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

551–560 of 683 posts

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

#551

Post by atkailash »

ryandrake wrote: post #466
lmm wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think in many contexts this would be desirable. If someone was belligerent and gets banned for starting a fight on Delta airline, I wouldn't want to sit next to him on my United airline flight. Venues should have the freedom to use whatever judgment/algorithm they feel will keep their customers safe, including sharing lists of troublemakers. If the list is too inaccurate, it stops doing its job and becomes a net-no…

No post body was provided.

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

#552

Post by schemescape »

Waterluvian wrote: post #254

With the merge being approved, there were now only four Corporations. Sure, there were many off-world Corps, but they didn't have any meaningful affiliations and were really just a novelty for Roamers. Everyone, from birth, was employed by a Corp. Mind you, employment doesn't endow a title, salary, benefits, or duties. It just meant you were permitted access the various amenities it provided: transportation, tech, te…

I’d buy this book.

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

#553

Post by rstephenson2 »

Jiro wrote: post #511
rstephenson2 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

Assuming that whether or not the lawyer is working on their case is the deciding factor, the venue (actually the conglomerate that owns them) are the ones who chose to come up with this retaliatory scheme so the onus is on them.

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

#554

Post by kergonath »

FredPret wrote: post #457
chrisbaker98 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America and the west as whole is not actually significantly different from China with stuff like this. As someone who has spent many years of my life living outside "America and the West": this is not remotely true.

I moved from outside into the West and I’m inclined to agree with you. It feels different here. There’s much more trust, even when Westerners mock their institutions, there is a higher baseline and more implied trust.

The thing is that it’s easy to voice an opinion. And you can be confident that the institutions will endure even if you weaken them, which provides a safety net for populists who have incentives to use corrosive language and attitudes for electoral reasons without fearing a complete breakdown of the state or society.

We’ve seen this countless times. However upset people are about Medicare and public welfare, they still want to get some support when they need.

It is a factor for instability in the long term, but it is an unavoidable cost of having free speech. Ideally, it would be fought against with a good public education system.

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

#555

Post by throwaway290 »

ryandrake wrote: post #536
_carbyau_ wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then one day you fart on an airplane and are no longer able to fly due to being a "troublemaker" that people wouldn't want to sit next to. A community of people aren't built around absolutism. They are built around give and take. You can't have your best day, every day.

I didn't say anything about farting. I don't want to board an airplane with someone who has a history of assaulting people. If airlines could build an accurate list, I would have no problem with them sharing the list and effectively banning those people from flying. The "accurate" part I admit is the hard part to get right. As another replier suggested, maybe base it on public arrest records or something. But assumin…

A history of assaulting people is not what lands you on a no-fly list, it's what lands you in jail.

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

#556

Post by asveikau »

ryandrake wrote: post #536
_carbyau_ wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then one day you fart on an airplane and are no longer able to fly due to being a "troublemaker" that people wouldn't want to sit next to. A community of people aren't built around absolutism. They are built around give and take. You can't have your best day, every day.

I didn't say anything about farting. I don't want to board an airplane with someone who has a history of assaulting people. If airlines could build an accurate list, I would have no problem with them sharing the list and effectively banning those people from flying. The "accurate" part I admit is the hard part to get right. As another replier suggested, maybe base it on public arrest records or something. But assumin…

Maybe farting isn't on your list. Maybe it's on somebody else's list.

That's a key problem here. People don't agree on what's acceptable and what the proper criteria for forgiveness is.

If somebody did one of your more unambiguous transgressions, like assault (proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, i hope?), but reformed themselves, how do you know and who decided that? Maybe they did it because of a drug habit, mental illness, some other extreme condition that they've now worked past. Maybe they really don't want to do it again, and would not.

These are the types of problems that can arise when you split the world between good and bad people. Not everyone who does something you disapprove of is irredeemable.

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

#557

Post by bavila »

bmitc wrote: post #454
romwell wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policy is bad because it results in unfair outcomes.

When are lawyers considered with fairness? I'm not sure I see what's unfair here. They were notified. If they wanted to negotiate around it, they could have done ahead of time. They're lawyers. They should know to read material they're sent.

> When are lawyers considered with fairness?

As any good lawyer would say, "It depends."

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

#558

Post by [deleted] »

btilly wrote: post #201
cortesoft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The restrictions in question come from the Civil Rights Act. Which sets a bunch of protected classes, including race, color, religion, sex and national origin. See https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196... . However federal law does not prevent discriminating on other grounds. Such as political affiliation or profession. For example landlords can choose not to rent to lawyers, and every so often…

[deleted]

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

#559

Post by Retric »

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…

The idea that it would be prohibitively expensive to manually look at each employee’s age on paperwork compared to the cost savings of denying pensions is extremely dubious.
Post reply on HN