Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nbcnewyork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 683 posts

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

#391

Post by bmitc »

kstrauser wrote: post #262
commandlinefan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

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.

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

#392

Post by Nifty3929 »

monksy wrote: post #333
kstrauser wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is happening already with PatronScan which is being pushed agressively into schools, and bars: https://scribe.nixnet.services/id-at-the-door-meet-the-secur... There have been references to the ban lists going from one venue to another.

Can you imagine getting into an argument with a bartender and being asked to leave - and then you can't go into any other bars either? Yikes!

Reminds me of the hidden low-level-banking-employee blacklist that some would end up on for not forcing enough customers into expensive products they didn't need.

Or the opiate painkiller registry that doctors use to centrally track folks who come to them for painkillers, and which by the way counts any painkillers you might have gotten from the vet for your dog.

Fewer central registries please!

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

#393

Post by hgsgm »

bmitc wrote: post #390
gregors wrote: post #174

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 cou…

That's not what happened here though. > "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 we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the pol…

No post body was provided.

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

#394

Post by makestuff »

bmitc wrote: post #390
gregors wrote: post #174

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 cou…

That's not what happened here though. > "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 we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the pol…

Why do the lawyers deserve this?

I can kind of understand the lawyers actively involved in the case being banned from the arena, but why should a lawyer who is not even licensed in NY, and does not appear to be involved in the case be banned?

Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are litigating against?

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

#395

Post by Karunamon »

namaria wrote: post #305

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 bac…

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.

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

#396

Post by gwbas1c »

JackFr wrote: post #306
crazygringo wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of morality (as opposed to current law), I would argue #1 and #2 should be legally permitted, while #3 is inconsistent and #4 should not be permitted. Basically, as an individual regarding your private property you have total control to discriminate freely. That's individual freedom. You're allowed to choose your own guests. (Note that if you're renting a room though, that becomes a business, so this no long…

Dislike has nothing to do with it. You’re suing my restaurant because you claim a patron of mine was over served by a bartender and subsequently killed someone while driving drunk. I do not want your lawyers or their investigators or staff coming in and chatting with my staff or poking around my business without my lawyer being there.

> I do not want your lawyers or their investigators or staff coming in and chatting with my staff or poking around my business without my lawyer being there.

Which was not the case here. You can not summary ban every employee of a large company that's doing something you don't like.

Kelly Conlon is not involved in the case against MSG, and (as far as I understand) had no knowledge of the case.

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

#397

Post by Nifty3929 »

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...

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

#398

Post by dragonwriter »

LarryMullins wrote: post #300
michpoch wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?

Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.

> Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.

This is technically wrong, in that the First Amendment limitation on title VII is separate from BFOQs, and race can expressly never be a BFOQ. But the effect of the limitation is similar to allowing race to work like a BFOQ in certain circumstances in artistic contexts.

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

#399

Post by hgsgm »

archontes wrote: post #387
TheFattestNinja wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. Id argue that in addition to the policy being bad, she probably didnt agree to her image feeding into the dataset backing the facial recognition, which raised some spicy privacy questions: how did this private company get the image? Under what terms of use?

Consent isn't required if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I can take your photo in public, and there's nothing you can do about it. I can even distribute that photo, and you can't, and if you do, I can sue you for copyright infringement. I own your likeness, in a finite way. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/but-it-s-a-photo-of-me-cel...

No post body was provided.

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

#400

Post by Pigalowda »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #377
1970-01-01 wrote: post #169

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??

The woman's law firm is in active litigation with MSG Entertainment. She knows she's not allowed on the premises while the lawsuits are unresolved. They saw her and kicked her out. But this is a controversy because Girl Scout Mom got spotted by facial recognition I guess. Not the fact that she was trespassing. Last month MSG revoked the corporate suite leased by a law firm that was _actively suing them_. And they mad…

Sure we can take that matter of fact approach, and she accepts. However MSG is now not allowed to have a liquor license as a matter of fact.
Post reply on HN