Yet the audience of hacker news typically leans on hating any sense of ethics in AI (check my recent comment history). This is a problem. We need to take ethics in AI seriously.
Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
341–350 of 683 posts
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They're sold as non-refundable.* (Non-refundable by the buyer's request.. yes you can kind of take it to the resell market.. but now that's being invaded by the people who sold the ticket)
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#343Many open source software license have an automatic revocation clause in the event of litigation too. Considering the viral nature of software libraries, that could make life very difficult for people too.
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#344can someone explain a bit the reasonning behind banning opposing lawyers from the defendant's venue?
I feel like it's to reduce "on the ground" discoveries in civil cases, but I don't understand why, as far as I know those are neither forbidden nor unethical, there is a later opportunity to debate whether those discoveries gets introduced as evidence in the case.
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They could also check ids at the door and cross-reference their naughty list. They couldn’t, it seems impractical for an event of that scale. Plus, it’s easier to bypass a door check or even convince the person doing the check to let you in.
This is in fact more practical than setting up face detection system, all you need to do is ID scanner and some simple OCR system to cross check the name on ID against blacklist, each person entering slaps ID against scanners (similar to how you do it with boarding passes at the airport or with public transit passes at gates), after one second either red or green light flashes. Shouldn’t take more than 5 seconds per…
Here's how we know this isn't true: they evaluated how to do this at scale, chose facial recognition, and then implemented it successfully in a 6,000 person stadium.
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#346A lawyer was banned from seeing a popular show for reasons entirely unrelated to physical safety, with an FR twist. She then hit back at their liquor license. Who's got popcorn??
FR = ?
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure why you would say that she has no case. On the one hand, it's a common understanding that businesses can bar anyone from their premises for any reason, and that would be the normal interpretation of this issue, but in this circumstance, the lawyer does have a legitimate response in that they have agreed to waive that authority in exchange for the permission to serve alcohol on premises. On the other han…
When you say "can bar anyone from their premises for any reason" I don't think you've fully thought that out. Can I ban you from attending based on race? That answer is no, I cannot. Why? Because that is a protected status. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good thing.
Banning someone because they're part of a protected class is typically the only exception, and not applicable here.
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Any other occupation isn't allowed to use their occupation to retaliate
Sure they do. It happens all the time. Politicians do it. Food service workers. Tradesmen.
One place I worked pissed of a local plumber's union, and guess what — a week later the city condemned the sewer pipe leaving the building. Once we made up with the union, the city magically changed its mind.
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#349Earlier 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.
> 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.
> 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'.
No, for large companies (those at risk of being sued) it works the other way round: they collect very detailed data to objectively justify any firing, otherwise they are at high risk of losing a discrimination lawsuit.
Hence "improvement plans", "needs improvement" ratings, etc, etc.
It is likely true that small and medium companies can get away with abuse though.
Re: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
#350I 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.…
But he isn't, though?
If I do not want X at my establishment, then what does it matter whether X is picked out of a single file line by a bouncer or picked out of a crowd by a security camera? I don't want them there. In what manner they showed up is irrelevant to me.
And you're comparing apples and oranges. This is a specific person who is a lawyer for a firm which is actively working against MSG, not some nebulous class of individual.