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

321–330 of 683 posts

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

#321

Post by engineer_22 »

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…

> we're refusing you access to a place you had a ticket for, on a reason you could not have possibly predicted"

MSG claims to have notified the company twice.

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

#322

Post by monksy »

bewaretheirs wrote: post #127
monocasa wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The yondr bags are sealed faraday cages to keep you from recording the show or being on your phone.

If the pouches had a tamper evident tool-less ripcord to open it in the event of an emergency, I think that would resolve the concerns about a Bataclan scenario.

I'd never thought of that. I would have accepted that situation if it had a rip cord and not had been happy about the requirement. However, I'm very confident that it'll never happen as that people will pull the rip cord to record. (Heck I would probably obey the rules and pull the ripcord right before handing back the case to remove the phone)

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

#323

Post by LarryMullins »

aidenn0 wrote: post #309
LarryMullins wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed. The law says that sex is characteristic that may be a BFOQ, and in the case of Hooters it seems to be. BFOQs may apply to sex, religion, and national origin, but not the other protected classes.

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

#324

Post by s1artibartfast »

josephcsible wrote: post #221
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…

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.

What if you didn't take their money and they bought a ticket via 3rd party, as is often the case?

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

#325

Post by kstrauser »

oceanplexian wrote: post #295
bboygravity wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think what a lot of people think about facial recognition is very relevant for its adoption or evolution? CCTV and facial recognition are both used around the world accross cultures and political systems and not 1 citizen voted for (or against) them. Not in totalitarian regimes nor in countries that pretend to be democratic.

It’s because we aren’t governed by a democracy, we’re governed by a massive administrative state. Some middle manager vying for a promotion decides adding cameras will benefit him in some way, privacy be damned. For example, TSA recently started doing facial recognition in airports and most passengers were just happily going along with it last time I went through security. The public is expected to submit and comply,…

I get the lack of resistance to the TSA thing. I’m not saying my opinion here is the correct one, but here’s how I see it:

That ship has sailed. You no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an airport. Courts have ruled that safety concerns override privacy considerations inside them. Alright, well, if this is the system we’re stuck with, then we might as well make it efficient. Now we have TSA PreCheck where you can give up all pretense of personal privacy in exchange for a relatively pleasant airport experience. And the facial recognition kiosks I’ve seen don’t seem inherently more invasive than having a human security guard doing their functional equivalent, and we’ve had that for many years.

I’m not thrilled about the situation, but feel powerless to change it. It seems like the majority of my countrymen think this a good tradeoff, so I can’t say I’m fully on the right side of the argument anyway. So if stuck with a system I can’t change, and most people don’t want to change, if this makes the practical experience of dealing with that system faster and less unpleasant, then fine. So be it.

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

#326

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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.

Oddly, me too. Things change only when a representative sufficiently well connected person/high status individual is inconvenienced by the current system. Lately, this seems to be the way to actually change things.

What is fascinating is that AI recognition did not reach individual homes yet ( say.. won't let you add family members to 'approved' members to open doors, but maybe I should not be giving ideas ). I did hear about it being a toy for the rich though.

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

#327

Post by michpoch »

aidenn0 wrote: post #309
LarryMullins wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is quite fascinating to me (as a layperson and non-american). Are there any articles or is there any literature that you'd advise in that topic?

I'd be interested in something that gives more context, details and examples than the wikipedia article, but not targeted at lawyers and not excessively long.

How does that work in practice for a company like Hooters - do they spend millions on lawyers to be able to defend their position? What if you'd open a local place working in similar way to Hooters - would you go bankrupt trying to defend yourself?

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

#328

Post by unethical_ban »

michpoch wrote: post #299
oceanplexian wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Look up the definition of the term "bona fide" and tell me if you think that would qualify as a good faith requirement allowing a business to discriminate their workers.

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

#329

Post by donmaq »

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.

> You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black

So now companies don't put that as the termination reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'.

"Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim, who needs to lawyer up & chase the proof via discovery.

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

#330

Post by LarryMullins »

underwater wrote: post #290
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…

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.

Just as most websites today use captchas run by one or two companies, we may see a scenario unfold where most brick and mortar businesses use a facial recognition blacklisting system run by one or two companies. Get labelled as trouble by the system and you'll be banned by every store in town.
Post reply on HN