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

61–70 of 683 posts

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

#61

Post by bewaretheirs »

Many organizations (including the Girl Scouts) have required chaperone-to-kid ratios for trips like this.

Booting one chaperone from a trip could put the entire party out of compliance with the organization's policy and require exclusion of some fraction of the group or possibly cancellation of the trip.

Typical Girl Scout policy here:

https://www.gsnorcal.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsnorcal/doc...

(Note the requirement that at least one chaperone be female and at least two of the chaperones be unrelated, and note that if you have to split the girls you probably need to send a minimum of two chaperones with each half..)

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

#62

Post by KptMarchewa »

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…

Change "dislike" to "actively works against you".

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

#63

Post by mrexroad »

Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #13
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #3

A lawyer and a Rockettes show today, could be an angry tweeter and their tesla tomorrow or your Facebook post and a healthcare provider.

That is the ultimate goal of all facial recognition: to identify subversives and remove them from society.

And don’t forget that facial recognition is only one tool for identifying individuals— gait recognition, clothing patterns, etc. are utilized as well.

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

#64

Post by guerrilla »

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…

This is less of a problem if when public places aren't private property, but we still have the second part of the problem: can one be forced to do business with someone one doesn't want to. It seems like in this case, she was already sold a ticket, so that seems to be a moot point on this particular case.

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

#65

Post by KptMarchewa »

rrdharan wrote: post #30
irrational wrote: post #20

> It’s un-American to do this. This seems like a very American thing to do all of this. The lawsuit, the facial recognition, the counter lawsuit. So very American.

Actually it sounds very European to me - banning known hooligans from soccer stadiums? https://www.wired.com/story/soccer-world-cup-biometric-surve... https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15435620/champions-league...

You don't need any facial recognition for that, just get their ID to check if they are not banned while selling them tickets.

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

#66

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

guerrilla wrote: post #53
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Working against one's own interest because one believes in a higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call "being principled". It can be a good thing while we regularly and objectively evaluate a principle's worth. We humans have a history of allowing principles to obtain rigidity and the diminished outcomes that follow. We also tend to allow principle creep w/o sufficient examination.

-

I assume because GP is at a point where they can use and value a principle but have not yet realized that (to remain beneficial) principles need rigorous reevaluation and updating.

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

#67

Post by vleon42 »

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.…

Thanks, makes a lot of sense

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

#68

Post by throwaway5752 »

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 premise is a little off. This is not exactly private property, but a public accommodation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U.... That is why MSG likely has to meet ADA accessibility construction standards, among other things. Different laws apply when you invite the general public into your property.

The law is like code. If you say, "persons I dislike" but you mean people of color, you have Jim Crow, which is deeply immoral. On they other hand, your point #3 is clearly valid. To resolve this, 42 U.S.C. §2000a talks about protected classes (https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public...). People with good and bad intentions have been arguing ever since then about what is a public accommodation and who belongs to protected classes. In this case, even if it's legal, MSG is not being terribly smart to 1) use dystopian technology to enforce bans 2) be petty and expansive about banning people 3) do so against a now-very-angry legal expert.

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

#69

Post by throw_a_grenade »

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…

They shouldn't have taken legal obligations to do otherwise, i.e. they shouldn't have sold the ticket and shouldn't have applied for liquor permit.

"Yes, we took your cash in return for promise of delivering goods and services, but our policy forbids us from delivering" sounds more like Rule of Acquisition.

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

#70

Post by phkahler »

version_five wrote: post #6
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #3

A lawyer and a Rockettes show today, could be an angry tweeter and their tesla tomorrow or your Facebook post and a healthcare provider.

Yes this was exactly my thought. Every day we hear about someone kicked off google without recourse, often because of an automated decision incorrectly made. How long until people are banned from public venues for the same reason? For a long time now, governments have failed to modernize laws and regulations, and companies have stepped in with their own vigilante systems. We don't need more regulation, but we need up…

>> but we need updated standards for how technology like facial recognition can be aligned with previous norms and laws

Can we just make personal data collection and sharing illegal? We got by before this was even possible.

Post reply on HN