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

271–280 of 683 posts

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

#271

Post by michpoch »

freeone3000 wrote: post #260
michpoch wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that is a US thing. How does that exactly work? In what sense are these people protected?

You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black. These characteristics are protected in the sense that discrimination against them in certain areas is illegal.

Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it.

Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I oversimplifying something here?

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

#272

Post by briffle »

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.…

I can't help but wonder how they got the pictures of all the employees from this law firm? Perhaps headshots on the 'about us' section of the web site? I can't wait to see yet more legal disclaimers added to everything...

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

#273

Post by monksy »

Apocryphon wrote: post #186
xeromal wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would be 100% willing to be apart of this.

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

#274

Post by ejb999 »

btilly wrote: post #201
cortesoft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, at least, there are restrictions on 3. You can’t deny entry to black people, for example, just because you don’t like black people.

The restrictions in question come from the Civil Rights Act. Which sets a bunch of protected classes, including race, color, religion, sex and national origin. See https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196... . However federal law does not prevent discriminating on other grounds. Such as political affiliation or profession. For example landlords can choose not to rent to lawyers, and every so often…

>>However federal law does not prevent discriminating on other grounds. Such as political affiliation or profession. For example landlords can choose not to rent to lawyers, and every so often someone gets fired for political views.

I know more than a few MD's that refuse to see lawyers as patients - can't say I blame them.

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

#275

Post by briffle »

pixl97 wrote: post #244
tedunangst wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why everyone is assuming she was denied a refund.

Well, I'm sure she was refunded or that would be another part of the suit. Now, look at these 2 situations. "Hello, I see you are buying this ticket, but since we're not going to let you enter we will prevent you from buying it" is much different from. "Hello, I see you got a baby sitter and took an uber to come down here and now we're refusing you access to a place you had a ticket for, on a reason you could not hav…

Of course, there is also the fact she entered as a group (girl scouts) and most likely was not the purchaser. To get group rates, many venues make you purchase all the tickets by one person.

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

#276

Post by ceejayoz »

michpoch wrote: post #271
freeone3000 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black. These characteristics are protected in the sense that discrimination against them in certain areas is illegal.

Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it. Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I oversimplifying something here?

> Why are people outside of this range not protected?

Because legislation has been written to target certain characteristics. The experience of short people in American history doesn't quite match that of black, gay, or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.

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

#278

Post by einherjae »

DaveExeter wrote: post #220
reaperducer wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 business. Actually, no. At least in New York State. While you can ban someone for the "violent" offense you picked, you cannot "deny entry to persons [you] dislike." The victim in this case, being a lawyer, is taking the clever and lawyerly route with this: Davis is now upping the l…

>you cannot "deny entry to persons [you] dislike." I think that's 100% legal, even in NYS. You can't deny entry based upon membership in a protected class, but other than that, you can't be forced to serve someone!

Apparently you do, if the liquor license you agreed to requires it.

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

#279

Post by pixl97 »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #62
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…

Change "dislike" to "actively works against you".

Eh, I take that as a very bad take.

Lawyers work for their clients, and in the vast majority of cases are not personally invested deeply in the case (except when you do dumb crap like in the article). They request evidence via the court, they do not go gather it themselves. If further on site evidence is needed by non-standard methods a PI will show up at the location, and if they are any good will never be noticed. By banning the lawyers they are either petty, or they feel they are still involved in some kind of potentially illegal activity and need to reduce risk. Not a good look.

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

#280

Post by monksy »

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$

The question later was:

1. How much time would this take

2. How willing would attorneys be willing to persue this?

3. How many attorneys can you actually contact about this? (This deals with the entertainment industry.. they're very well funded and very aggressive.

---- Then it came down is.. is it worth reaching out to the IL Attorney General about this? I didn't because I was exhausted by then and they probably wouldn't take it up due to the complexity of the transaction.

This situation simply is: A third party holder of tickets (TM) issueing a ticket to a show venue (Chris Rock+MSG|Chicago Theater), rejecting entry to an individual (me) with a ticket, but preventing me from being able to honor the ticket (due to rules from the Chris Rock group to the venue). And the whole case involves a group v 1 conversation involving all parties except for TM.

Post reply on HN