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

471–480 of 683 posts

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

#471

Post by philip1209 »

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…

Imagine this system, but for chargebacks. "You issued a charge back against us once, so you're no longer allowed in any of our physical locations ever again. You should have talked to us first."

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

#472

Post by bmitc »

techwizrd wrote: post #460
bmitc wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also from the article: (a) Conlon does not practice law in New York where Radio City Music Hall is located. (b) Conlon is not an attorney pursuing active litigation against the MSG Entertainment. She works for a NJ-based law firm who representing another party in litigation against an unrelated restaurant which now happens to now be owned by MSG Entertainment. She's not part of that ongoing litigation. (c) > A recent…

The law firm was notified ahead of time, twice. Lawyers expect others to abide by such notifications, do they not? They act like this was a crime against humanity, when they were told ahead of time that they were not allowed in their venues during the ongoing litigation.

Does the law firm have 100,000 employees? According to their website, they have about 29 attorneys in the firm. Bringing up companies the size of cities compared to that is completely ridiculous and irrelevant. And companies like Meta, Google, Apple, etc. will absolutely enact draconian policies when IP and other litigations are going on. The secrecy and policies those companies put in place likely go well beyond simply not letting a lawyer part of a law firm that is suing one of your businesses into your building.

Why does it matter where she's licensed? It's irrelevant.

Lawyers play these little games all the time. I'm not necessarily for the policy or the use of facial recognition to enact it, but they were told ahead of time. They should know better. If they wanted to argue the points ahead of time and get approval, they could and should have.

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

#473

Post by afandian »

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…

It will be you one day, for a reason you don't agree with.

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

#474

Post by ryandrake »

rapht wrote: post #452
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…

Your private property is what it is, private. Your business place, assuming a public business, is indeed that: a place open to the public by default. In France (and, as far as I'm aware, most European countries), there is a very clear line: either your business place welcomes the general public, or it does not. Once you fall in the first category - and, as soon as you're selling something in that business place, you…

Running a business doesn't magically turn your place of business into public property. I run a home business. Does that mean the general public are free to enter and roam around my home office?

In the USA at least, you can kick out or ban anyone you want from your business for any reason, unless it is one of a very small enumerated list of disallowed reasons including race, religion and so on. If I don't want people wearing green shirts in my store I can kick/keep them out. I'd be an asshole, but I am 100% allowed to do that.

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

#475

Post by rootusrootus »

pessimizer wrote: post #196
rootusrootus wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> It should easily fall under the national origin qualifications. How? Dalits aren't from Dalitland.

Because the definition seems like it would apply. "person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language" [0]

It'll come down to a judge, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to put a caste group under that umbrella.

[0] https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-nati...

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

#476

Post by belfalas »

chrisbaker98 wrote: post #450
beepbooptheory wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is just a rhetorical point of yours, but maybe we can start to accept that America and the west as whole is not actually significantly different from China with stuff like this. Thinking about it, why would we be? I can't see a good answer to that without appealing to weird/nationalistic/naive ideas about the moral character of states themselves, or simply the understanble nonlogic of "well this is my cou…

> America and the west as whole is not actually significantly different from China with stuff like this. As someone who has spent many years of my life living outside "America and the West": this is not remotely true.

Same, America and the West are significantly different from places like China or Russia. It's not even close.

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

#477

Post by brookst »

romwell wrote: post #431
bmitc wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All policies are bad, then?

Can you think of any policy anywhere that never results in unfair outcomes?

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

#478

Post by bmitc »

monsieurbanana wrote: post #434
bmitc wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is your point?

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

#479

Post by kstrauser »

kstrauser wrote: post #340
LarryMullins wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s a great point. For that matter, imagine that being maintained by Verisign or the like. Get a ding on your social credit report, and voila, you can’t walk into a grocery store anymore.

:facepalm: I mean Experian. It’s too late to edit it now, but if a future person reads this, I was thinking of credit bureaus managing these lists.

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

#480

Post by hnlmorg »

teepo wrote: post #316
hnlmorg wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. For me, the issue is that this restriction is upheld at point of entry and not point of sale. I get it’s a harder problem to restrict who tickets are sold to, but if a venue like that wants to get petty about who can attend their shows then the responsibility is on them to communicate that before the event. To flip this another way, in any other normal circumstance, when you get banned from a venue you’d get…

A theater ticket is not like booking with an airline. The venue doesn't assign a validated name to each seat. In this case it was likely one name for the entire batch of tickets in their group.

I’m aware of that, hence why I said it was a harder problem to solve.
Post reply on HN