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

561–570 of 683 posts

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

#561

Post by lambic2 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #496
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.

Oh well that's certainly a relief in this context! I do appreciate the input here, but maybe to help you engage with the actual thought a little better (and for my edification, perhaps) do you have any reasons or theories as to why this is the case?

I doubt this question can be answered in a short comment. The differences stem from thousands of years of diverging cultural influences, history and geography. As for Russia, this video gives a good introduction to the origins of Russian Authoritarianism (with comparisons to power structures in China and Europe over history), that go all the way back to the 5th century A.D. with the Huns and the unique geography/climate of Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ZqBLcIvw0.

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

#562

Post by panic »

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…

It's hard to imagine what role this type of mass facial recognition technology would have in a healthy society.

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

#563

Post by janalsncm »

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…

This list amounts to a social credit system that some cities in China have implemented. I always thought that was something we’d like to avoid in the US. The fact that it’s privatized in the US and a government list in China makes no difference: is it any different to be blocked from taking a bullet train in China than to be blocked from flying in the U.S.?

I have several concrete problems with these lists.

1. Secrecy. I should have a right to know if I’m on the black list.

2. Due process. There is no process to being put on the black list. Partially because you don’t know it’s happening, there’s no way to contest it.

3. Permanency. The punishment should fit the crime. If you do something at 18 that shouldn’t be a lifetime punishment. However being on a secret list of names and faces distributed between companies is a lifetime punishment.

> If the list is too inaccurate, it stops doing its job and becomes a net-no-help to the venue using it.

This is an extremely optimistic take. In reality, what is the threshold of false positives where the list stops being useful? One percent? Five percent? Hell, even if the list is 10% wrong you’re still denying people who should be denied 90% of the time. And there will always be a stigma against people who are on such lists. “You must’ve done something to get on that list.”

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

#565

Post by janalsncm »

throwaway290 wrote: post #555
ryandrake wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And jail has the benefit of a lot of rights: the right to due process, legal representation, and to know the charges against you among others.

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

#566

Post by nullish_signal »

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.

[flagged]

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

#567

Post by xyzzyz »

azernik wrote: post #535
xyzzyz wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is in fact more practical than setting up face detection system, all you need to do is ID scanner and some simple OCR system to cross check the name on ID against blacklist, each person entering slaps ID against scanners (similar to how you do it with boarding passes at the airport or with public transit passes at gates), after one second either red or green light flashes. Shouldn’t take more than 5 seconds per…

That is not, in fact, how boarding passes at airports work. Identity checking is done by TSA, in a step that is very often the bottleneck and consumes enormous amounts of manpower and physical space.

That’s exactly how they work when you actually board the plane.

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

#568

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

Is the issue the facial recognition of the fact that it's legal to not serve a member of the public because their employer is suing your company?

If the venue manager had kicked her out because he personally recognized her, would that be better?

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

#569

Post by shadowgovt »

MaysonL wrote: post #508
wombatpm wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Transparent Society is an under-read book.

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

#570

Post by joveian »

pessimizer wrote: post #213
jerf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it works. Human brains are fairly bad at detecting non sequiturs. Even with practice it is still hard, because the brain does not want to activate the expensive rational thought system unless there is a good reason. If you can get it to activate that expensive system, it is often then easy to see through, but that is a tall bar.

> Human brains are fairly bad at detecting non sequiturs. I think it's more that we automatically try to fix them. If you asked somebody to recall and reproduce those sentences after reading them, they would unconsciously add information to what they recalled until it turned into a reasonable defense.

I suspect another part is just that people only have so much time to read and consider such stories and all they really need to do is make it seem like the situation is more complicated than it seems (which sometimes is actually the case). I tried a quick search for any studies on what people actually think about these company statements but couldn't find anything; another possibility is that people do easily recognize them as BS but that so few people ever see any particular news article that it doesn't really make any difference.

I think printing BS company (and politician, etc.) statements as is, often at the end of an article, is a major issue affecting the reputation of journalism. I don't know the full history but it is related to defamation issues that need to be taken into consideration in some way. I think the situation is something like: printing the company's response makes it much harder for the reporter/publication to be sued for defamation and so the easiest thing to do is to just attach the response as-is without further consideration. They could (and IMO should, and occasionally do) ask questions like "how does this statement relate to the question we asked you" but companies mostly will just ignore such questions (they can print that and I think usually do if they actually ask the question). There can potentially be unexpected complications that arise if they press the company that make the story more difficult to write and/or defend legally. I don't know how much of it is legal considerations if there is a lawsuit vs a kind of unwritten agreement not to push to hard to avoid lawsuits. It partly relates to these quick stories that publications don't want to put much effort into, but even long expensive articles don't seem to have a good record IMO. They do seem to just hope that people will recognize it as BS but even when that is the case printing BS affects their reputation as well.

The Forbes article that voidmain0001 mentioned linked to this routers article:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/madison-square-g...

It seems the lawsuit that prompted the ban is minority shareholders suing the wealthy family who were the majority owners of two business they recently combined.

Post reply on HN