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

381–390 of 683 posts

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

#381

Post by archontes »

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…

I think this should be protected.

A business owner should be able to decline to host someone adversarial to that business.

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

#382

Post by em-bee »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #368
donmaq wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 assume…

i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary

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

#383

Post by yieldcrv »

monksy wrote: post #367
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.

Now two law firms and the entire New York public sector cant get in!

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

#384

Post by duped »

JackFr wrote: post #312
Zak wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It wasn't entry to MSG, but entry to radio city music hall which is owned by MSG. It's not clear how obvious the warning was.

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

#385

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #361
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.

> 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?

[deleted]

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

#386

Post by mission_failed »

mannerheim wrote: post #347
gregors wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given that a small number of companies are concentrating ownership of businesses, there really should be legislation that restricts their ability to 'ban' people.

Australia has 2 main supermarket chains, and they also own numerous other stores/brands. If one decided to ban you from every store it makes it very hard to shop for food.

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

#387

Post by archontes »

TheFattestNinja wrote: post #307
commandlinefan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it can be used against them, too Is it facial recognition that's the problem here, or the policy itself? In theory, they could hand out pictures of everybody who wasn't allowed in to the security staff and use low-tech facial recognition to enforce the same policy - assuming it was scalable, would it be OK then? I remember reading that IBM got into trouble when it first computerized its personnel files because some…

Both. Id argue that in addition to the policy being bad, she probably didnt agree to her image feeding into the dataset backing the facial recognition, which raised some spicy privacy questions: how did this private company get the image? Under what terms of use?

Consent isn't required if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I can take your photo in public, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I can even distribute that photo, and you can't, and if you do, I can sue you for copyright infringement. I own your likeness, in a finite way.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/but-it-s-a-photo-of-me-cel...

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

#388

Post by [deleted] »

voidmain0001 wrote: post #25
mannykannot wrote: post #10

"A spokesperson for MSG reiterated in a statement that safety is their highest priority and that facial recognition is just one of the methods they use. MSG Entertainment also said it is confident their policy is in compliance with all applicable laws, including the New York State Liquor Authority." Why do spokespersons frequently speak in non-sequiturs? They simply underline the absence of any good argument. I hope…

This explains why MSG called out the NYSLA - https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirnbaum/2022/12/07/madis...

[deleted]

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

#389

Post by unreal37 »

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?

Hooters hires "performers", not waitresses.

So this is indeed how it works.

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

#390

Post by bmitc »

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…

That's not what happened here though.

> "MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, which was notified twice," a spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement.

Seems pretty cut and dry if true. The law firm is litigating against the company, and the company notified the law firm of their policy to not allow employees to attend their venues.

If anything, lawyers deserve this treatment.

Post reply on HN