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

431–440 of 683 posts

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

#431

Post by romwell »

bmitc wrote: post #391
kstrauser wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right: it's the policy that's bad. However, facial recognition is what makes enforcing that policy possible, and society and the law haven't changed quickly enough to deal with the repercussions. For instance, say 18 year old "Joe" gets caught stealing soda from a fast food place. The manager kicks him out and bans him from the store. Fast forward a decade, when Joe walks back into the store with his wife and…

Why is the policy bad? They are preventing employees from a law firm in active litigation with them from attending their venues while the litigation takes place. It's not some draconian thing.

The policy is bad because it results in unfair outcomes.

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

#432

Post by aidenn0 »

LarryMullins wrote: post #364
michpoch wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have certainly been sued many times, but I could only find two suits related to not hiring men. The older one resulted in a large settlement and an agreement to hire regardless of sex for non-waitress positions (including bartender and host/hostess). The latter was against a single franchise and had non-disclosed settlement terms (I'm not sure how a class-action suit can have a confidential settlement; wouldn't all members of the class be notified?).

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

#433

Post by tootie »

vleon42 wrote: post #35

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…

Honestly I think the biggest free speech issue is their grounds for excluding her. And perhaps a violation of the 4th amendment too. Not because of cataloging her face but by abusing their authority to retaliate against people for exercising due process. What if law firms struggle to hire for fear of being blacklisted for indirectly participating in lawsuits? It will make it that much harder to seek redress in courts.

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

#434

Post by monsieurbanana »

bmitc wrote: post #425
monsieurbanana wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain you didn't read the article. The link between the woman and the litige case is very tenuous. She doesn't work on the case, and the venue has nothing to do with the case either, besides that a huge corporation owns both the venue and the restaurant under litigation.

I did read it. MSG notified the law firm of their policy while the litigation is ongoing, twice. > "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 e…

That does sound pretty draconian to me, you haven't adressed my point.

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

#435

Post by LarryMullins »

rootusrootus wrote: post #150
HarryHirsch wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, however, deny employment to Dalits, and Oracle argues that it's Just Fine because there's no law.

How is that not an obvious protected class? It should easily fall under the national origin qualifications.

> How is that not an obvious protected class?

Basically because it wasn't on the radar of American legislators when they wrote up the lists of protected classes.

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

#436

Post by superbatfish »

kstrauser wrote: post #373
test6554 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Am…

I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards. The problem isn't that it doesn't work -- the problem is that it does work. And to the extent that it isn't perfect, well, it's still improving all the time. You cited a 3-year-old article reporting on data from up to eleven(!) years ago -- an eternity in this field. Not even worth reading at this point.

The racial bias issue is still important for now, but it's fast becoming irrelevant. We should be asking ourselves where our priorities lie even if bias weren't a concern.

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

#438

Post by esperent »

panda88888 wrote: post #409
kiernanmcgowan wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also something similar. A motorcycle (scooter) company in Taiwan only allows their own brand motorcycle into the company parking lot. So if you commute with a non-company scooter, good luck finding parking.

Counterpoint to that: I've been shopping with my girlfriend for a new scooter for her over the past few days. We went to the Yamaha dealer which has limited space for parking in front so all the staff bikes are mixed up with the show bikes (it's Vietnam so 10 staff = 10 staff bikes).

We got to see the Honda equivalent parked right next to the Yamaha we were considering (Honda Scoopy vs Yamaha Mio Classico) and decided it looked nicer. Didn't decide yet but she'll probably get the Honda.

So if people are going to the building to be impressed by your bikes, yeah I can see that it's reasonable to avoid having them parked right next to your competitors bikes where the customers will walk past them. That counts x1000 for the head office where the customer might be shopping for an entire dealership instead of just one bike.

This doesn't mean it's ok to say what bikes your staff can drive or what beer they can drink, of course. But branding at your own company premises is something that you can and probably should control.

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

#439

Post by bigwavedave »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #429
lmm wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blacklisting is something we already recognise as wrong; banning who you want from your own establishment is fine, but passing around a list of people and banning them on someone else's say-so isn't. Perhaps the laws against it should be enforced, or strengthened.

I don't know of any laws against this at all, at least in the United States.

The parent may be referring to employment laws; google claims 29 states have made blacklisting illegal in an employment context.

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

#440

Post by pavon »

8note wrote: post #308
rootusrootus wrote: post #148

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

If the liquor license really limits who can be denied service, then I don't consider this to be retaliation.

By analogy, if a lawyer is denied entry because they are black and they sue, that isn't retaliation it is just requiring the business to follow the law. If a lawyer is denied entry for some legitimate reason (say drunk and belligerent), and they dig up some other unrelated offense to sue about (while ignoring the hundreds of other establishments with the same minor offense), then that is retaliation.

Post reply on HN