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

511–520 of 683 posts

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

#511

Post by Jiro »

rstephenson2 wrote: post #495
YuriNiyazov wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I am with you on this one. I started out reading the article wondering 'OMG, what is it that this mom could've possible done that she's banned?' and then when it says "lawyer at adversarial law firm" I immediately switched to "oh yea, makes total sense". None of the counterarguments here stand up to scrutiny. "Isn't involved in litigation" and "not a Security threat" - she is totally a security threat: today she…

What she's alleging seems to be: the MSG conglomerate is using their large footprint to punish law firm employees unrelated to their dispute using venues also unrelated to their dispute. Doing it out of spite sounds possibly legal, if petty. But the other possible intention would be to try to dissuade law firms from taking a case against any MSG property, to try to deny legal representation to the plaintiff. Not a la…

"Unrelated to their dispute" is a fuzzy category. How would the venue actually know that she's unrelated to the dispute? They're not going to have access to the internal management chart of the law firm in order to be able to precisely delineate in every case exactly who gets admitted and who doesn't. And it's unreasonable to force them to create some sort of bouncer appeals board to let people present evidence to show that their position at the law firm is unrelated to the dispute.

Remember everyone arguing that Twitter pre-Musk is a private company, so they could ban anyone they wanted? This is the same thing, only in a physical location.

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

#512

Post by nonrandomstring »

partdavid wrote: post #507
nonrandomstring wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Are you asking me personally? Or to respond with a general philosophical principle?

In either case no.

On the first count, no, because I don't believe in "non-transferable" tickets for arts and entertainments. The holder has every right to give or sell their purchased property to family or friends and "non-transferable" instruments violate that first-sale right.

On the second point, no, because the singular specific "okay" case (even the tear-jerking one that saves poor fluffy dying from kitten cancer) has no bearing on the profound but nebulous harms inflicted on society by an essentially rotten technology (on a purely Utilitarian principle)

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

#513

Post by Jiro »

advisedwang wrote: post #57
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 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. If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye.…

>Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale.

What's your opinion about Facebook or Twitter blocking people? I'm pretty sure they block people using computer technologies, and that these technologies let them do it at scale.

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

#514

Post by berniedurfee »

commandlinefan wrote: post #232
kstrauser wrote: post #162

I’m thrilled to see facial recognition applied against people in a position to speak out loudly against it. A lot of people seem OK with it when it’s policing the bad parts of town. This is their reminder that it can be used against them, too.

> 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…

I’d argue the technology takes what was, at one time, a relatively benign and reasonable policy and weaponizes it.

There’s a level of enforcement where a reasonable policy or law becomes unreasonable.

Cameras on every street corner enforcing every infraction, no matter how minor, is an extreme. There’s a threshold before that extreme where the policy combined with the enforcement becomes unreasonable.

I think the combination of policy and enforcement outlined in the article is well over the line.

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

#515

Post by josephcsible »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #493

This seems pretty cut and dry to me. If someone had a lawsuit against me, one of my businesses, or the like I wouldn't allow them or their employees into my establishments. If there is a need for them to be there, law enforcement will be accompanying them.

> If someone had a lawsuit against me, one of my businesses, or the like

You're mixing her up with her co-workers. She wasn't involved in any lawsuit against MSG.

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

#516

Post by josephcsible »

actionfromafar wrote: post #500
eastbound wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine doing a chargeback on Google for a bug in their app purchase, and your Gmail accounts being revoked.

Didn't that happen?

Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34016389

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

#517

Post by josephcsible »

js2 wrote: post #484

I can see two viable ways to prevent this from happening without taking sides on whether or not businesses should be allowed to deny service to non-protected classes of people. 1. A laser-targeted law banning facial recognition technology used for the sole purpose of denying service. 2. Not letting corporations get as large as MSG in the first place. I'm a fan of (2). If there's one thing I would hope people across t…

I don't think we should keep corporations from getting that large at all. I just think that once they do get that large, they shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily deny service to people anymore.

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

#518

Post by _carbyau_ »

advisedwang wrote: post #92
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'm saying there's a difference between blocking 10 people and 10,000, or 1 million. And I'm saying that technological change allows the latter, and we need to be cognizant of that when we decide what we're going to accept in society.

The scale means we need to get the reasons to discriminate exactly right. This is society fracturing/shaping technology here.

We've struggled to get to the point where we can legally say "No discrimination vs skin colour/sex/sexual orientation etc etc".

Facial recognition AND being able to build your own Farley files for every individual means you can discriminate on any other factoid you want.

The obvious "No woke/lefties" or "No conservative/righties" lines are obvious drawcards but the filter could be about anything - however trite - with whatever timescale.

Did you say something negative on social media 10 years ago, about a flavour of chewing gum? You and everyone who liked/shared your comment are banned from that brand structure now!

Did the mother brand even own the brand you dissed at the time you made the comment? Irrelevant! Timescale for selection of candidates for banning AND implementation of ban is completely arbitrary too!

https://www.marketing91.com/brand-architecture/

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

#519

Post by berniedurfee »

test6554 wrote: post #356
kstrauser wrote: post #162

I’m thrilled to see facial recognition applied against people in a position to speak out loudly against it. A lot of people seem OK with it when it’s policing the bad parts of town. This is their reminder that it can be used against them, too.

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 agree wholeheartedly. I’m waiting for the day a legal defense team presents video counter evidence of the judge, jury members and Elvis all committing the crime the defendant is being accused of.

A video completely indistinguishable from the video presented by the prosecution. Not sure where we go from there.

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

#520

Post by josephcsible »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #331
francisofascii wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless your neighborhood bar is the only bar.

I don't think I agree. You don't have right to be served alcohol within convenient walking distance.

Should your electric company be allowed to arbitrarily cut you off, just because other neighborhoods are served by different electric companies?
Post reply on HN