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

Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#71

Post by browsingonly »

codedokode wrote: post #70
larkost wrote: post #50

Personally 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.

Your consent is given when you choose to pay for a ticket and attend an event there.

For publicly-funded venues, you may have a point. But if Bimbo's or the Warfield in San Francisco wants to ban someone and it's not for a reason prohibited by law, more power to them. Casinos have been doing this for many years, and generally speaking businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone. Make them post signs if that makes you feel better, but they should be able to ban, say, a person who attacked a patron or staff at the venue (and then was swiftly let out of jail by an activist judge).

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#72

Post by arjie »

browsingonly wrote: post #71
codedokode wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your consent is given when you choose to pay for a ticket and attend an event there. For publicly-funded venues, you may have a point. But if Bimbo's or the Warfield in San Francisco wants to ban someone and it's not for a reason prohibited by law, more power to them. Casinos have been doing this for many years, and generally speaking businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone. Make them post signs if tha…

Funny you mention San Francisco since 1015 Folsom and other places now use facial recognition to bar entry to (what I suspect are) bad actors. I suppose it was inevitable that as we allow more bad behavior through diminished societal enforcement that this would move into the private sphere. It's interesting to observe that places like San Francisco have moved into this kind of multiple-parallel-government structure.

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#73

Post by [deleted] »

b112 wrote: post #62
rayiner wrote: post #53

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#74

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

chasd00 wrote: post #16
zulux wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

> 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.

this is antisocial manipulative behavior normalized under the auspices of "good business".

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#75

Post by Permik »

chasd00 wrote: post #16
zulux wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

That's a personal information database and making one without consent of the people detailed is _super_ illegal in Europe.

There's a few examples of entities like Jehovah's witnesses making do-not-visit lists that have been considered as a personal information database and such have been in hot water many, many times about that. Yes, even though you might do them to help you personally, you're acting as an agent of the org you're associated with, and such you're not supposed to be doing that.

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#76

Post by skinfaxi »

rayiner wrote: post #63
b112 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't businesses have free association? Why should I have to allow someone into my business who has sued me?

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#77

Post by adolph »

afavour wrote: post #30
adolph wrote: post #3

[flagged]

It isn’t really a normal thing to do, no. Do you think they keep dossiers on everyone who complains about concession prices? About long lines to get in? Do you think people who have done either of those things get denied access to MSG? The fact that they’re this motivated to track people on this niche topic sounds alarm bells for me.

> Do you think they keep dossiers on everyone who complains about concession prices?

That would be not unexpected. How else would an organization be able to tell the difference between someone who makes frequent and spurious complaints from a genuine feedback? [0]

0. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/01/th...

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#78

Post by hn_acc1 »

xp84 wrote: post #57
kay_o wrote: post #48

Earlier 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.

I think it depends if you have: a) picture, legal name or b) picture, legal name, dob, all addresses/phone numbers/email addresses they have ever had, SSN, employers past and present, same info for spouse, kids, which schools they attended, who their friends / associates are, criminal history, etc, etc..

I can see that first one is "public information", more or less.

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#79

Post by adolph »

LastTrain wrote: post #38
adolph wrote: post #3

[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.

Ok, name the ethic or ethics being violated by the behavior described in the article.

Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition

#80

Post by adolph »

afavour wrote: post #20
zulux wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a document detailing our competitors. So I guess I have to ask... Am I normal?

If your document details personal information about your competitors employees and their personal contact details then I think the situation might be comparable. And very much not normal.

From what I recall (the article is register-walled now), the document had twitter handles and public statements. Did the article specify they gathered nonpublic information?
Post reply on HN