Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
61–70 of 102 posts
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) I'm 1000% in favor of not having a tax exemption for this business, it's idiotic to give them one in the first place, but I disagree that the exemption should be used to pressure them here. For one thing, that means if they comply with those demands, then they keep the exemption they shouldn't have. I fail to see how a ban on facial recognitio…
> We created laws, that I agree with, saying you can't ban whole protected classes like races from 'public accommodations' (private businesses that are generally open to the public) The Supreme Court found these laws to be constitutional by finding them to be an application of Congress's power to regulate commerce. Congress can ban discrimination based on protected characteristics because such discrimination negative…
That may very well be so, but you've not mentioned how or what that case would be. For example, how does it prevent a law case, or liability, if said lawyers can't visit the property.
One could say the same thing about the inside of my home, or being on my land. No I don't have to let a lawyer in or around my land, but they can get a court order (with sufficient evidence).
I'm not going to expect you to lay out the legal reasoning, because I know you were making a point, and we don't all have time to spend hours firming up that point for an internet comment. But at the same time, I'm just saying, I don't see the way it's impacting the economy with a small collection of lawyers.
The unfortunate thing here is, most judges used to be lawyers, and of course lawyers arguing the case would be ... lawyers. So to get a truly impartial case, we'd almost need non-judges and non-lawyers to handle this case start to end.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We created laws, that I agree with, saying you can't ban whole protected classes like races from 'public accommodations' (private businesses that are generally open to the public) The Supreme Court found these laws to be constitutional by finding them to be an application of Congress's power to regulate commerce. Congress can ban discrimination based on protected characteristics because such discrimination negative…
That may very well be so, but you've not mentioned how or what that case would be. For example, how does it prevent a law case, or liability, if said lawyers can't visit the property. One could say the same thing about the inside of my home, or being on my land. No I don't have to let a lawyer in or around my land, but they can get a court order (with sufficient evidence). I'm not going to expect you to lay out the l…
It discourages potential lawsuits. If companies retaliate by banning entire law firms from accessing popular venues, that's going to discourage people from filing otherwise meritorious lawsuits against the venues. The difference between MSG and your house or your land is that the Nicks don't play at your house.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#64[deleted]
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have a document detailing our competitors. So I guess I have to ask... Am I normal?
when i'm doing large presentations to prospective clients my company gives me what they call a "look book". This is a deck with information about every person in the audience all the way down to personality traits, triggering words/phrases, and negotiating style. I think it's pretty normal.
> I think it's pretty normal.
It has been normalized to you.
It is not normal.
If you ever showed up at my business with something like that, we would never meet again, and I would tell all of my peers, other businesses, etc.
What you're doing is called PsyOps and it's a military function.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) I'm 1000% in favor of not having a tax exemption for this business, it's idiotic to give them one in the first place, but I disagree that the exemption should be used to pressure them here. For one thing, that means if they comply with those demands, then they keep the exemption they shouldn't have. I fail to see how a ban on facial recognitio…
> Who cares if it's by having a bouncer at each entrance with pictures of all the 'personae non gratae' or with a camera It's a tad harder to remotely compromise the banned people database (again) with a few bouncers
not if you put it in a google doc so all your bouncers have easy access to it and you can update it anytime
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who cares if it's by having a bouncer at each entrance with pictures of all the 'personae non gratae' or with a camera It's a tad harder to remotely compromise the banned people database (again) with a few bouncers
If you made a list of all the people you hate with their pictures, should government regulators be involved with where you keep it and how you safeguard it? I don't feel like I would care even if I was on the list.
In the EU, that list would be regulated under GDPR. Just as any other list with people on it. You would be allowed to have it, but storing it insecurely or giving people who don't need it access to it would be a violation
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We created laws, that I agree with, saying you can't ban whole protected classes like races from 'public accommodations' (private businesses that are generally open to the public) The Supreme Court found these laws to be constitutional by finding them to be an application of Congress's power to regulate commerce. Congress can ban discrimination based on protected characteristics because such discrimination negative…
That may very well be so, but you've not mentioned how or what that case would be. For example, how does it prevent a law case, or liability, if said lawyers can't visit the property. One could say the same thing about the inside of my home, or being on my land. No I don't have to let a lawyer in or around my land, but they can get a court order (with sufficient evidence). I'm not going to expect you to lay out the l…
[flagged]
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#69[flagged]
> This seems like a pretty normal thing to do. (Name checks out) yeah this is not a normal thing to do. Man we need mandatory ethics classes in school.
Mandatory ethics classes don't change the fact that asshole "Tech" bros don't pay attention to them.
The people who said "This is bullshit" in my ethics class are the ones who went to work at facebook and such so they could be rich. They don't care that you get hurt in the process.
Education can only improve a situation caused by lack of education. Most people doing shitty things aren't doing it because they don't know it's shitty.
You see people here on HN making up rationalizations all the time because they know it's shitty. They just don't care that they cause harm. They were raised by people and society to think it's okay to harm someone for your own gain because that's basically what America has advertised for 50 years.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#70Personally I think that these conversations are focused on the wrong thing. Facial recognition stands to be a great tool in spotting "the bad guys" so that appropriate measures can be taken. For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums. The problem that is not being missed in the conversation about the technology is: who gets to decide who…
No. Processing biometric data like facial features must require person's consent. Individual's rights are more important than interests of capitalists. If someone is a hooligan they should be put in jail not denied entry.