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

Post by josephcsible » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:30 AM UTC

Nifty3929 wrote: post #397

I think it would be helpful in the comments to separate the issue of using facial recognition for public identification and entry, from the other issue of whether this person should have been allowed in regardless of the policy. Personally I don't think facial recognition should be allowed for public identification. On the other hand, I think it's perfectly fine to bar opposing attorneys actively working against you…

Post by josephcsible » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:33 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #225

moloch-hai wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of thing, everywhere, is exactly what to expect from "deregulation".

A venue can dictate how you dress and behave, but can't dictate that you not carry in a cellphone? Not clearly telling someone with anxiety that their (very common) safety blanket isn't allowed in the venue before they buy the ticket it a problem, but it's a problem with how we treat Terms-of-Service and EULAs that are too long and legalistic as binding. It's good that people can't have their cellphones at comedy sho…

Post by TheHappyOddish » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:35 AM UTC

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.…

Post by azernik » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:36 AM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #425

monsieurbanana wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain you didn't read the article. The link between the woman and the litige case is very tenuous. She doesn't work on the case, and the venue has nothing to do with the case either, besides that a huge corporation owns both the venue and the restaurant under litigation.

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…

Post by josephcsible » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:38 AM UTC

monksy wrote: post #46

RC_ITR wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting that they have the right to not sell tickets to whomever they choose, but once that ticket is sold, they are on very shaky ground to ban someone unless they misrepresented who they were when buying the ticket. Tickets are contracts! How can they prove this isn’t some bogus way to account for oversold seats? What if an airline did the same on oversold flights?

Nope they always have a clause stating that they can remove you from the venue for what ever reason they want. Ticket master also has anti-chargeback clauses as well.