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

641–650 of 683 posts

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

#641

Post by eternalban »

bmitc wrote: post #616
eternalban wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

For whatever reason, I’m just not seeing it. Everyone keeps bringing up Google. Why? They are in a completely different industry and largely irrelevant from what I can see. And like I said, those companies will absolutely shut stuff down during IP litigations. When I was at a company being sued and vice versa for IP infringement, the entire company was told not to use the other company’s software products, and if you…

> For whatever reason, I’m just not seeing it.

This is not a black and white issue, and there are valid points that can be made pro or con of either side. Even the likely possibility (I agree with you on that) that this was all planned does not change this. This fuzziness of the line that would obviously delineate right vs wrong is the issue.

That is why I added that "proxy" bit in there. One could argue for the position of law firms or the position of corporations, and I am urging you to now consider it from the pov of lonesome you, the possibly innocent bystander, caught between these two powerful social forces. You may still reach the same conclusion but it is a distinct analysis and you should do it if you haven't already.

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

#642

Post by xoa »

sneak wrote: post #627
xoa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private parties can't demand ID. What? Can you cite any laws legally barring people for requiring ID for a business transaction or to access private property? I've honestly never heard of such a thing. Obviously if a private person says "I want to see your ID for access or before completing this transaction" you may legally refuse, and they cannot arrest you or anything. But they can then in turn refuse to complete…

You've no right to access private property even with ID, as TFA illustrates. ID or no ID, the private property owner can eject you if they wish (unless their ejection is based solely on your membership in a protected class). I'm not sure where your question comes from. Of course any private property owner can reject you for any reason, including failure to ID. But that's nothing to do with ID.

>I'm not sure where your question comes from.

It comes from your assertion that "Private parties can't demand ID." That was your claim. I'm saying that as far as I know private parties absolutely CAN demand ID. Including for "routine transactions". And if you don't cooperate then you don't get to do the transaction.

You seem to have just completely reversed yourself with this post so now in turn I'm not clear on what your first one was for. If you were somehow conflating "demand" with criminal penalties or force then that's a weird reading, and also this entire discussion is purely about a business transaction. They didn't arrest her, they "jsut" didn't honor her ticket and booted her, which is what people are (reasonably IMO) concerned/upset about. But refusing to show ID wouldn't have helped with that quite the contrary, even places with zero such tech may require identity verification for a transaction and ID is the only widely existing low friction way to do that.

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

#643

Post by trompetenaccoun »

em-bee wrote: post #382
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems with all these identity laws. 1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality. 2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific definition because in physical reality race doesn't exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but even if we assume…

i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary

So, saying "you can't be part of our group because you're not black" would be illegal in the US and the person could sue for damages?

Wanna see some examples proving the opposite? That is not how it works at all, what you describe is an example of equal legal rights, I already mentioned these laws are anti-equality. Anti constitutional even, not that many in the US seem to care.

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

#644

Post by beepbooptheory »

belfalas wrote: post #476
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.

Same, America and the West are significantly different from places like China or Russia. It's not even close.

Why do you think that is?

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

#645

Post by test6554 »

LarryMullins wrote: post #413
kstrauser wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m wholeheartedly against facial recognition in legal systems. The fact is that they don’t work well, and they specifically have a bad tendency to identify the wrong black person much more often than they misidentify white people. From [3] below: > Asian and African American people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white men, depending on the particular algorithm and type of search. Native Am…

I think it's possible that multispectral imaging may solve the difficulties these systems have with dark skin. However even if this were resolved, I would still oppose these systems because I don't want to live in a panopticon prison society, even if all the technology works correctly and never makes a false accusation. I think such a society is aesthetically disgusting. Furthermore, an accurate system is not the sam…

I agree that It's good when used to fight property crimes and bad when used to stifle political dissent. But does anyone really believe we can avoid it at this point?

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

#646

Post by test6554 »

berniedurfee wrote: post #519
test6554 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you have someone on camera committing a crime in this age of deep fakes is no guarantee that they are guilty... But it definitely provides police with a suspect to investigate further. The most devastating tool for fighting crime is not increasing the penalties or making jail more miserable. No, the most effective way to stop crime is by drastically increasing the chances of getting caught and correctly…

I agree wholeheartedly. I’m waiting for the day a legal defense team presents video counter evidence of the judge, jury members and Elvis all committing the crime the defendant is being accused of. A video completely indistinguishable from the video presented by the prosecution. Not sure where we go from there.

In that case, we look at the bailiff, point at the judge, and say "Take em away, boys".

No we look at the primary suspect's digital footprints and analyze metadata, look for other nearby video feeds, etc. We try to see if additional evidence is corroborating.

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

#647

Post by rtkwe »

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.

At least with this there's the actual lawsuit from the lady's firm and to MSG's slight credit there's no way for them to know who is and isn't working on their case (it'd be even worse if they did somehow know who exactly in a large firm was working exactly on their case to be honest).

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

#648

Post by francisofascii »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #331
francisofascii wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless your neighborhood bar is the only bar.

I don't think I agree. You don't have right to be served alcohol within convenient walking distance.

My point was more about a local monopoly. If you operate a monopoly, you should relinquish your right to deny whoever you want without cause. I do see your point about not having the right to be served served alcohol within convenient distance.

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

#649

Post by Jiro »

defrost wrote: post #522
Jiro wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> 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. The venue knows not, but that venue is a tiny cog in an empire owned by the parent group. The parent group compiled the ban list by trawling the large law firms webs…

>Very large companies have very large numbers of employees and many different activities on the go.

Someone else posted that the law firm has 29 members, not "very large numbers of employees".

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

#650

Post by balex »

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…

In other news, guns don't kill people, people do.

But guns sure help.

Post reply on HN