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

181–190 of 683 posts

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

#181

Post by rtkwe »

whoopdedo wrote: post #158

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 f…

She's only tangentially related not directly on the team, though it would imo be odder for MSG to know the entirety and status of everyone working for someone suing them so it's simpler to just ban everyone employed at the firm.

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

#182

Post by thih9 »

stickfigure wrote: post #97
advisedwang wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye.…

Who cares what technology they use? They could also check ids at the door and cross-reference their naughty list. Everything seems to involve an id check these days. Maybe there's some contractual issue here - they sold you a ticket, that establishes a contract, they're breaking the contract by denying you entry. They should have performed the naughty check earlier in the process? I think it's all pretty stupid but o…

> They could also check ids at the door and cross-reference their naughty list.

They couldn’t, it seems impractical for an event of that scale.

Plus, it’s easier to bypass a door check or even convince the person doing the check to let you in.

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

#183

Post by Zak »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #54
dehrmann wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The less dramatic version of 2 is a bouncer saying "no, you're friends with Bob, and Bob always causes trouble."

Except that you're not standing in the queue to be processed by the bouncer, but you have a valid ticket, which they sold to you.

Venues should be required to refund tickets if a person is denied entry provided they weren't previously told they were banned from the venue.

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

#184

Post by xwdv »

advisedwang wrote: post #57
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…

Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye.…

It has not transformed into a different thing. It is the same thing it was before. A person can deny someone access to their private property. The law is not “A person can deny people access to their private property but only in slow inefficient ways…”

What if it was an inverse, say you could only enter a business if you are a member of X group? Now most of the planet is banned from your property except a small group of people that qualify for X, where X could be as specific as “straight white males”.

It seems to me, some people just want the idea of the law but not the enforcement of it. Probably for their own self interests, mainly: getting access to someone else’s cool private property.

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

#185

Post by vorpalhex »

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…

The yondr device looks like it could be defeated with a magnet or a sharp knife.

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

#186

Post by Apocryphon »

xeromal wrote: post #123
ipaddr wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have launched a lawsuit claim damages.

That would probably cost them more than 80$

Wonder if there was a way to register as future plaintiffs for a potential class action suit of everyone else who was turned away for similar reasons.

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

#187

Post by worik »

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…

> 1. I, as an individual, am allowed to deny entry to persons I dislike from my private property.

If you were not letting other, strangers, in for money. (Unsure if "for money" matters) then you are not, or should not, be so allowed.

If you are in trade than (in civilised jurisdictions) you cannot refuse to trade with a person because of prejudice and/or bigotry.

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

#188

Post by 15155 »

chroma wrote: post #114
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…

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…

How does Yondr prevent recording? Why is my phone not recording inside the pouch?

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

#189

Post by lovich »

stickfigure wrote: post #97
advisedwang wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye.…

Who cares what technology they use? They could also check ids at the door and cross-reference their naughty list. Everything seems to involve an id check these days. Maybe there's some contractual issue here - they sold you a ticket, that establishes a contract, they're breaking the contract by denying you entry. They should have performed the naughty check earlier in the process? I think it's all pretty stupid but o…

>Who cares what technology they use?

A quantitative difference can create a qualitative difference. See all the discussions around cops tailing people in public when the laws were set during a time where that involved an actual officer following them the entire time, vs tossing a $20 dollar gps module on their car and being able to track the person at will

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

#190

Post by kuschku »

happytoexplain wrote: post #39

>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 it's reasonable to disagree with this policy, it's not really related to social dystopia , so I think it's dramatic to lament this in the vein of "today it's this, tomorrow it will be getting banned due to Tweeting about you…

It becomes a social dystopia when it's not just "you're banned from places you're suing" but "you're banned from places in half the country because they're all actually just owned by the same company"
Post reply on HN