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

601–610 of 683 posts

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

#601

Post by cryptonector »

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…

We don't allow public accomodations to discriminate against protected classes. We have made a decision that some kinds of discrimination is immoral, and rightly so. As it gets easier to make discriminatory decisions on objectionable basis, we may well decide that to expand this rule.

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

#602

Post by cryptonector »

pixl97 wrote: post #288
mannykannot wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. Notice that there is no claim here that it is a safety issue. If MSG fears certain employees may reveal things it does not want known, it should constrain those employees from contact with the public within its venues.

Yea, I would go on to state that MSG is 'fucking dumb'. Now, I don't know how things work in NY, but at least where I'm from the lawyers do not go to your place of business and ask questions. They go to the courts and put in a filing for demands. If anyone shows up to question employees it's going to be private investigators that are seemingly unaffiliated and you won't know to block them in the first place (NY law m…

Of course lawyers ask questions outside of courtrooms and court filings, though you're right that they would send private investigators rather than lawyers to... investigate.

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

#603

Post by rurp »

kodyo wrote: post #82
rurp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be so sure of this. There are countless examples of businesses applying gross discrimination practices for generations , and only stopping when forced to by the government.

Yep. That's the current narrative. Well done. Jim Crow laws were passed and enforced by the government. There are countless examples of businesses having no choice but to discriminate because government told them to. The government itself determined that segregation was A-OK as long as things were "separate but equal."

Just to clarify, you're claiming that ALL businesses that discriminated were legally compelled to? If you're just talking about some businesses at some point in time, that does nothing to refute my point; or "narrative" as you put it.

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

#604

Post by eternalban »

bmitc wrote: post #597
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…

Calling not being able to be a consumer of the company their firm is suing punishment seems to be a bit of a stretch. And it's only during the duration of the lawsuit. And again, why are the lawyers so surprised when they knew ahead of time? If they had asked, it could have even been pre-approved, and thus a non-story. If anything, I'd almost consider this to have been an intentional act by the law firm because they…

> Calling not being able to be a consumer of the company their firm is suing punishment seems to be a bit of a stretch. And it's only during the duration of the lawsuit.

What if the company was Google? What if it was a healthcare provider with a patented/proprietary treatment?

As a matter of fact, didn't we recently have articles in hn where people were commenting they are reluctant to charge back to Google because they don't want to risk losing their gmail and the rest of it?

> I'd almost consider this to have been an intentional act by the law firm

Good for them. The legal system is the only way corporations can be effectively held accountable. You can hate lawyers as much as you want but this is directed at us via proxy. Lawyers litigate for clients.

"Sorry we can't take your case. We use Google products extensively."

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

#605

Post by rnk »

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…

It's obviously a terrible thing if firms stop blocking people who might have some problem. It's going to be used in terrible ways. I hope that because lawyers are involved they'll manage to destroy this as a general thing companies can do.

This is kind of an ironic case because I've noticed that lawyers make themselves immune to non-compete clauses via state laws in most states. In California famously, regular employees are generally immune to N.C. In my state lawyers are not impacted by NC by law, but regular devs are subject to them, even sandwich makers have been blocked from changing jobs. There's been a big battle from devs to get rid of them, it hasn't yet passed the state legislature. My own leg rep said she didn't think there was a problem - of course she's a lawyer. The lawyer and business class wants to keep them.

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

#606

Post by spritefs »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #214

This reminds me of an incident that showed up in one of my college courses: A forklift driver who got fired for drinking Budweiser. He worked for a company that Miller Brewing company contacted with and a newspaper took a photo of him at a public event drinking Budweiser. Different situation, same kind of pettiness and retaliation.

Do any tech companies do something similar to this?

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

#607

Post by spritefs »

The weirdest thing about this to me isn't that they kicked her out because of the litigation, but that they were able to see who she was based off of the facial recognition alone

Like where do they get this data from in the first place? From a data broker? Is it possible to request to have facial data removed from the data broker?

Did she consent to them using facial recognition technology on her at the venue? (If this isn't already a law, that is to say requiring consent... it should be)

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

#608

Post by ngoilapites »

I can't help it, I see lots of recent corporate developments as a whole new set of "middle-age"-attitudes that permeate in society. This is one of them. Another is Elon's personal & professional mixed events. There is a whole new bunch of things happening in this direction.

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

#609

Post by nullish_signal »

kergonath wrote: post #550
humanistbot wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Was the First Amendment intended to apply to Speech by means of Photons and Electric Particles flying at sub-light-speed to 10s 100s or 1000s of Remote Viewers? Was the Fifth Amendment designed to protect magnetic patterns in Etched Silicon?

No, but there are mechanisms in place by which the Constitution can be Updated.

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

#610

Post by spritefs »

monksy wrote: post #333
kstrauser wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right: it's the policy that's bad. However, facial recognition is what makes enforcing that policy possible, and society and the law haven't changed quickly enough to deal with the repercussions. For instance, say 18 year old "Joe" gets caught stealing soda from a fast food place. The manager kicks him out and bans him from the store. Fast forward a decade, when Joe walks back into the store with his wife and…

This is happening already with PatronScan which is being pushed agressively into schools, and bars: https://scribe.nixnet.services/id-at-the-door-meet-the-secur... There have been references to the ban lists going from one venue to another.

> This is happening already with PatronScan which is being pushed agressively into schools, and bars

The linked article mentions bars, where does the school bit come from?

Post reply on HN