    I am not sure why you would say that she has no case. On the one hand, it's a common understanding that businesses can bar anyone from their premises for any reason, and that would be the normal interpretation of this issue, but in this circumstance, the lawyer does have a legitimate response in that they have agreed to waive that authority in exchange for the permission to serve alcohol on premises. On the other hand, they sold her a ticket to a show and then unilaterally voided that ticket without warning based on something that had only the smallest connection to her, which could be considered retaliation against the law firm that is handling the case. There isn't any doubt about the facts of the case, the only question is how will a judge and jury allocate fault and responsibility. That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now.
    • gregors 4y ago
      When you say "can bar anyone from their premises for any reason" I don't think you've fully thought that out. Can I ban you from attending based on race? That answer is no, I cannot. Why? Because that is a protected status. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good thing.
      • 4y ago
• happytoexplain 4y ago
  >MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While it's reasonable to disagree with this policy, it's not really related to social dystopia, so I think it's dramatic to lament this in the vein of "today it's this, tomorrow it will be getting banned due to Tweeting about your politics", or whatever. I mean, yes, that may happen, but the only thing concerning about this case is the tech itself, and not necessarily the rationale under which it was deployed.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > While it’s reasonable to disagree with this policy, it’s not really related to social dystopia […] While it’s reasonable to disagree with this policy, it’s not really related to social politics, so I think it’s dramatic to lament this in the vein of “today it’s this, tomorrow it will be getting banned due to Tweeting about your politics”, or whatever. I mean, yes, that may happen, but the only thing concerning about this case is the tech itself Tolerance for use of the technology without restrictions is, arguably, a way in which this relates to social dystopia. Technology doesn’t do anything on its own; people using it (and other people allowing other people to use it) in certain ways is always social.
  • ch4s3 4y ago
    Jumping from "attorneys pursuing active litigation" to anyone working with such persons, and from "litigation against the Company" to "any ongoing litigation against subsidiaries despite date of purchase or litigation" makes it far from clear. Also selling the ticket despite such a "straightforward policy" seems like it may bring up a tricky contract issue.
  • kuschku 4y ago
    It becomes a social dystopia when it's not just "you're banned from places you're suing" but "you're banned from places in half the country because they're all actually just owned by the same company"
• yieldcrv 4y ago
  One angle is the liquor license Another angle is their insurer Another angle is their payment processor You can likely get them back into community expectations
  • monksy 4y ago
    Probably could go criminal with fraud. They sold a ticket that they did not intend to honor, and the person is not able to get their money back.
    • yieldcrv 4y ago
      Now two law firms and the entire New York public sector cant get in!
      • monksy 4y ago
        I know what you mean by this joke. But good. Their hostile position of "we will retailate anyone against us" should not be taken lightly. The more people they ban under this the more they're going to lose business and fail.
• sneak 4y ago
  Covid is still around. Always wear your mask in public. Don't show ID unless it's a cop demanding it (when it's legally required). Private parties can't demand ID. Don't give ID for routine transactions. Practice saying no to routine demands for your papers. It doesn't improve unless a lot of us start ending the transactions.
  • eouwt 4y ago
    It's not uncommon for the T&Cs of tickets and such to require photo ID...in which case?
  • xoa 4y ago
    >Private parties can't demand ID. What? Can you cite any laws legally barring people for requiring ID for a business transaction or to access private property? I've honestly never heard of such a thing. Obviously if a private person says "I want to see your ID for access or before completing this transaction" you may legally refuse, and they cannot arrest you or anything. But they can then in turn refuse to complete the transaction.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • sneak 4y ago
      You've no right to access private property even with ID, as TFA illustrates. ID or no ID, the private property owner can eject you if they wish (unless their ejection is based solely on your membership in a protected class). I'm not sure where your question comes from. Of course any private property owner can reject you for any reason, including failure to ID. But that's nothing to do with ID.
      • xoa 4y ago
        >I'm not sure where your question comes from. It comes from your assertion that "Private parties can't demand ID." That was your claim. I'm saying that as far as I know private parties absolutely CAN demand ID. Including for "routine transactions". And if you don't cooperate then you don't get to do the transaction. You seem to have just completely reversed yourself with this post so now in turn I'm not clear on what your first one was for. If you were somehow conflating "demand" with criminal penalties or force then that's a weird reading, and also this entire discussion is purely about a business transaction. They didn't arrest her, they "jsut" didn't honor her ticket and booted her, which is what people are (reasonably IMO) concerned/upset about. But refusing to show ID wouldn't have helped with that quite the contrary, even places with zero such tech may require identity verification for a transaction and ID is the only widely existing low friction way to do that.
• bewaretheirs 4y ago
  Many organizations (including the Girl Scouts) have required chaperone-to-kid ratios for trips like this. Booting one chaperone from a trip could put the entire party out of compliance with the organization's policy and require exclusion of some fraction of the group or possibly cancellation of the trip. Typical Girl Scout policy here: https://www.gsnorcal.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsnorcal/documents/volunteer_resources/volunteer-essentials/safety-wise-adult-to-girl-supervision-ratios.pdf https://www.gsnorcal.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsnorcal/doc... (Note the requirement that at least one chaperone be female and at least two of the chaperones be unrelated, and note that if you have to split the girls you probably need to send a minimum of two chaperones with each half..)
  • s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Maybe the girlscouts should set up facial recognition for their troop events to identify and blacklist policy violators.
• monksy 4y ago
  So I have been rejected and "banned" from a MSG venue. It's not fun, and it has nothing to do with your behavior. It was at the Chicago Theather and it was the Chris Rock show back in 2017. I bought the ticket, I don't believe that it had any special restrictions [this was a long time ago], the ticket had no indications about the "phoneless"/phone encasing demand. The event page didn't say anything about this. However they were trying to force this. I refused Why did I refuse? The Bataclan attack* happened less than 2 years before this and mobile phones did [it was reported at the time] help people communicate for help and escape. This is a big venue, and I certainly don't trust a venue who doesn't trust their ushers who can't get people to stop filming. Think they're going to know how to call the cops/handle an emergergcy? lol. What happened? Since I was denied, I asked for a refund from the venue. The main security guard corralled me against the wall, waited for the manager, the manager argued with me and refused refund [even despite the ticket saying nothing about this, their overall policy said nothing about this [I checked to see if I could bring my small camera with me]], when the manager left to get an artist rep she felt the need to "ban me" to another security guard, they got a "artist rep" trying to argue against me using "well this is the artist's preference". (Why they brought out the stupid artist rep is beyond me) Ultimately I lost that 80$ and will shit talk Chris Rock, any venue, and any artist who uses the yondr device. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
  • slingnow 4y ago
    • monksy 4y ago
      I was assertive and not aggressive. I tried to do friendly chit chat with the security guy trying to corner me against the wall so "I wouldn't escape into their venue". (People dealing with the public have very short fuses when it comes to non-polite language on ejecting you/banning you/etc.. I have no plans to giving them the ability to invoke that policy despite their frequent gas lighting "well this is what the artist demands") > unclear This about a venue's (MSG, which also runs the one that the Rockeets played at) overzealous and seedy decisions to deny entry.
• ipaddr 4y ago
  Facial recognition by private entities used to police a public venue should be restricted or outlawed
  • jmbwell 4y ago
    Agreed, but what should we do when the "public venue" is owned and controlled by a private entity? The more we privatize, the more we allow to converge in the private hands of the wealthy few, the less recourse the "public" has.
    • MiddleEndian 4y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but there is a legal concept of businesses that are "open to the public" even if they are a privately owned.
• dbttdft 4y ago
  How does some bar theater whatever have a database of where people work? This is broken as fuck.
  • eppp 4y ago
    Her law firm is actively using the venue owners. This isnt just some random person showing up to an event. Her picture is probably on the firm's website.
• tomatotomato37 4y ago
  Everyone always goes for the discrimination angle, but what frightens me is that like other modern automated tech of this decade the facial recognition used here probably has a horrendous false positive rate which most institutions will none the less treat as the final truth. Unrelated this is also why I fear most of this new AI stuff so much despite working in the field; the accuracy rates on these things in production is atrocious.
  • lja 4y ago
    The false positive rate on quality facial recognition is actually very low. I'm not weighing in whether or not it is proper to always use it, just as someone that's deeply experienced in commercial applications of facial recognition.
    • idiocrat 4y ago
      The low rate of false positives have been well documented in the Archibald Buttle vs Archibald Tuttle case. And the government never makes mistakes.
    • Majromax 4y ago
      > The false positive rate on quality facial recognition is actually very low. It depends on the purpose. For identity verification purposes, when you already have independent reason to suspect that someone is specifically Person X, then a "very low" false positive rate is likely sufficient. For filtering, however, "very low" isn't enough. Suppose your facial recognition system has a 0.001% false positive rate (one per 100k), but you have a list of 1000 banned faces and your venue sees 10,000 visitors per night. You're making ten million comparisons, and that "very low" false positive rate will still result in 100 false matches. That could still be okay, if a match just involves (here) pulling the patron aside for an ID verification. Asking 100 people for ID is much more benign than turning 100 people away at the turnstile. MSG here did appear to follow the match with a secondary verification (per the article), but I shudder to think of all the venues that will hear "very low false positive rate" and not really think through the consequences.
• reaperducer 4y ago
  Up next: Everyone on HN who posted that they disagree with MSG's use of facial recognition is permabanned from all MSG venues, with no notice or recourse.
  • theironhammer 4y ago
• crmd 4y ago
  The legal rights of a corporation should rapidly decrease as it gains market power. My neighborhood bar should be allowed to 86 me for just about anything, but Madison Square Garden Entertainment, Ticketmaster, and Live Nation should not. Same thing with google and Amazon banning people from their platform for a single good faith credit card chargeback.
  • francisofascii 4y ago
    Unless your neighborhood bar is the only bar.
    • pixl97 4y ago
      I mean, there are lots of other bars, so it's not really meaningful statement.
    • s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I don't think I agree. You don't have right to be served alcohol within convenient walking distance.
      • josephcsible 4y ago
        Should your electric company be allowed to arbitrarily cut you off, just because other neighborhoods are served by different electric companies?
        • s1artibartfast 4y ago
          Probably not the electric company because they have a state granted monopoly position. However, if the only electrician in your town doesn't want to see you, I think that is within their rights. They aren't public servers and are a private business.
      • francisofascii 4y ago
        My point was more about a local monopoly. If you operate a monopoly, you should relinquish your right to deny whoever you want without cause. I do see your point about not having the right to be served served alcohol within convenient distance.
• jasmer 4y ago
  Who the hell even thinks to do any of this? Why are people so stupid and petty? I mean, I'm thankful to live in a place where we are too boring to even think of these kinds of shenanigans. We have our own but they are not as bad.
• plusminusplus 4y ago
  "we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment" For discussion, let's take MSG's statement in good faith, and assume the attorney was notified twice. Are there legitimate reasons to do this other than a "pretext for doing collective punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSG" as suggested?
  • ezfe 4y ago
    I mean, I think it's standard operating procedure not to allow any interaction except through proper channels when there's litigation involved, and they can apply this here. I don't think barring someone from your property is a good punishment against someone who is trying to sue you, since that kinda implies they "dislike" you already and wouldn't want to engage with you
    • azernik 4y ago
      All that is well and good for a plaintiff. But their lawyer? Or any other lawyer who works at the same firm? Nah, this is bananas.
      • eppp 4y ago
        So if google is suing ticketmaster then ticketmaster banning google employees would be ok?
        • azernik 4y ago
          Definitely not okay, just pointing out the different kind of craziness at play here. (In that case it would be purely the holding employees with no connection to the specific actions responsible for what their employer does.)
• MBCook 4y ago
  We all know how this works. It’s perfectly legal until someone in congress is impacted, then legislation will suddenly appear about this “new horrible invasion of privacy”. Similar to the video rental privacy act.
• stickyricky 4y ago
  Businesses which sell to the public should provide accommodation for the public. Bad actors should be handled by the legal system. When their sentence expires they should be allowed to re-enter the public spaces they previously disrupted. A private "legal system" administered by global conglomerates is totalitarianism by another form.
• whoopdedo 4y ago
  What does the Bar have to say about being a customer of a business you're suing. Wouldn't this be more of a concern for the law firm than the venue? But I can see how this has a chilling effect if you can lose access to goods and services because you're taking legal action against the company. Reminds me of the story I heard, though I forget the details (or even if it was true), about someone retaining numerous law firms which made it nearly impossible to find a lawyer who could sue them without it being a conflict-of-interest.
  • vorpalhex 4y ago
    As someone not involved in the suit?
    • _trampeltier 4y ago
      It was here on HN, but I also don't remember the details. I think it was like a big company had a relationship with almost all layers or something like this.
  • lscdlscd 4y ago
    You might be thinking of the Sopranos: SPOILER When Tony and Carmine are getting divorced, Tony consults with every lawyer in town, creating a conflict of interest and not allowing Carmine to use them.
    • somebody78978 4y ago
      *Carmella, not Carmine, lol. Carmine is another mob boss.
    • 1123581321 4y ago
      Also a plot point in Noah Baumbach's movie Marriage Story.
    • bee_rider 4y ago
      Although — I’ve only seen this on, like, other online chitchats so take it with a heap of salt, but — I’m under the impression that the main thing accomplished if someone tried these sorts of antics in real life would be a reasonably pissed off judge with reason to believe that one party wasn’t engaging with the legal system in good faith.
• godelski 4y ago
  How did they identify her? Where is MSG getting the data for their facial recognition? This part is confusing to me (I assume some third party vendor, but that's besides the point). Do they have you upload a photo of yourself? Do they have access to driver license photos? If the latter, that's a serious issue that I think we should be talking about: private companies having access to government biometric data. It's already an issue that the gov can track us, but even bigger if they are giving that data to corporations. I think that's the bigger story here.
  • banana_giraffe 4y ago
    The law firm in question has headshots of their attorneys: https://www.dsslaw.com/our-firm/attorneys/kelly-analiese-conlon/ https://www.dsslaw.com/our-firm/attorneys/kelly-analiese-con... It wouldn't take much to feed the 7 pictures into a system.
    • godelski 4y ago
      I get that (others mentioned this already) but I still feel this is creepy. It's definitely not the expectation people have when they show their faces on their websites. I think this is just going to encourage people to not show their face as much because this is seriously not okay.
  • foolfoolz 4y ago
    there are tons of people id databases. the photos probably came from her posted to her own account somewhere and got scraped
  • xapata 4y ago
    Probably from a photograph on the lawyer's website. They often post photographs of themselves looking pleasant and well-dressed, along with a summary of their careers.
    • godelski 4y ago
      Still, this doesn't leave me with a good taste in my mouth.
• 1970-01-01 4y ago
  A lawyer was banned from seeing a popular show for reasons entirely unrelated to physical safety, with an FR twist. She then hit back at their liquor license. Who's got popcorn??
  • tyingq 4y ago
    The hit back at the liquor license (which apparently requires admitting the general public, with only very specific exceptions) sounded pretty clever to me.
    • NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
      Hence the popcorn!
    • nemacol 4y ago
      Clever but a clear sign that we have no protections on the books for anything like this. That someone needs to resort to clever liquor license dispute adds to the dystopian feel of this story.
    • rexpop 4y ago
      It's a hack in a domain in which I am not a hacker! Makes me feel vulnerable.
      • Xeoncross 4y ago
        Yes, people in a vulnerable position routinely get hurt and just about every citizen is vulnerable to multiple someones. It's unfortunate that certain professions have extremely high walls around them: police, doctors, lawyers, even certain elected officials and select other professions are very hard to displace, while their position grants them very easy tools to displace, manipulate, or harm others.
  • gpvos 4y ago
    FR = ?
• jt2190 4y ago
  > Conlon is an associate with the New Jersey based law firm, Davis, Saperstein and Solomon, which for years has been involved in personal injury litigation against a restaurant venue now under the umbrella of MSG Entertainment. > "I don’t practice in New York. I’m not an attorney that works on any cases against MSG," said Conlon. > But MSG said she was banned nonetheless — along with fellow attorneys in that firm and others.
• gregors 4y ago
  The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for discrimination. Other variables (such as who you work for) well that's not easily found out...until now. AI is now allowing for new innovating hate and discrimination to drive decisions. What an absolute cluster. I don't envy the courts. It's going to be interesting if everyone starts weaponizing every aspect of political affiliation, employment, residence location and social status.
  • tantalor 4y ago
    > used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated No. Very easy to disprove: there are many examples of protected status that is not easy to tell just by looking at someone. 1. Race (esp. mixed race) 2. Religion 3. Pregnancy 4. National origin 5. Sexual orientation 6. Disability 7. Genetics
    • ceejayoz 4y ago
      You've been downvoted, but I'd agree; most of them are not necessarily "visually obvious" and more "stuff you can't easily change".
    • HWR_14 4y ago
      In almost all cases, there were people in the protected group who were able to disguise that status. So in those cases just 5 senses weren't perfect. But it was sufficient for at least some cases, which is where the laws came from.
    • moonchrome 4y ago
      Just because you can't tell 100% doesn't mean you can't discriminate - and accuracy doesn't factor much in prejudice.
    • michpoch 4y ago
      I assume that is a US thing. How does that exactly work? In what sense are these people protected?
• nraynaud 4y ago
  So if someone sues a subsidiary of the group they are banned in the entire group? That must be really tickling the layers when it's time to ask for damages in civil cases: "well, we're asking to hold the entire group in solidarity for damages, since they conduct business in solidarity, whatever subsidiary we are actually naming in the suite".
  • azernik 4y ago
    Not just if someone sues. If a lawyer takes the case for someone who sues. But yeah, this is James Dolan, he's banned people for refusing to take jobs before.
• tasubotadas 4y ago
  That's another one for we-are-getting-closer-to-1984-dystopia bingo.
• _boffin_ 4y ago
  Question: if she purchased the ticket under her own name and she held a valid ticket upon entry to the venue, would it be fraud if one doesn’t get access to the event? Even more so if she doesn’t get a full refund? One would presume that there would be measures in place during checkout that would inhibit transactions that go against their policies to not go through.
  • creaghpatr 4y ago
    Guessing their on-site security stack must not be integrated with their transaction platform. Or someone else could have paid for the tickets.
• pfoof 4y ago
  So they discriminated a lawyer to not get sued? Doesn't that sound like they just jumped into an anthill?
  • azernik 4y ago
    No, they were already getting sued. They decided for apparently purely emotional reasons to punish not just the plaintiffs, not just their lawyers, but also every other lawyer at the same firm.
• kayodelycaon 4y ago
  This reminds me of an incident that showed up in one of my college courses: A forklift driver who got fired for drinking Budweiser. He worked for a company that Miller Brewing company contacted with and a newspaper took a photo of him at a public event drinking Budweiser. Different situation, same kind of pettiness and retaliation.
  • spritefs 4y ago
    Do any tech companies do something similar to this?
  • TomK32 4y ago
    https://journaltimes.com/news/local/he-had-a-bud-light-now-he-doesnt-have-a-job/article_4fec718c-fbf5-5c63-ab08-a466b6d40c51.html https://journaltimes.com/news/local/he-had-a-bud-light-now-h... Fired for driking Bud Light. Is that even beer I ask as a German...
    • NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
      Legally speaking, it is beer.
      • kstrauser 4y ago
        Says so right on the label: "Technically, beer!"
    • kayodelycaon 4y ago
      I don't think whether or not Bud Light is beer is relevant to the story. And to answer your question, yes, it is beer, as defined by https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-25/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR6ebce257c6ef31d/section-25.15 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-I/subchapter-A...
    • mindslight 4y ago
      It depends on how drunk the horse was.
• josephcsible 4y ago
  I feel like the facial recognition part of this is a red herring. The two bigger problems I see here are banning people because of what their co-workers are doing, and enforcing bans when people show up instead of when they buy their tickets.
  • azernik 4y ago
    Facial recognition is important here only in that this insane of a policy would be impossible to enforce without facial recognition.
• Waterluvian 4y ago
  With the merge being approved, there were now only four Corporations. Sure, there were many off-world Corps, but they didn't have any meaningful affiliations and were really just a novelty for Roamers. Everyone, from birth, was employed by a Corp. Mind you, employment doesn't endow a title, salary, benefits, or duties. It just meant you were permitted access the various amenities it provided: transportation, tech, telcoms, housing, food, water, and of course, a social access permit. Corps are a lot like the "Sponsored Nation" concept from the 2300s, but without the discrete geographical boundaries. This makes it, by design, as some argue, too easy to find one's self in violation of Corporate policies. Usually someone makes a wrong turn or enters the wrong door and winds up in front of an Adjudicator. Since the merger, however, enforcement of overlooked policies has been on the rise. Given the complexities of the merge conditions, it became very difficult to remember who was employed by whom, which inevitably led to misassociation with non-colleagues. What used to be a social faux pas, paid for with a sheepish smile, would now find you among the Unemployed.
  • gabythenerd 4y ago
    Sounds like the worldbuilding behind Cyberpunk 2077, it has major corpos and finding yourself among the unemployed leaves you in very bad shape.
  • rocketbop 4y ago
    William Gibson?
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      Just "inspired" by the article and the potential implications of companies buying companies and finding yourself no-longer permitted in some establishment.
  • schemescape 4y ago
    I’d buy this book.
• methodover 4y ago
  Dystopian SaaS idea: Integrate facial recognition and Yelp reviews. If someone shows up who gave you a negative review, send a text to staff and/or deny sale at POS. Please, no one make this.
• JackFr 4y ago
  Seems like it’s an unpopular opinion, but it seems fairly reasonable to me to restrict someone who is currently, actively suing you from using your place of business. It’s neither punitive nor petty. It’s simply practical from a legal perspective.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > it seems fairly reasonable to me to restrict someone who is currently, actively suing you from using your place of business. This isn’t someone who is actively suing them.
    • mbg721 4y ago
      Even if it were, would that make it better??
  • amanj41 4y ago
    I don't take issue to that. I think using facial recognition paired with a database of naughty / nice individuals is going to pose a plethora of societal issues down the road. It is evocative of China's social credit system somewhat.
  • gnopgnip 4y ago
    If you want to ban someone from using your place of business you shouldn't take their money and sell them a ticket to a show then
• namaria 4y ago
  The problem here is not facial recognition or AI. The problem is automatic and opaque enforcement of arbitrary rules with no recourse. It's a scary world where you can be approached by private security and forced to comply without recourse because "the system" flagged you. This dehumanizes us. We're creating a world where people are being treated like cattle, merely handled by systems beyond our capacity to fight back.
  • Karunamon 4y ago
    This is a bit too Luddite for my taste. Humans were involved at quite literally every step of this process. The human decided that this other group of humans is not allowed on their property. The only thing interesting the computer did is tell security that someone not allowed to be there was there.
    • namaria 4y ago
      Jumping to accusing me of wanting to revert technological progress by violence because I am worried about alienation caused by automatic rule enforcement is a bit much don't you think?
      • Karunamon 4y ago
        The computer didn't kick someone out, the security people did.
        • namaria 4y ago
          As we get used to "the system flagged you" situations, people get step by step removed from recourse to unfair rulings. If I have to spell it out further for you, maybe you won't see a problem until you are personally affected. I understand, it's a fairly common posture.
          • Karunamon 4y ago
            So the slippery slope fallacy? The unfairness here came with selling someone a ticket to a venue they are prohibited from accessing. Solve that problem and the rest of the "unfairness" goes away. … And if you are incapable of responding to the argument without snarky running commentary, kindly refrain from replying.
• baxtr 4y ago
  She wasn’t allowed to a show because she is working as a lawyer. > Conlon is an associate with the New Jersey based law firm, Davis, Saperstein and Solomon, which for years has been involved in personal injury litigation against a restaurant venue now under the umbrella of MSG Entertainment. "I don’t practice in New York. I’m not an attorney that works on any cases against MSG," said Conlon. But MSG said she was banned nonetheless — along with fellow attorneys in that firm and others.
• SpaceManNabs 4y ago
  Yet the audience of hacker news typically leans on hating any sense of ethics in AI (check my recent comment history). This is a problem. We need to take ethics in AI seriously.
• nraynaud 4y ago
  can someone explain a bit the reasonning behind banning opposing lawyers from the defendant's venue? I feel like it's to reduce "on the ground" discoveries in civil cases, but I don't understand why, as far as I know those are neither forbidden nor unethical, there is a later opportunity to debate whether those discoveries gets introduced as evidence in the case.
  • monksy 4y ago
    Retaliation.
    • nraynaud 4y ago
      I was trying to be generous and open in my question.
  • himinlomax 4y ago
    It's similar in purpose to sending your goons to break one of the lawyers' knees, and barely more ethical.
  • azernik 4y ago
    There isn't any information they could discover. The lawsuit is not against MSG the venue, but against a restaurant somewhere else that happens to be owned by the same umbrella corporation. There is zero motive here other than retaliation.
• melony 4y ago
  Many open source software license have an automatic revocation clause in the event of litigation too. Considering the viral nature of software libraries, that could make life very difficult for people too.
• Nifty3929 4y ago
  I think it would be helpful in the comments to separate the issue of using facial recognition for public identification and entry, from the other issue of whether this person should have been allowed in regardless of the policy. Personally I don't think facial recognition should be allowed for public identification. On the other hand, I think it's perfectly fine to bar opposing attorneys actively working against you from entering your business. This is not a member of the "general public" and wasn't denied entry based on identity characteristics. She was banned because she (her firm) is SUING THEM. That seems like a pretty good reason right there...
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    > she (her firm) is SUING THEM You are not the company you work for. And she's not even involved in that case.
  • azernik 4y ago
    Her firm is not suing them. People who were customers are suing them. Her firm is representing those people.
• insane_dreamer 4y ago
  I don't like the consequences of facial recognition tech and what it's going to do to our society and its potential to enhance social discrimination of all kinds, but I have a hard time faulting the venue for using it to enforce an (arguably reasonable, or at least legally viable) admittance policy that had been communicated beforehand to the law firm. This doesn't seem to be a case of discrimination.
• CosmicShadow 4y ago
  The fucked thing about this is that as it's normalized and justified it allows companies and venues to start blocking people it doesn't like for whatever reason and essentially banishes them from society for life. Critical of Ticketmaster online and they start to take notice? I guess you wont' be allowed into most venues or concerts for life on this continent. We also won't tell you why you were banned or offer a way out (because that's how Google and Facebook operate and it suits us). It's allowing people to be kicked out of "real world" walled gardens.
• FunnyBadger 4y ago
• benreesman 4y ago
  The Constitution wasn’t designed for this. The framers did an amazing job at writing documents and expressing ideals that have held up astonishingly well through insane technological change. But if I want my face catalogued next to my social credit score why not go all in and move to China? It’s not great but the only mechanism in sight that seems equipped to deal with this is restraint semi-enforced by social consensus. God knows Congress isn’t going to do anything: piss off both law enforcement and tech? Yeah I think that’s a hard pass from them.
  • humanistbot 4y ago
    > The Constitution wasn’t designed for this. The Constitution wasn't designed for a multi-racial democracy, either. It took a bloody civil war to settle the slavery question though.
    • inetknght 4y ago
      And even after the civil war was ended, over 150 years ago, there's still significant portions of people in the modern day who don't act as if the matter is settled.
    • kergonath 4y ago
      The constitution was a compromise between different ideas pushed by different people. It is not a holy text or necessarily the ideal outcome from the point of view of any of its signatories. Its historical and philosophical importance are immense. But even from day one, it was not supposed to be the be-all and end-all. There are lots of things it was not designed to handle.
      • nullish_signal 4y ago
        Was the First Amendment intended to apply to Speech by means of Photons and Electric Particles flying at sub-light-speed to 10s 100s or 1000s of Remote Viewers? Was the Fifth Amendment designed to protect magnetic patterns in Etched Silicon? No, but there are mechanisms in place by which the Constitution can be Updated.
• gonzo 4y ago
  "You have zero privacy anyway, get over it.” — Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun, Jan 1999
• bluelightning2k 4y ago
  On the one hand this sounds super dystopian. On the other hand it does kind of make sense that they would refuse service to people actively suing their company. I would do that too. I mean it's kind of common sense
  • azernik 4y ago
    It's not refusing service to "people actively suing" MSG. Some people are suing MSG. Those people hired lawyers. Those lawyers work at a firm. MSG is banning not just the plaintiffs (the people "actively suing"), and not just their lawyers, but every lawyer at the firm.
• nashashmi 4y ago
  Her legal case: > A sign says facial recognition is used as a security measure to ensure safety for guests and employees. Use of facial recognition is disclosed with a reason for its purpose. They used the same technology for a different purpose without full disclosure. This is grounds for a violation, although civil. IANAL. However, she is going about this through another route. Liquor license does not allow them to eject people from service. MSG has a civil policy they will not allow anyone (including lawyers) associated in litigation to enter their venues. Obviously both policies contradict at this point. My opinion is no one should have any policy that allows lawyers of parties to a lawsuit to be hurt in any way.
• tmpburning 4y ago
  Facial recognition and car tags should be illegal (among many other tracking methods).
• js2 4y ago
  I can see two viable ways to prevent this from happening without taking sides on whether or not businesses should be allowed to deny service to non-protected classes of people. 1. A laser-targeted law banning facial recognition technology used for the sole purpose of denying service. 2. Not letting corporations get as large as MSG in the first place. I'm a fan of (2). If there's one thing I would hope people across the political spectrum could agree on it's that the Federal government has seriously fallen down on its anti-trust authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Square_Garden_Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Square_Garden_Entertai...
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    I don't think we should keep corporations from getting that large at all. I just think that once they do get that large, they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily deny service to people anymore.
• fortran77 4y ago
  I'm not sure I'd want people who worked for a company that was currently suing me entering my business either.
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    Do you think Google should have banned the personal Gmail accounts of every Oracle employee?
• EchoReflection 4y ago
  Time to start wearing "anti face recognition masks" https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/anti-facial-recognition-mask/43570 https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/anti-facial-recognition-... https://www.survivopedia.com/6-ways-to-defeat-facial-recognition/ https://www.survivopedia.com/6-ways-to-defeat-facial-recogni... What a crazy world we live in...
• sidewndr46 4y ago
  This seems pretty cut and dry to me. If someone had a lawsuit against me, one of my businesses, or the like I wouldn't allow them or their employees into my establishments. If there is a need for them to be there, law enforcement will be accompanying them.
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    > If someone had a lawsuit against me, one of my businesses, or the like You're mixing her up with her co-workers. She wasn't involved in any lawsuit against MSG.
  • azernik 4y ago
    a) the people who "have a lawsuit" are the plaintiffs, not the lawyers they hired b) the lawyers they're banning aren't employed by the plaintiffs, but happen to be working at the same firm the plaintiffs went to
• TheHappyOddish 4y ago
  > The fact they’re using facial recognition to do this is frightening. It’s un-American to do this. Funny, that's the opposite of what I thought. Corporate revenge via technology sounds very American to me.
• mensetmanusman 4y ago
  We laugh about China doing this on a massive scale, except it involves things like basic travel and food. Now, we will start doing it to ourselves.
• nullish_signal 4y ago
  "Davis is now upping the legal ante, challenging MSG’s license with the State Liquor Authority." Ah, the Devil is always in the Details.
• dragonsky67 4y ago
  So security have received an alert on a person. They start rushing for that person. There would be a significant proportion of the population who would find that uncomfortable if not scary, who is to say how they will react. The person runs away, or does something that the guards think is threatening. The guard pulls a gun and shoots the person... All because they happened to be employed by a company that the venue has decided they don't like.
• spritefs 4y ago
  The weirdest thing about this to me isn't that they kicked her out because of the litigation, but that they were able to see who she was based off of the facial recognition alone Like where do they get this data from in the first place? From a data broker? Is it possible to request to have facial data removed from the data broker? Did she consent to them using facial recognition technology on her at the venue? (If this isn't already a law, that is to say requiring consent... it should be)
• ngoilapites 4y ago
  I can't help it, I see lots of recent corporate developments as a whole new set of "middle-age"-attitudes that permeate in society. This is one of them. Another is Elon's personal & professional mixed events. There is a whole new bunch of things happening in this direction.
• arunc 4y ago
  Face recognition was used to identify a lawyer who works for a company involved in actively suing MSG group. She was booted due to her being a lawyer at that company. Her identify was flagged. She was visually identified and then her id was checked. IMHO, it’s a bullshit story because the issue is whether a lawyer working for a company suing MSG should be booted from other MSG venues. Companies/venues had blacklists (deny lists) before face recognition became ubiquitous.
• latexr 4y ago
  > It’s un-American to do this. No, no it is not. It is very much American. The one thing more American than that situation is Americans saying something bad is un-American. You are what you do, not what you say. US Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and stop being blinded by the con of American exceptionalism. You’re not better than others, you’re not revered, other countries don’t look up to you. You are not a bastion of freedom or justice. You are a country drunk on its own kool-aid, being played by the worse people you have to offer. You need the courage to admit you’re not who you thought. Only then can you enact change to who you want to be. Quoting George Carlin: “they call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it”.
• adaml_623 4y ago
  The biggest US law firm Baker McKenzie (just googled this) has almost 5000 lawyer. Would they be safe from this policy due to the bureaucratic nightmare involved in adding that many faces to the system?? It would also be very interesting if the law firms that were litigating MSG started putting 'different' faces on their employee websites... a little bit of misinformation could cause lots of issues.
• contentboot 4y ago
  I read the article and I have read a lot of comments here. I couldn't find a single reference to where the data set came from that trained the model they are using to do facial recognition. Someone did theorize that it could be taken from a hypothetical law firm website but IIRC a single photo of someone is not good enough to reliably train a model that is not overfit.