Live data from Hacker News

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

nbcnewyork.com

281–290 of 683 posts

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

#281

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?

They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Even a private business can discriminate against say, an actor who can’t play a particular role due to the race or gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.

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

#282

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?

[deleted]

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

#283
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…

IMO, your right to deny people entry to your private property should end once you take their money for tickets to enter. After all, it's not like she bought her ticket under a fake name.

This is an important distinction with “deny access to business”. They already took her money, now they’re denying their end of the contract.

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

#284

The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for discrimination. Other variables (such as who you work for) well that's not easily found out...until now. AI is now allowing for new innovating hate and discrimination to drive decisions. What an absolute cluster. I don't envy the cou…

> The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for discrimination.

Easy targeting was not the issue, the combination of pervasiveness and the belief that it was unwarranted and/or resulted in an excess of social strife if tolerated was. (Sometimes, it is misportrayed as being about innate characteristics, but this is very obviously not the case with religion, where freedom of religion as a right waa very clearly the outcome of exhaustion with centuries of strife, largely between different factions within Western Christianity.)

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

#285

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?

[deleted]

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

#286
post #184

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.…

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…

You can't be against cancel culture but for all the tools that allow its implementation.

In most civilized countries including the US you couldn't put up a sign that said straight white males only. In the US you cannot discriminate based on protected classes including not not limited to Race, Religious belief, National origin, Age, Sex.

Ability to recognize and ban people at scale is absolutely a game changer whether you want to acknowledge it or not. It is not remotely "the same thing" because it allows previously impossible consequences and failure modes. You are thinking too small if you are considering only this silly show. This kind of feature is in many cases in theory commendable and logical but equally problematic.

Consider shoplifters an odious bunch if there ever was one. Were I a shopkeeper I would certainly want to keep a fellow that ran out with some goods from coming back and its only friendly to share such a naughty list with my fellows. Steal from one and find yourself unwanted all over town. What could go wrong?

What if I DID pay for the goods but I was incorrectly flagged? For instance came back in with my just paid for goods to get something I forgot and went out a different exit.

What if said flagged person now cannot reasonably obtain food or other critical resources? For instance more than a few private enterprise operate public transit resources and a huge portion of the US has exactly one ISP. For instance I work for one ISP and utilize another. If they banned people who work for the competition I would literally have to move.

What if the person did wrong 10 years ago and has turned their life around since? Computers never forget and communicate across jurisdictions.

What if flagging is used not to punish actual criminals but merely those we disagree with politically?

What if its used to punish those who write negative reviews or do too many returns. Statistically if our supply chain has a certain amount of broken trash and we serve millions of people a certain number are going to get a much higher than average number of broken things or have more than average bad experiences.

I for one have seen both return fraud and plenty of people who cause their own problems and then complain endlessly. Were I to operate a business I would kill for a way to eliminate such worthless customers. What about the collateral damage of those legitimately wronged?

Looking at your profile you complain about "cancel culture" but seem oblivious to the fact that cancellation is implemented either directly as a million decisions about one's own personal property OR preemptively based on vendors who are acting to protect themselves from those same decisions. What you are arguing for is the method for cancel culture to explode in the public sphere.

Do you really want to worry about writing an honest negative review, being mistaken for someone else, saying something controversial on the internet, revealing yourself as part of a group disliked by some, or subject to a database error and find yourself banned all over town? Do you want to talk to a drone who tells you the computer told him you can't come in and he can't fix it but you can talk to his equally useless manager who will tell you the same thing?

Here's a laugh for you. Lets suppose I took your comment wrong and decided your bit about straight white males was an indication of homophobia. I make no such implication herein but suppose I did and added you to a bigot list that was ultimately picked up not by a single bad list but a web of bad lists as maintained by multiple people who pick up and push their lists to other more pervasive lists like adblock lists.

You find shortly that you can neither buy a loaf of bread nor get a sandwich down the street from your house anymore because we have collectively decided that our "cool private property" is not for you. You find a way to get off one list 3 steps removed from the genesis of your discontent but are re-added later courtesy of a different list. Nobody will tell you why you are on their list nor even if you are they just tell you that you aren't welcome. You spend the next 5 years chasing ghosts never figuring out that a single post on hacker news is why you can't get that job you wanted.

Again you can't be against cancel culture but for all the tools that allow its implementation.

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

#287
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you buy a ticket, you can't just unilaterally decide that you don't feel like going after all and get a refund. Why should the seller get to do the equivalent?

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

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This explains why MSG called out the NYSLA - https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirnbaum/2022/12/07/madis...

Thanks for the link. Notice that there is no claim here that it is a safety issue. If MSG fears certain employees may reveal things it does not want known, it should constrain those employees from contact with the public within its venues.

Yea, I would go on to state that MSG is 'fucking dumb'. Now, I don't know how things work in NY, but at least where I'm from the lawyers do not go to your place of business and ask questions. They go to the courts and put in a filing for demands. If anyone shows up to question employees it's going to be private investigators that are seemingly unaffiliated and you won't know to block them in the first place (NY law might be different here).

To me this screams "MSG is doing illegal/contract breaking shit"

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

#289
Seems like it’s an unpopular opinion, but it seems fairly reasonable to me to restrict someone who is currently, actively suing you from using your place of business.

It’s neither punitive nor petty. It’s simply practical from a legal perspective.

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

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it can be used against them, too Is it facial recognition that's the problem here, or the policy itself? In theory, they could hand out pictures of everybody who wasn't allowed in to the security staff and use low-tech facial recognition to enforce the same policy - assuming it was scalable, would it be OK then? I remember reading that IBM got into trouble when it first computerized its personnel files because some…

You're right: it's the policy that's bad. However, facial recognition is what makes enforcing that policy possible, and society and the law haven't changed quickly enough to deal with the repercussions. For instance, say 18 year old "Joe" gets caught stealing soda from a fast food place. The manager kicks him out and bans him from the store. Fast forward a decade, when Joe walks back into the store with his wife and…

Scale is also an issue. So many things are either owned by a megacorp or run via a centralised platform. Getting banned by a store pales in comparison to being banned by Uber, Google, Visa, etc.
Post reply on HN