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

651–660 of 683 posts

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

#651

Post by KronisLV »

kstrauser wrote: post #262
commandlinefan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

> A lifetime ban isn't really for life. It's until both parties grow up and the situation cools down.

This is especially worrying when no humans are involved. If your Google account gets banned by some automated bot for whatever reason, you might find any attempts to create new accounts be considered "ban evasion".

Regardless of the fact that you have very few options for things like ad networks or publishing Android applications, even before you consider losing access to your e-mails or any servers you might have.

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

#652

Post by s1artibartfast »

francisofascii wrote: post #648
s1artibartfast wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It sounds like we might agree, but I would further clarify that it depends on the type of Monopoly and viability of alternatives.

The water company shouldn't be able to turn off your water because they don't like your associations or unrelated Behavior. However, if a licensed plumber doesn't want to serve your house because of the flag you're flying in front of it, that is fair game. They might be the only plumber in your area, but the state isn't preventing someone else from starting a business

For example, if the state is protecting the Monopoly from competition, I don't think they should be able to discriminate.

Same with grocery stores. While food is a necessity to live, the state isn't preventing someone else from selling groceries.

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

#653

Post by beepbooptheory »

lambic2 wrote: post #639
beepbooptheory wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bat…

Probably agree on some points here (not sure how the U.S. specifically is leading the way, but whatever), but insofar as I do, it kind of takes the force out of your original point. Differences can be justified by saying "oh they are Chinese, they are just like this," but then you also want to say, "well we can transcend it too". Why can't the Chinese or the Russians? It's wholly unfalsifiable, it gives nothing but justification to nationalistic thinking where its convenient, while still allowing you to drop that as well when that's also convenient. It doesn't say anything at all other than "they are bad because of history/geography, but we can be good despite our history/geography." It is, to be frank, childish nonlogic at best, and potential fuel for fascist tendencies at worst.

And just to recapitualate, this is all just for you to say that the U.S.A and China are distinct enough that the former would never use surveillance on citizens (or whatever) like they do in China. And ultimately proves my point that you can't make that claim without nationalistic thinking!

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

#654

Post by LarryMullins »

test6554 wrote: post #645
LarryMullins wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Butlarian Jihad is inevitable.

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

#655

Post by bmitc »

azernik wrote: post #632
bmitc wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is an easier policy to enact? A subset of people that they can’t exactly determine for a subset of their venues, or a blanket policy covering all employees of the small firm at all their venues?

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

#656

Post by bmitc »

kergonath wrote: post #531
bmitc wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the policy bad? They are preventing employees from a law firm in active litigation with them from attending their venues while the litigation takes place. It's not some draconian thing.

Because employees are not their employers, and have a life outside of work in which they still do stuff? Seriously. Yes, it is draconian. Besides, if the law firm really wanted someone in there for hand-wavy reasons, why would they not just hire someone for it? Blacklisting is petty, counter-productive, trivial to abuse, and solves nothing.

So what? There are a lot of laws and policies based upon where you work that restrict you in your personal life. The lawyers can get over it. This is a non-issue, and I suspect the law firm did all this on purpose to drum up another lawsuit against MSG.

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

#657

Post by MisterBastahrd »

FateOfNations wrote: post #456
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he isn't, though? If I do not want X at my establishment, then what does it matter whether X is picked out of a single file line by a bouncer or picked out of a crowd by a security camera? I don't want them there. In what manner they showed up is irrelevant to me. And you're comparing apples and oranges. This is a specific person who is a lawyer for a firm which is actively working against MSG, not some nebulous…

> This is a specific person who is a lawyer for a firm which is actively working against MSG Has there been allegations that the firm or its partners/employees have acted maliciously with respect to MSG, or are they just representing a client within the standard scope of practice for the legal profession?

It doesn't matter. They're legally forbidden to ban classes of people from service. They're perfectly within their rights to ban specific groups because of actions they've taken against them.

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

#658

Post by stolsvik »

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…

So, one fuckup, and you can’t fly anywhere, with any airline, for the rest of your life?

I really dislike this way of thought. It could be me that one day went my world went to shits. And then I’m also burned forever.

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

#659

Post by lambic2 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #653
lambic2 wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bat…

Probably agree on some points here (not sure how the U.S. specifically is leading the way, but whatever), but insofar as I do, it kind of takes the force out of your original point. Differences can be justified by saying "oh they are Chinese, they are just like this," but then you also want to say, "well we can transcend it too". Why can't the Chinese or the Russians? It's wholly unfalsifiable, it gives nothing but j…

1) I never said the U.S. is "leading the way". Just using it as and example. China and Russia also had their own civil wars/struggles and are now more united than thousands of years ago. 2) I don't get where you got the statement "they are bad" since I never said that. "They are bad" is a statement that always oversimplifies the situation when applied to a whole country. The problem is the very small percentage of people in position of power in China/Russia that are hoarding the power/money and there is no mechanism (i.e. popular elections) for the populace to remove them from power.

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

#660

Post by beepbooptheory »

lambic2 wrote: post #659
beepbooptheory wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably agree on some points here (not sure how the U.S. specifically is leading the way, but whatever), but insofar as I do, it kind of takes the force out of your original point. Differences can be justified by saying "oh they are Chinese, they are just like this," but then you also want to say, "well we can transcend it too". Why can't the Chinese or the Russians? It's wholly unfalsifiable, it gives nothing but j…

1) I never said the U.S. is "leading the way". Just using it as and example. China and Russia also had their own civil wars/struggles and are now more united than thousands of years ago. 2) I don't get where you got the statement "they are bad" since I never said that. "They are bad" is a statement that always oversimplifies the situation when applied to a whole country. The problem is the very small percentage of pe…

Im sorry, I can't really follow how this point is related to any of your others. Regardless, on its face, I would say this new story is maybe a good answer: that because of real democracy, the United States and others are less likely to use surveillance like Russia and China, because those in power who would benefit from such things fear they will lose the vote. But can you honestly tell me, just say over the past 20 years, that this idea checks out? There is already some facts we know that troubles it at least..

And for another thing, intelligence agencies are by design resistant to electoral turnover. And regardless, such agencies for the most part have broad bipartisan support, because in fact, both parties have ultimately the same incentives with stuff like this.

So I'll accept this new thing as a good argument, but history as it has unfolded has made me weary to put such total trust in even the finest examples of democracy and statehood. Because, again, incentive and efficiency are powerful forces to even the most principled people.

Post reply on HN