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

371–380 of 683 posts

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

#371

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

whoopdedo wrote: post #158

What does the Bar have to say about being a customer of a business you're suing. Wouldn't this be more of a concern for the law firm than the venue? But I can see how this has a chilling effect if you can lose access to goods and services because you're taking legal action against the company. Reminds me of the story I heard, though I forget the details (or even if it was true), about someone retaining numerous law f…

I think the issue is that MSG is too big of an organization to fairly institute a policy like this. It's like [FAANG of choice] refusing to serve someone because their [mother/spouse/hairdresser] posted a bad review of the coffee at [FAANG's] office in [fill in a city].

Maybe said company can have such a policy, but they probably shouldn't.

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

#372

Post by mrguyorama »

tomp wrote: post #247
tomatotomato37 wrote: post #108

Everyone always goes for the discrimination angle, but what frightens me is that like other modern automated tech of this decade the facial recognition used here probably has a horrendous false positive rate which most institutions will none the less treat as the final truth. Unrelated this is also why I fear most of this new AI stuff so much despite working in the field; the accuracy rates on these things in product…

They didn’t ban her on the basis of face recognition. She just got flagged by security, after which they asked for her ID and banned her on the basis of her real identity. So the chance of false positives is minimal.

I give it a year before the venue fires the bouncer to pinch pennies and just relies on the facial scanner

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

#373

Post by kstrauser »

test6554 wrote: post #356
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.

Just because you have someone on camera committing a crime in this age of deep fakes is no guarantee that they are guilty... But it definitely provides police with a suspect to investigate further. The most devastating tool for fighting crime is not increasing the penalties or making jail more miserable. No, the most effective way to stop crime is by drastically increasing the chances of getting caught and correctly…

I’m wholeheartedly against facial recognition in legal systems. The fact is that they don’t work well, and they specifically have a bad tendency to identify the wrong black person much more often than they misidentify white people. From [3] below:

> Asian and African American people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white men, depending on the particular algorithm and type of search. Native Americans had the highest false-positive rate of all ethnicities, according to the study, which found that systems varied widely in their accuracy.

One. Hundred. Times. The camera may say it recorded John Smith breaking into a house, but it’s incredibly likely that it was actually Ron Jones. Who’s the jury going to believe, though: John Smith who was at home with his girlfriend at the time, or the hugely expensive video system that the city just bought?

Facial recognition doesn’t work. It’s bullshit tech, and we should stop using it until we make it deliver on its promises AND decide how to deal with its ramifications.

[1] https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discriminatio...

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recogni...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/federal...

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

#374

Post by justincormack »

whoopdedo wrote: post #158

What does the Bar have to say about being a customer of a business you're suing. Wouldn't this be more of a concern for the law firm than the venue? But I can see how this has a chilling effect if you can lose access to goods and services because you're taking legal action against the company. Reminds me of the story I heard, though I forget the details (or even if it was true), about someone retaining numerous law f…

What does the bar have to say about facial recognition for all its members being easily available to anyone with money, apparently? Where does the data come from?

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

#375

Post by mcherm »

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.

> "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves burden of proof to the victim

Surely though, you understand and agree that having this law is better than the alternative, where employers ARE allowed to fire someone simply for being a member of a protected class, and are even welcome to brag about doing so.

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

#376

Post by ArnoVW »

TheCleric wrote: post #302
TomK32 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you say 'law', you're talking about the 500-year old law that codifies what you can put in beer? (reinheitsgebot) or did you have something else in mind?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot

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

#377

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

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??

The woman's law firm is in active litigation with MSG Entertainment. She knows she's not allowed on the premises while the lawsuits are unresolved. They saw her and kicked her out.

But this is a controversy because Girl Scout Mom got spotted by facial recognition I guess. Not the fact that she was trespassing.

Last month MSG revoked the corporate suite leased by a law firm that was _actively suing them_. And they made the same big stink about how unfair it was that they can't go to Knicks games anymore.

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

#378

Post by Xeoncross »

rexpop wrote: post #269
tyingq wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hit back at the liquor license (which apparently requires admitting the general public, with only very specific exceptions) sounded pretty clever to me.

It's a hack in a domain in which I am not a hacker! Makes me feel vulnerable.

Yes, people in a vulnerable position routinely get hurt and just about every citizen is vulnerable to multiple someones.

It's unfortunate that certain professions have extremely high walls around them: police, doctors, lawyers, even certain elected officials and select other professions are very hard to displace, while their position grants them very easy tools to displace, manipulate, or harm others.

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

#379

Post by crazygringo »

JackFr wrote: post #306
crazygringo wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then tell your staff not to chat and not let anybody poke around. The lawyers may order food but not walk into the kitchen, just like literally every other customer.

Frankly if you're running a public business then I don't care if you don't want lawyers there, the same as I don't care if you don't want people of another race there. If people are coming to eat and they're not being disruptive, then serve them, end of story. It's not your private home, it's a business open to the public.

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

#380

Post by duped »

kstrauser wrote: post #325
oceanplexian wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Human security guards forget. Servers don't.

I don't mind a security guard checking my ID. I do mind some random contractor building a facial recognition system that does it automatically and saves my picture and my identification information for all time without my consent or control.

Post reply on HN