How utterly dystopian
Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
51–60 of 102 posts
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#52Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue. MSG’s facial recognition systems have been used to block entry to the stadium for all sorts of people. The list includes lawyers who work at law firms in litigation with MSG, even if they are not part of the litigation themselves; and potentially a man who on…
[flagged]
The lawyer they banned was not engaging in litigation against MSG. She was part of a large firm (with more than 1000 lawyers) where another lawyer was working on litigation against MSG. Like imagine if Google sued Live Nation and then anyone working for Google was banned from Live Nation venues and Ticketmaster.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#53Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue. MSG’s facial recognition systems have been used to block entry to the stadium for all sorts of people. The list includes lawyers who work at law firms in litigation with MSG, even if they are not part of the litigation themselves; and potentially a man who on…
> then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) I'm 1000% in favor of not having a tax exemption for this business, it's idiotic to give them one in the first place, but I disagree that the exemption should be used to pressure them here. For one thing, that means if they comply with those demands, then they keep the exemption they shouldn't have. I fail to see how a ban on facial recognitio…
> We created laws, that I agree with, saying you can't ban whole protected classes like races from 'public accommodations' (private businesses that are generally open to the public)
The Supreme Court found these laws to be constitutional by finding them to be an application of Congress's power to regulate commerce. Congress can ban discrimination based on protected characteristics because such discrimination negatively affects commerce.
That same reasoning permits Congress to ban discrimination based on other factors, so long as it has a negative impact on commerce. For example, if operators of popular public accommodations try to evade legal liability by banning law firms who sue them from their property, such evasion can be said to have a negative impact on the economy. The commerce power is very broad, and it seems pretty easy to make an economic case against such practices.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#54Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue. MSG’s facial recognition systems have been used to block entry to the stadium for all sorts of people. The list includes lawyers who work at law firms in litigation with MSG, even if they are not part of the litigation themselves; and potentially a man who on…
[flagged]
>Banning lawyers who are currently engaging in litigation against MSG is prudent, not a vendetta.
That's not what he did though
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are making a concerted effort to force your business to do something, and you don't want to know their names or how much influence they actually have?
> People are making a concerted effort to force your business to do something, What a contrived way to spell "democracy"
Ok? It's democracy. You want to know who the people involved are and what influence they have.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#56Personally I think that these conversations are focused on the wrong thing. Facial recognition stands to be a great tool in spotting "the bad guys" so that appropriate measures can be taken. For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums. The problem that is not being missed in the conversation about the technology is: who gets to decide who…
> For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums.
You should't need face recognition to do this (as it seems stadiums are already successful in banning people who haven't paid from entering the venue).
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) I'm 1000% in favor of not having a tax exemption for this business, it's idiotic to give them one in the first place, but I disagree that the exemption should be used to pressure them here. For one thing, that means if they comply with those demands, then they keep the exemption they shouldn't have. I fail to see how a ban on facial recognitio…
> Who cares if it's by having a bouncer at each entrance with pictures of all the 'personae non gratae' or with a camera It's a tad harder to remotely compromise the banned people database (again) with a few bouncers
If you made a list of all the people you hate with their pictures, should government regulators be involved with where you keep it and how you safeguard it? I don't feel like I would care even if I was on the list.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#58Personally I think that these conversations are focused on the wrong thing. Facial recognition stands to be a great tool in spotting "the bad guys" so that appropriate measures can be taken. For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums. The problem that is not being missed in the conversation about the technology is: who gets to decide who…
Nah. I don't buy it. If we don't trust our own Government with it, I don't think we can trust private corporations which are definitely facto extensions of the state by virtue of being legal fictions with it.
Vigilance is the price of liberty, and I don't believe that that there is any reason to make that vigilance "easy" for those already more than capable of doing a reasonable job of it with means that don't create a giant liability of biometric data leaks for everyone else.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#59Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue. MSG’s facial recognition systems have been used to block entry to the stadium for all sorts of people. The list includes lawyers who work at law firms in litigation with MSG, even if they are not part of the litigation themselves; and potentially a man who on…
> then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) I'm 1000% in favor of not having a tax exemption for this business, it's idiotic to give them one in the first place, but I disagree that the exemption should be used to pressure them here. For one thing, that means if they comply with those demands, then they keep the exemption they shouldn't have. I fail to see how a ban on facial recognitio…
I dislike that legal arguments often fail to distinguish cases where scale or speed create something transformative in themselves. Yes you could keep a few people out of a small venue, but good luck keeping a list of 1000 people out of a stadium. The tech creates new powers for large entities able to deploy it that aren't countered by any capacities gained by individuals and small groups. The argument should be made on the basis of what this tech enables itself and not by reference to some old tech that had different consequences.
Re: Madison Square Garden compiled a list of activists against facial recognition
#60Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue. MSG’s facial recognition systems have been used to block entry to the stadium for all sorts of people. The list includes lawyers who work at law firms in litigation with MSG, even if they are not part of the litigation themselves; and potentially a man who on…
> they need to lose their tax exemption
Easy, easy! Are you proposing that venerable people should get less breads for the circuses they provide to plebs?