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

151–160 of 683 posts

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

#151

Post by gregors »

BizarroLand wrote: post #80
dehrmann wrote: post #36

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.

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 han…

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.

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

#152

Post by elmomle »

andsoitis wrote: post #146
monksy wrote: post #71

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. Howeve…

> ushers who can't get people to stop filming. Not only is it a numbers game (too many people to police), it is also very annoying for other patrons when people are constantly told to stop. So banning the phones is a great solution that solves a number of problems. > Think they're going to know how to call the cops/handle an emergergcy? lol. Of course they do. I really don’t think you rationale for refusing to hand o…

While I am fine with bans on phones for performances, I too would absolutely bristle and feel strongly inclined to complain if that was not made clear at the time I bought a ticket.

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

#153

Post by stickyricky »

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.

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

#154

Post by rootusrootus »

BizarroLand wrote: post #80
dehrmann wrote: post #36

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.

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 han…

> That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now.

I'm surprised that the policy of banning litigating lawyers ever passed their legal department to begin with. It's just inviting a guaranteed headache without providing any additional legal advantage.

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

#155

Post by monksy »

sunsunsunsun wrote: post #111
andybak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I've never heard of this and "phoneless/phone encasing" isn't returning much. GP - what?

Not OP but there are a few performers who like to either confescate phones or place them in locked baggies to stop the people who hold their phone in the air filming a video nobody will ever watch. In theory I like the idea but in practice I agree with OP.

> to stop the people who hold their phone in the air filming a video nobody will ever watch.

This is the statement that I want to go up to you in person physically grab you, shake you and tell you I love you for making that statement. It's frustrating to be gaslit by artist claiming that a youtube reproduction of their concert/show is going to cause a justifiable loss of future revenue. Looking back at the Rammstein stiched concerts only makes me want to go more.

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

#156

Post by crazygringo »

vleon42 wrote: post #35

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 b…

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 longer applies.)

Regarding #3, as a business owner, it's necessary to create policies to be able to ban individuals based on their relevant reasons that is set as policy, which includes past demonstrated misbehavior (e.g. violence). But not because you "dislike" them. Feelings don't matter, only relevant (non-arbitrary) policies do.

Similarly for #4, again feelings don't matter. No, a business should not be able to discriminate against people who work for or own competitors. (You can ban taking photos however, since that applies to everyone.)

Basically this is all predicated on a slippery-slope argument -- as soon as you allow bans for arbitrary "dislikes" rather than "relevant reasons", you're opening it up to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That's the immoral part. People's desire for equal accomodation from a business strongly outweighs a business owner's "dislikes", especially as a business owner is often the exclusive one providing a certain good in a certain area.

And so this case, I would strongly argue that banning employees of a law firm which is suing you from purchasing entertainment tickets is immoral. It's ultimately no different from a Democrat-owned business banning Republicans. It's nothing more than a "dislike".

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

#157

Post by dang »

irrational wrote: post #20

> 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.

Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. Last thing we need here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#158

Post by whoopdedo »

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.

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

#159

Post by monksy »

crazygringo wrote: post #142
chroma wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guarantee that you clicked through some terms and conditions while buying that ticket, and it almost certainly said that phones weren't allowed. This is quite common at comedy shows because comedians develop their material over time. They don't want clips of jokes failing to land or being taken out of context, as that could hurt their career. Recording also emboldens hecklers, as one friend can record (or even live…

Back in 2017 it wasn't that common yet. I think Yondr is a great solution for comedians, but can also totally see that it wouldn't have made it into terms and conditions yet. I don't think you can guarantee anything in this case unless you have the actual T&C from that particular show.

I disagree with your statement about the comedians, unless you're talking about a full length recording that is being sold on. But for those people, you go after them in the courts for piracy after the fact.

Most of the bits captured are/will be out of context and useless. My personal desire to "record" is short "i'm here" clips or pictures. (Music productions, clips, photo for the show) TM claimed "there was nothing extra" on the ticket. (I contacted them but did not try to pull a refund as that I know that TM is going to pull the "well this is the venues' issue")

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

#160

Post by francisofascii »

crmd wrote: post #117

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.

Unless your neighborhood bar is the only bar.
Post reply on HN