Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer • Hacker News Board

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

#541

Post by kergonath » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #472

techwizrd wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ci…

> The law firm was notified ahead of time, twice.

How is that relevant? A stupid and harmful policy is stupid and harmful, regardless of who was notified and how. If I send an email to Google to notify my displeasure, it is not reasonable to expect all Google employees to be aware of it and avoid my business.

Despite the fact that personally punishing individual employees for a beef your holding company has with some of their colleagues is stupid. There is no other way of putting it.

> Lawyers expect others to abide by such notifications, do they not?

There is so much wrong here. Lawyers are not omniscient. They also expect companies to abide by their own terms of use, and routinely ignore unfounded or groundless “notifications”.

> Bringing up companies the size of cities compared to that is completely ridiculous and irrelevant.

So, where’s the limit? What company size makes this reasonable?

> And companies like Meta, Google, Apple, etc. will absolutely enact draconian policies when IP and other litigations are going on.

So, it is draconian after all. Show an example of individuals being booted off Google’s or Apple’s platforms only because of their employer.

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

But then, none of the points you’ve made are, either.

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

#542

Post by azernik » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

pfoof wrote: post #210

So they discriminated a lawyer to not get sued? Doesn't that sound like they just jumped into an anthill?

No, they were already getting sued. They decided for apparently purely emotional reasons to punish not just the plaintiffs, not just their lawyers, but also every other lawyer at the same firm.

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

#543

Post by yreg » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:54 AM UTC

azernik wrote: post #533

TheHappyOddish wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology is just means to an end. Would you be ok if security had a big wall with printed pictures of undesirables and kicked her out due to this?

I wouldn't care as much, because that big wall would be purely symbolic and impossible to enforce.

What if you have to make a reservation and they check your name against an alphabetical book of blacklisted names?

Low-tech and easy to enforce.

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

#544

Post by azernik » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:54 AM UTC

ezfe wrote: post #256

plusminusplus wrote: post #138

"we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment" For discussion, let's take MSG's statement in good faith, and assume the attorney was notified twice. Are there legitimate reasons to do this other than a "pretext for doing collective punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSG" as suggested?

I mean, I think it's standard operating procedure not to allow any interaction except through proper channels when there's litigation involved, and they can apply this here. I don't think barring someone from your property is a good punishment against someone who is trying to sue you, since that kinda implies they "dislike" you already and wouldn't want to engage with you

All that is well and good for a plaintiff. But their lawyer? Or any other lawyer who works at the same firm? Nah, this is bananas.

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

#545

Post by belfalas » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:55 AM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #487

belfalas wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

what are some stand-out differences?

You mean besides freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and democracy?

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

#546

Post by azernik » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:55 AM UTC

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.

a) the people who "have a lawsuit" are the plaintiffs, not the lawyers they hired

b) the lawyers they're banning aren't employed by the plaintiffs, but happen to be working at the same firm the plaintiffs went to

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

#547

Post by azernik » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #217

I feel like the facial recognition part of this is a red herring. The two bigger problems I see here are banning people because of what their co-workers are doing, and enforcing bans when people show up instead of when they buy their tickets.

Facial recognition is important here only in that this insane of a policy would be impossible to enforce without facial recognition.

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

#548

Post by azernik » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

nraynaud wrote: post #344

can someone explain a bit the reasonning behind banning opposing lawyers from the defendant's venue? I feel like it's to reduce "on the ground" discoveries in civil cases, but I don't understand why, as far as I know those are neither forbidden nor unethical, there is a later opportunity to debate whether those discoveries gets introduced as evidence in the case.

There isn't any information they could discover. The lawsuit is not against MSG the venue, but against a restaurant somewhere else that happens to be owned by the same umbrella corporation.

There is zero motive here other than retaliation.

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

#549

Post by azernik » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:00 AM UTC

yreg wrote: post #543

azernik wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't care as much, because that big wall would be purely symbolic and impossible to enforce.

What if you have to make a reservation and they check your name against an alphabetical book of blacklisted names? Low-tech and easy to enforce.

Not so easy to enforce, because most ticketing systems don't require the name of every single attendee. Adding that requirement would be really really bad for the sales funnel, and also require tickets to be 100% non-transferable.

And much less disruptive to the target, because they get told in advance and don't drive and park and go in and plan only to get kicked out.

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

#550

Post by kergonath » Wed, Dec 21, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

humanistbot wrote: post #441

benreesman wrote: post #424

The Constitution wasn’t designed for this. The framers did an amazing job at writing documents and expressing ideals that have held up astonishingly well through insane technological change. But if I want my face catalogued next to my social credit score why not go all in and move to China? It’s not great but the only mechanism in sight that seems equipped to deal with this is restraint semi-enforced by social consen…

> The Constitution wasn’t designed for this. The Constitution wasn't designed for a multi-racial democracy, either. It took a bloody civil war to settle the slavery question though.

The constitution was a compromise between different ideas pushed by different people. It is not a holy text or necessarily the ideal outcome from the point of view of any of its signatories. Its historical and philosophical importance are immense. But even from day one, it was not supposed to be the be-all and end-all. There are lots of things it was not designed to handle.