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

631–640 of 683 posts

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

#631

Post by azernik »

yreg wrote: post #625
azernik wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that was a question and it has nothing to do with enforceability. Of course banning people based on where they work is bad for business.

You brought up enforceability, so I addressed that. The policy itself is also bonkers, I agree.

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

#632

Post by azernik »

bmitc wrote: post #619
azernik wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retaliating against a law firm's employees for doing their jobs by representing their clients is absolutely draconian. Especially for a large company doing this with unrelated properties.

Is it retaliation, or is it protection?

Protection from what? The lawsuit has nothing to do with the MSG venue, but rather with a restaurant somewhere else that MSG owns; and this lawyer isn't working on that case anyway.

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

#633

Post by dusted »

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…

I agree, the tech is actually wonderful.

The problem is not that it provides new opportunities, the problem is determining which of these opportunities are acceptable to pursue, and under which circumstance.

I don't like the "this is bad because it allows current laws/practices to be efficiently enforced" attitude that a lot of people seem to hold.

Oh no, in my opinion, by all means, make it 100% efficient, cheap and easy to enforce _EVERY_ policy under the sun.

We need to get on with cleaning up and amending policies until it's not a complete shit show.

Any policy should be written as if it will be effectively and quickly applied to 100% of the cases, and if that makes it look shitty, then it is and must be fixed.

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

#634

Post by tremon »

monksy wrote: post #620
spritefs wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Schools are using id scans to ban people and prevent sex offenders from entry (yes.. It's good.. But some of those people have kids enrolled). This has been rolled out heavily already. (I believe this is called rapidscan)

yes.. It's good

Please keep in mind that some people on the sex offender registry are only there because they were peeing in public, or because they were sexting while underage.

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

#635

Post by yreg »

azernik wrote: post #631
yreg wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that was a question and it has nothing to do with enforceability. Of course banning people based on where they work is bad for business.

You brought up enforceability, so I addressed that. The policy itself is also bonkers, I agree.

Not me, the parent I replied to ;)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34075624

But I think we are on the same page anyway

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

#636

Post by areyousure »

dehrmann wrote: post #36

Interesting. I think she knows she has no case, but realized her eviction put them in violation of their liquor license, fighting back where it really hurt. Banning lawyers might not be the best idea.

There might be another angle to this.

The law firm's previous personal injury lawsuits against MSG were because they served alcohol to someone who later drove drunk. Multiple lawsuits were successful, in one case getting $20 million.

In general they appear to represent drunk driving victims and associate with MADD.

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

#637

Post by latexr »

> It’s un-American to do this.

No, no it is not. It is very much American. The one thing more American than that situation is Americans saying something bad is un-American. You are what you do, not what you say. US Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and stop being blinded by the con of American exceptionalism. You’re not better than others, you’re not revered, other countries don’t look up to you. You are not a bastion of freedom or justice. You are a country drunk on its own kool-aid, being played by the worse people you have to offer. You need the courage to admit you’re not who you thought. Only then can you enact change to who you want to be.

Quoting George Carlin: “they call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it”.

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

#638

Post by beepbooptheory »

humanistbot wrote: post #613
beepbooptheory wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts about surveillance and such in the world at large may well be wrong or naive, but I'm pretty sure I am not the one being black and white here. I think, in order to tell me off like you want to do here, you should say I am too equivocating of things, that I am not black and white enough! You could be like "you see some particulars and generalize too quickly, countries do live and die by principles, not 'ef…

You're derailing this from a substantive discussion about surveillance to one about the meaning of a colloquial metaphor. I'm not going to debate the meaning of "black and white." If you want to make a substantive comment about whether there are national differences in the level of surveillance, I'll reply. But I won't take the semantics bait.

I'm sorry I guess. You responded to only my first statement by just saying that, in fact, Russia bad and USA good. I don't really know what to say to that, its not adding anything, or speaking to my very small and abstract reflections about incentive, justification, and culture.

I'm sure many/most people would be happy to talk to you about how some countries are worse than others, why even choose to respond to me, where such things aren't adding anything?

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

#639

Post by lambic2 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #614
lambic2 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| There isn't such a vast history to pull from there, how can you justify an analogous nationalistic identity/moral character for it without such a big story? Well, exactly - that explains a lot of the current political/cultural fragmentation of the U.S. population. Although you can definitely argue that though it is a "short" story in comparison, the founding of the U.S. as a revolution to gain independence from the…

Isn't this such a sad and ultimately negative worldview though? Instead of an Earth of humans, you have an array of static types. Instead of a history where there is change, where people can overcome things and vie for better world, you seem to say there is only an illusion of change, and really its all just scaling an infrastructure set in stone a long time ago. You look at people far away, and first and foremost co…

I don't see how it's so negative...there is still definitely change happening and we are not static. Thousands of years ago when we were hunter gatherers, humans would speak different languages living just 10 miles away, and tribes would battle/murder each other just a few miles away. Even as fractured as the U.S. is, we are still in the long run progressing towards are more united humanity (i.e. millions are not battling in a civil war over "differences" like in the 1860's).

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

#640

Post by pnt12 »

stickfigure wrote: post #97
advisedwang wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Who cares what technology they use? They could also check ids at the door and cross-reference their naughty list. Everything seems to involve an id check these days. Maybe there's some contractual issue here - they sold you a ticket, that establishes a contract, they're breaking the contract by denying you entry. They should have performed the naughty check earlier in the process? I think it's all pretty stupid but o…

The technology isn't really important, but its what makes this possible. Without it, no one would do the alternative of employing dozens of people to look at faces and search them in record books of people they want to ban.

I'm also critical of the legal argument - too often in HN someone will about stuff that isn't illegal. My question is: so what? This is a forum for discussions, not a tribunal. We are not judging, we can argue that something is shitty, or that laws should be changed.

Post reply on HN