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

311–320 of 683 posts

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

#311

Post by madrox »

gregors wrote: post #174

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…

Factor into this the consolidation of so many industries, and if you happen to run afoul of one company you've effecively become a pariah. Getting banned from Google is bad enough.

There is certainly a line that needs to be drawn, since I somewhat understand the intent behind the ban. However, this will quickly get out of hand now that we can effectively disciminate on so many new factors scale.

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

#312

Post by JackFr »

Zak wrote: post #183
CaptainZapp wrote: post #54

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.

The law firm were notified prior (2x) that employees would not be allowed entry to MSG. Having been so warned, she bought a ticket and tried to go.

After having been warned and then being prevented from going in, her response is to sue them again.

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

#313

Post by kstrauser »

rg111 wrote: post #294
kstrauser wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's always the policy that should be modified, and not the tech that should be stopped. Because bad policies can do only damage. And tech can do both good and bad.

I’d amend that: it’s always the policy that should be modified in the longer run. Sometimes it’s wholly appropriate to pump the brakes on the tech that would allow mass application of the bad policy.

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

#314

Post by mbg721 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #293
JackFr wrote: post #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.

> it seems fairly reasonable to me to restrict someone who is currently, actively suing you from using your place of business. This isn’t someone who is actively suing them.

Even if it were, would that make it better??

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

#315

Post by robocat »

treis wrote: post #193
rootusrootus wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

James Dolan, as any Knicks fan will tell you, is a gigantic idiot. He's CEO of his daddy's company and basically sucks at everything he does.

James’ name showed up in the comments yesterday because he is CEO of AMC: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496

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

#316

Post by teepo »

hnlmorg wrote: post #128
stickfigure wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agreed. For me, the issue is that this restriction is upheld at point of entry and not point of sale. I get it’s a harder problem to restrict who tickets are sold to, but if a venue like that wants to get petty about who can attend their shows then the responsibility is on them to communicate that before the event. To flip this another way, in any other normal circumstance, when you get banned from a venue you’d get…

A theater ticket is not like booking with an airline. The venue doesn't assign a validated name to each seat. In this case it was likely one name for the entire batch of tickets in their group.

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

#317

Post by BlueTemplar »

ejb999 wrote: post #264
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.…

>>Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale I actually don't see that as the key element at all - Doing something that is already legal, faster, doesn't make it illegal does it?

Why wouldn't it ? Speeding tickets being an obvious example.

The 1974 SAFARI scandal seems to be quite relevant here too :

https://www-lemonde-fr.translate.goog/blog/bugbrother/2010/1...

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

#318

Post by teepo »

briffle wrote: post #272
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.…

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...

My guess is they used something like LinkedIN Sales Navigator to feed the MSG "no fly" list.

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

#319

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

acdha wrote: post #238
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's an activist court. They'll block anything which could discriminate against their supporters but as we've seen no level of precedent is going to prevent a decision which those supporters want unless there's an extremely clear direct constitutional prohibition.

After taking a civics course in college and quitting social media none of their decisions have shocked me. I think more people need to learn the purpose and role of the court.

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

#320

Post by s1artibartfast »

advisedwang wrote: post #92
hnuser847 wrote: post #74

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. So you're okay with the principle of denying individuals entry to a private business, but you're NOT okay with…

I'm saying there's a difference between blocking 10 people and 10,000, or 1 million. And I'm saying that technological change allows the latter, and we need to be cognizant of that when we decide what we're going to accept in society.

But I think the parents 4 questions are still an appropriate starting point for productive discussion. Are these rights that an individual or organization has? Technology is secondary.

If your answer is yes to all 4 is yes, the answer to 5 is also yes.

If your no or conditional to some of them, then you can discuss where the line should be drawn (e.g. numbers, characteristics, or technology allowed)

Post reply on HN