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

81–90 of 102 posts

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

#81

Post by Bud »

nulld3v wrote: post #56
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…

> For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums. You should't need face recognition to do this (as it seems stadiums are already successful in banning people who haven't paid from entering the venue).

[dead]

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

#82

Post by xp84 »

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.

That's definitely the best argument I've seen, at least it makes a case for a narrow rule against 'retaliation' against officers of the court. Banning 'outspoken critics' though still seems fine to me.

And such a regulation definitely doesn't need to have anything to do with facial recognition - one could imagine such a problematic retaliation being carried out by tons of methods both easy and labor-intensive. A bar could card all patrons and manually check the names (even not even collecting or storing any info) against a list of targeted persons kept behind the bar. An airline could refuse to ticket you if your firm sued them, etc.

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

#83

Post by xp84 »

wongarsu wrote: post #67
xp84 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks for the info. That sounds nuts to me and makes me glad I don't live in the EU. (Yes, I'm sure the EU is glad to not have me, too.)

Out of curiosity, who's the judge of who "needs" it though? If it's a list of my enemies, all my friends need it so they know who to glare at.

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

#84

Post by xp84 »

squibonpig wrote: post #59
xp84 wrote: post #46

Earlier 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…

I dislike that legal arguments often fail to distinguish cases where scale or speed create something transformative in themselves. Yes you could keep a few people out of a small venue, but good luck keeping a list of 1000 people out of a stadium. The tech creates new powers for large entities able to deploy it that aren't countered by any capacities gained by individuals and small groups. The argument should be made…

Interesting. I kind of feel the opposite way. I don't want our laws to say it's perfectly okay for someone to do something until they scale, and then suddenly it's wrong.

> on the basis of what this tech enables itself

Hmm... I really don't like where that could head. Publishing books was considered a pretty simple 1st Amendment thing. Anybody can just publish whatever books. If you don't like it, don't buy the book.

But now that we have the Internet though, "what this tech enables" includes for propaganda to be distributed to us by foreign actors at the speed of light. There are a lot of people who would like to use excuses like that to prohibit the ability of people to just post non-government-sanctioned and non-corporate-sanctioned ideas online.

Personally, I'll take one set of rules that applies across the board.

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

#85

Post by adolph »

newaccountman2 wrote: post #23
adolph wrote: post #3

[flagged]

"This seems like a pretty normal thing to do." - adolph (relevant username)

How is my French descent real life human name at all relevant?

Yeah, I've gotten it from people with minds like your's for a long time, continually since grade school. Your comment illuminates more about you and your fellow noticers than me.

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

#86

Post by monksy »

kay_o wrote: post #48
xp84 wrote: post #46

Earlier 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

Secondly a list of banned individuals has a physical hard limit and those bans aren't considered to be permanent. Face recognition is.

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

#87

Post by monksy »

xp84 wrote: post #46
afavour wrote: post #25

Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue. MSG’s facial recognition systems have been used to block entry to the stadium for all sorts of people. The list includes lawyers who work at law firms in litigation with MSG, even if they are not part of the litigation themselves; and potentially a man who on…

> 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…

> I fully support everyone's right to not give MSG or the Knicks or Rangers your money whether it's because you hate facial recognition or just hate this Dolan guy, or whatever

You aren't notified you're on this ban list until you get there and they say no. Then they tell you to go fight it out with "Ticketmaster." (Because that's who you bought it from.. well you had no choice in buying it from someone else)

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

#88

Post by crumpled »

I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, so I'm not subscribing without more validation, BUT:

I think MSG has the ability to ID every person at the Knicks game who booed for DJT, and you know how petty and sensitive that person can be.

Remember when Hegseth invited all the generals into one big room for some reason? Some people think that it was to point cameras at their faces and do a bit of sentiment analysis.

The tech is in place. Is there enough decency or the lack of enough motivation to make these scenarios unlikely? I'm not sure.

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

#89

Post by monksy »

arjie wrote: post #72
browsingonly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bad actors?

Oh no.

There was a fight one time in the place? Do you mean bataclan bad actors?

The claim of a few bad apples is a ridiculous claim to require facial recognition. Prior to facial recognition, situations were dealt with. It's not a new problem, nor did a hard ban policy solve the problem. After, facial recognition this seems to be a fear mongering technique that just allows for customer profiling even more than it did before.

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

#90

Post by monksy »

petsfed wrote: post #47
nla wrote: post #11

In NYC, you can trespass anyone from a private business at any time and for no reason at all. NY Penal Law § 140.00 says a person in premises open to the public is there with license/privilege unless they defy a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated by the owner or another authorized person. So, in plain English: “You have to leave. You are not allowed back.” The owner does not need to say: “Yo…

As I recall, the main issue with that was that because it used facial recognition, the labor burden of enforcing that was significantly lower. If its just human beings looking at every visitor and trying to decide if they match a description, the venue has to decide "has this person done anything so egregious that all this extra effort is worth it?" which makes the tactic self-limiting. With facial recognition, enfor…

> With facial recognition, enforcing a trespass order becomes nearly zero cost, so it can be applied for basically any reason. I can sort of get to understanding the tactic for "this lawyer is actively suing us", but if its "this person said something mean about us online, and we can get a facial recognition match from their profile picture", it seems like a wild abuse.

Also the ban was not communicated. So probably counts as theft as well.

Post reply on HN