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

361–370 of 683 posts

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

#361

Post by thaumasiotes »

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.

> except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.

The first amendment protected the Boy Scouts' right to express their disapproval of gays by not employing them. Is race different from a first amendment perspective?

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

#362

Post by monksy »

crmd wrote: post #117

The legal rights of a corporation should rapidly decrease as it gains market power. My neighborhood bar should be allowed to 86 me for just about anything, but Madison Square Garden Entertainment, Ticketmaster, and Live Nation should not. Same thing with google and Amazon banning people from their platform for a single good faith credit card chargeback.

Consider your neighborhood bar may be under a group, i.e. hammock hospitality group.

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

#363

Post by himinlomax »

nraynaud wrote: post #344

can 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.

It's similar in purpose to sending your goons to break one of the lawyers' knees, and barely more ethical.

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

#364

Post by LarryMullins »

michpoch wrote: post #327
aidenn0 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 def…

> How does that work in practice for a company like Hooters - do they spend millions on lawyers to be able to defend their position?

They certainly spend millions on lawyers. They've been sued for not hiring men several times, AFAIK always settle out of court. They defend their position by claiming being a woman is a BFOQ for working at Hooters, but aren't eager to risk losing in court.

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

#365

Post by mrguyorama »

LarryMullins wrote: post #330
underwater wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not allowed in my state thank god

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

#366

Post by acdha »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #319
acdha wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Shocked, no. Disappointed, yes. If you were willing to explore the space intellectually you'd find many legal scholars who could explain how what's happening now represents a significant deviation from the past. The discussion of the court's legitimacy isn't a social media phenomenon.

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

#367

Post by monksy »

yieldcrv wrote: post #43

One angle is the liquor license Another angle is their insurer Another angle is their payment processor You can likely get them back into community expectations

Probably could go criminal with fraud. They sold a ticket that they did not intend to honor, and the person is not able to get their money back.

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

#368

Post by trompetenaccoun »

donmaq wrote: post #329
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.

> 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.

Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems with all these identity laws.

1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality.

2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific definition because in physical reality race doesn't exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but even if we assumed that to be true then the premise of such suits is that someone committed a thought crime. Such cases are bound to lead to wrongful convictions as well as actual discrimination going unpunished because it can't be proven. These discrimination suits are the modern day equivalent of medieval witch trials.

3. They create division and conflict. That may be an intentional feature instead of a bug though.

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

#369

Post by ancientworldnow »

gpvos wrote: post #346
1970-01-01 wrote: post #169

A 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 = ?

Facial Recognition

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

#370

Post by nraynaud »

monksy wrote: post #357
nraynaud wrote: post #344

can 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.

Retaliation.

I was trying to be generous and open in my question.
Post reply on HN