401–410 of 683 posts
How do you suppose they got her photo (and associated it with her identity)? Is there someone at MSG (or their facial recognition vendor) whose job it is to look her up on Facebook (Or her employer’s “about” page)?
I'd bet she self-identified as being an employee and posted to social media about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be thinking of the Sopranos: SPOILER When Tony and Carmine are getting divorced, Tony consults with every lawyer in town, creating a conflict of interest and not allowing Carmine to use them.
Although — I’ve only seen this on, like, other online chitchats so take it with a heap of salt, but — I’m under the impression that the main thing accomplished if someone tried these sorts of antics in real life would be a reasonably pissed off judge with reason to believe that one party wasn’t engaging with the legal system in good faith.
The case was strong, and I had no trouble hiring a reputable firm one town over to litigate, but it was inconvenient and one can imagine a scenario in which there is no "one town over" with alternatives.
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…
They shouldn't have taken legal obligations to do otherwise, i.e. they shouldn't have sold the ticket and shouldn't have applied for liquor permit. "Yes, we took your cash in return for promise of delivering goods and services, but our policy forbids us from delivering" sounds more like Rule of Acquisition.
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 mad…
Earlier 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pol…
Why do the lawyers deserve this? I can kind of understand the lawyers actively involved in the case being banned from the arena, but why should a lawyer who is not even licensed in NY, and does not appear to be involved in the case be banned? Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are litigating against?
Regarding the policy, is it really that absurd? They are being sued, presumably, by the law firm. When I was at a company with ongoing IP litigation, there were extremely strict measures put into place while that went on. The law firm was even notified. So the lawyers purely ignored it. Lawyers are pretty apt to point out when you ignore communication, so why did they do it? They could have communicated prior to the trip, but instead they showed up and gave their surprised Pikachu face.
> Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are litigating against?
Irrelevant hypothetical because that's not what happened here, and there are different rights to medical treatment than there are for seeing an entertainment show.
This reminds me of an incident that showed up in one of my college courses: A forklift driver who got fired for drinking Budweiser. He worked for a company that Miller Brewing company contacted with and a newspaper took a photo of him at a public event drinking Budweiser. Different situation, same kind of pettiness and retaliation.
The required brand loyalty from Miller crazy - friends who have worked for them will pour non-miller beverages into glassware so that they can't be photographed holding a competitor's product. This is not in public mind you, but at someone else's apartment and not on company time. Not sure if Budweiser / AB does the same thing back but its a really backwards way to run a company culture.
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…
Another take: personal information is valuable, it belongs to the individual concerned with some fair use exceptions, making electronic files with said personal information in a way that obviously harms the individuals concerned infringes on their most personal intellectual property and is not fair use.