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

461–470 of 683 posts

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

#461

Post by wombatpm »

quanticle wrote: post #411
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…

assuming it was scalable, would it be OK then? The problem with automated facial recognition technology is that it makes what used to be infeasible suddenly routine and cheap. In the past, would the security folks at Madison Square Garden have even thought about implementing this kind of policy? No, of course not; it would have been obvious from the very beginning that such a policy would have required far too many r…

This is while it’s in the hands of corporations. Wait until the local HOA sets up cameras to real-time scan for people on the sex offender registry.

In the future ounishowill be swift and eternal

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

#462

Post by phpisthebest »

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.

See Las Vegas Casio's who have been doing that for awhile

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

#464

Post by gnopgnip »

JackFr wrote: post #289

Seems like it’s an unpopular opinion, but it seems fairly reasonable to me to restrict someone who is currently, actively suing you from using your place of business. It’s neither punitive nor petty. It’s simply practical from a legal perspective.

If you want to ban someone from using your place of business you shouldn't take their money and sell them a ticket to a show then

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

#465

Post by jsjohnst »

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.

Laws around collusion might vaguely apply, but it would be a real stretch imho.

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

#466

Post by ryandrake »

lmm wrote: post #426
Nifty3929 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine getting into an argument with a bartender and being asked to leave - and then you can't go into any other bars either? Yikes! Reminds me of the hidden low-level-banking-employee blacklist that some would end up on for not forcing enough customers into expensive products they didn't need. Or the opiate painkiller registry that doctors use to centrally track folks who come to them for painkillers, and w…

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 think in many contexts this would be desirable. If someone was belligerent and gets banned for starting a fight on Delta airline, I wouldn't want to sit next to him on my United airline flight. Venues should have the freedom to use whatever judgment/algorithm they feel will keep their customers safe, including sharing lists of troublemakers. If the list is too inaccurate, it stops doing its job and becomes a net-no-help to the venue using it.

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

#467

Post by throw_a_grenade »

rtkwe wrote: post #404
throw_a_grenade wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given she was there with a Girl Scouts troop she probably hadn't given her name to MSG and the tickets were probably bought as a large group. Also do we know if they refunded the ticket I don't remember seeing that said either way when I read it.

Tough shit. People can resell things they own, like for example tickets, so assuming she and her daughter obtained tickets legally (directly or indirectly, I have no reason to doubt they did, though I don't know for sure), by that act she was already given explicit permission to enter the venue and remain there for the duration of event.

If they don't like it, they can sell named tickets, and BTW since Girl Scouts are known for being vicious hooligans, maybe they should have instituted football-like regime up to and including stadium bans for their mothers.

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

#468

Post by wombatpm »

TheCapn wrote: post #136
hnuser847 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. So you're okay with the principle of denying individuals entry to a private business, but you're NOT okay with…

I kinda get what he's saying and there isn't an easy answer. Things done bit by bit are often different than things done at large scale. Especially when automated by tech taking out the individual human element. The nuance between people making informed decisions vs algorithms dictating action off generalized heuristics can get muddy. Just think of anonymized user data. Individually that info isn't really all that im…

10 deaths are a tragedy.

1,000,000 deaths are a statistic

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

#469

Post by kstrauser »

Gigachad wrote: post #416
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…

I see it as things returning to how they were. In a small town, the person running the fast food joint often did work there for decades and everyone recognized everyone. Theft was hard to get away with because you don't just blend in to the masses like a modern city. Now tech is allowing us to hold people accountable again.

I think that’s a romanticized memory. While holding people accountable is good, so is eventual forgiveness. If you steal a candy bar from Old Man Smith at the town’s only gas station, and he’s the kind to hold grudges, you’re boned. Never mind teens trying to buy condoms when every cashier in town knows them.

There’s a happy medium in there somewhere. You don’t want to let repeat offenders off scot free, but there needs to be a cooling off period, too.

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

#470

Post by lmm »

ryandrake wrote: post #466
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 think in many contexts this would be desirable. If someone was belligerent and gets banned for starting a fight on Delta airline, I wouldn't want to sit next to him on my United airline flight. Venues should have the freedom to use whatever judgment/algorithm they feel will keep their customers safe, including sharing lists of troublemakers. If the list is too inaccurate, it stops doing its job and becomes a net-no…

That's how you end up with redlining or worse. It's too easy to slip a few "undesirables" into the list you're sharing, and as long as you don't do it too often then your list remains a net-positive so people keep doing it. (See also the guy who put his ex-wife on the no-fly list).

For something like starting a fight, you can go by actual court records, which are public and have processes in place to correct them if they're wrong (and we have rules about e.g. when convictions should be expunged). Just sharing lists of names is too abusable.

Post reply on HN