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

301–310 of 683 posts

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

#301

Post by aidenn0 »

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?

Many reasons that's not protected:

1. The "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act" specifically bans using "Genetic Information" in certain circumstances, which is generally understood to mean e.g. DNA testing. Discriminating on height does not fall into this.

2. You could still fall into issues with e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having a height requirement if e.g. far more men than women fall into that height range, however there are exceptions[A] built into that act when a job has specific requirements, one being you can ask for "male models" to model clothing targeted at men.

A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...

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

#302

Post by TheCleric »

TomK32 wrote: post #228
kayodelycaon wrote: post #214

This reminds me of an incident that showed up in one of my college courses: A forklift driver who got fired for drinking Budweiser. He worked for a company that Miller Brewing company contacted with and a newspaper took a photo of him at a public event drinking Budweiser. Different situation, same kind of pettiness and retaliation.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/he-had-a-bud-light-now-h... Fired for driking Bud Light. Is that even beer I ask as a German...

According to German law, no. According to US law, yes.

Now whether it's GOOD is a different question.

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

#303

Post by robocat »

mannykannot wrote: post #10

"A spokesperson for MSG reiterated in a statement that safety is their highest priority and that facial recognition is just one of the methods they use. MSG Entertainment also said it is confident their policy is in compliance with all applicable laws, including the New York State Liquor Authority." Why do spokespersons frequently speak in non-sequiturs? They simply underline the absence of any good argument. I hope…

> second sentence will turn out to be as logically incoherent as the first

The key part of the second sentence: they are confident. Tricky to argue just how confident they are.

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

#304

Post by aidenn0 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #276
michpoch wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on average.

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

#305

Post by namaria »

The problem here is not facial recognition or AI. The problem is automatic and opaque enforcement of arbitrary rules with no recourse. It's a scary world where you can be approached by private security and forced to comply without recourse because "the system" flagged you. This dehumanizes us. We're creating a world where people are being treated like cattle, merely handled by systems beyond our capacity to fight back.

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

#306

Post by JackFr »

crazygringo wrote: post #156
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 long…

Dislike has nothing to do with it.

You’re suing my restaurant because you claim a patron of mine was over served by a bartender and subsequently killed someone while driving drunk.

I do not want your lawyers or their investigators or staff coming in and chatting with my staff or poking around my business without my lawyer being there.

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

#307

Post by TheFattestNinja »

commandlinefan wrote: post #232
kstrauser wrote: post #162

I’m thrilled to see facial recognition applied against people in a position to speak out loudly against it. A lot of people seem OK with it when it’s policing the bad parts of town. This is their reminder that it can be used against them, too.

> 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…

Both. Id argue that in addition to the policy being bad, she probably didnt agree to her image feeding into the dataset backing the facial recognition, which raised some spicy privacy questions: how did this private company get the image? Under what terms of use?

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

#308

Post by 8note »

rootusrootus wrote: post #148
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…

> being a lawyer That's the thing that gets me. I get the desire to retaliate against people you feel have wronged you somehow, but as an actual strategy it seems like playing games like this with lawyers invites more trouble than it's worth. If they're trying to collect evidence, they will just send in an uninvolved third party to do it, not go themselves. But by attacking them personally, now they're going to use t…

Which is pretty unfavourable for the world.

Any other occupation isn't allowed to use their occupation to retaliate

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

#309

Post by aidenn0 »

LarryMullins wrote: post #300
michpoch wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?

Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.

In addition, mere customer satisfaction secondary to the primary job is not enough to establish BFOQ; it's a thin line though as Hooters seems to hide behind BFOQ (thus essentially stating that the primary reason for their serving staff is sex appeal), while flight attendants cannot.

I suppose if you had an airline called "cleavage air" and had all the flight attendants wear low-cut tops, then you might get away with it.

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

#310

Post by [deleted] »

aidenn0 wrote: post #301
michpoch wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Many reasons that's not protected: 1. The "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act" specifically bans using "Genetic Information" in certain circumstances, which is generally understood to mean e.g. DNA testing. Discriminating on height does not fall into this. 2. You could still fall into issues with e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having a height requirement if e.g. far more men than women fall into that hei…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN