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

501–510 of 683 posts

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

#501

Post by int_19h »

kstrauser wrote: post #313
rg111 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always the policy that should be modified, and not the tech that should be stopped. Because bad policies can do only damage. And tech can do both good and bad.

I’d amend that: it’s always the policy that should be modified in the longer run . Sometimes it’s wholly appropriate to pump the brakes on the tech that would allow mass application of the bad policy.

It rarely if ever actually works out for the simple reason that, if one jurisdiction pumps the brakes, there's a dozen others willing to floor the other pedal on the same thing.

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

#502

Post by int_19h »

enraged_camel wrote: post #490
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.

Didn't Microsoft not allow employees to have Apple devices for a while? Or vice versa? I remember something along those lines.

I think you're remembering this story:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ballmer-snatches-microsoft-e...

It was never an actual policy, which is why the employees reacted the way they did.

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

#503

Post by acomjean »

kstrauser wrote: post #262
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…

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…

What’s weird to me is MSG had to get pictures of all this law firms attorney’s and enter them into their facial recognition database. It seems wasteful and really petty. They probably pulled from they law firms website.

Another reason to keep wearing masks…

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

#504

Post by int_19h »

cortesoft wrote: post #60
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…

In the US, at least, there are restrictions on 3. You can’t deny entry to black people, for example, just because you don’t like black people.

It's more complicated than that. You can't deny entry to black people as a public venue. But you can set up a members-only club that does not allow black people to be members, and then sell exclusively to the membership - which is still a business.

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

#505

Post by mixmastamyk »

kstrauser wrote: post #402
duped wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, I’m with you on that. As a one-time transactional system, like verifying that the person presenting an ID card is the person on its photo, fine. I don’t want it going into a permanent database.

Unfortunately not an option and will likely never happen. Nothing has been deleted since around 2005, when storage costs plummeted below the price of selling the data instead.

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

#506

Post by _carbyau_ »

engineer_22 wrote: post #321
pixl97 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm sure she was refunded or that would be another part of the suit. Now, look at these 2 situations. "Hello, I see you are buying this ticket, but since we're not going to let you enter we will prevent you from buying it" is much different from. "Hello, I see you got a baby sitter and took an uber to come down here and now we're refusing you access to a place you had a ticket for, on a reason you could not hav…

> we're refusing you access to a place you had a ticket for, on a reason you could not have possibly predicted" MSG claims to have notified the company twice.

But unless you are familiar with all the properties of MSG you still don't know which place may or may not allow entry.

If google sends you an email saying you may not use any services provided by google - that's one thing. But what about Youtube? Is that owned by Google or Alphabet? Does Google being upset with you actually mean that all of Alphabet properties are out of bounds?

How much of a business needs to be owned by a corporation before they can ban you from it? 51%? 20%? 5%?

Should you get a letter from each and every business individually?

This is a crazy path to go down that would lead to the fracture of society.

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

#507

Post by partdavid »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #448
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…

> Is it facial recognition that's the problem here Yes I think so. Some technologies are inherently no good, lacking any obvious positive use cases, but enabling obvious abuse. It is a mistake to shift the blame to "policy" or malevolent actors and claim the technology is merely a neutral enabler. No. The technology itself contains a gamut of evils.

If you had to identify the eventgoer in advance for a non-transferable ticket, then she would have been banned for the same reason and no facial recognition would have been involved. Would that be okay, in some way this is not?

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

#508

Post by MaysonL »

wombatpm wrote: post #461
quanticle wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Imagine muggers with this tech. Imagine gangs with cameras guarding approaches to their turf – watching for rival gangs, cops, and people who have been placed on the all-gang database of marks and narcs.

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

#509

Post by berniedurfee »

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.

Except sometimes an establishment is part of a multinational conglomerate. Eventually some level of due process is going to be needed in certain instances.

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

#510

Post by rlpb »

engineer_22 wrote: post #321
pixl97 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm sure she was refunded or that would be another part of the suit. Now, look at these 2 situations. "Hello, I see you are buying this ticket, but since we're not going to let you enter we will prevent you from buying it" is much different from. "Hello, I see you got a baby sitter and took an uber to come down here and now we're refusing you access to a place you had a ticket for, on a reason you could not hav…

> we're refusing you access to a place you had a ticket for, on a reason you could not have possibly predicted" MSG claims to have notified the company twice.

They refused an individual not acting on behalf of their employer though. I'm not sure that notifying their employer is sufficient. If they want to bar an individual acting for themselves, they should have notified the individual.
Post reply on HN