671–680 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to German law, no. According to US law, yes. Now whether it's GOOD is a different question.
When you say 'law', you're talking about the 500-year old law that codifies what you can put in beer? (reinheitsgebot) or did you have something else in mind? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Human brains are fairly bad at detecting non sequiturs. I think it's more that we automatically try to fix them. If you asked somebody to recall and reproduce those sentences after reading them, they would unconsciously add information to what they recalled until it turned into a reasonable defense.
I suspect another part is just that people only have so much time to read and consider such stories and all they really need to do is make it seem like the situation is more complicated than it seems (which sometimes is actually the case). I tried a quick search for any studies on what people actually think about these company statements but couldn't find anything; another possibility is that people do easily recogni…
You can try to train your fast system to see a "because" and flag it and/or discard it entirely, though. You do enough of this and you start looking "cynical", but in the hostile epistemological environment we live in now, if you're not "cynical" you're being taken advantage of. Even as a cynic I advise against it as a philosophical position; there are good things in the world, there are reasons for hope and charity and love. Cynicism can be a corrosive philosophical position. But it's simply a necessary intellectual posture nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jumping to accusing me of wanting to revert technological progress by violence because I am worried about alienation caused by automatic rule enforcement is a bit much don't you think?
The computer didn't kick someone out, the security people did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably could go criminal with fraud. They sold a ticket that they did not intend to honor, and the person is not able to get their money back.
Now two law firms and the entire New York public sector cant get in!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.
> except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment. The first amendment protected the Boy Scouts' right to express their disapproval of gays by not employing them. Is race different from a first amendment perspective?
It's been argued in the 7th circuit that "sex" and "sexual orientation" apply to employment, but not elsewhere; Title IX was decided in favor of making orientation a protected class in education in 2020. 22 states protect sexual orientation by law (with 19 of them also including gender), and there's an executive order protecting both for federal jobs and contractors. But if you're in Texas, Florida, Alabama, or 25 other states? It's absolutely legal to be fired for being gay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment. The first amendment protected the Boy Scouts' right to express their disapproval of gays by not employing them. Is race different from a first amendment perspective?
Sexual orientation is not one of the five protected classes in legislation (sex, race, age, religion, country of origin). As such, it is not de jure protected through the entire US. It's been argued in the 7th circuit that "sex" and "sexual orientation" apply to employment, but not elsewhere; Title IX was decided in favor of making orientation a protected class in education in 2020. 22 states protect sexual orientati…
Recent Supreme Court precedent says that discrimination by sexual orientation is a type of discrimination by sex. If that's what you're referring to here:
> Title IX was decided in favor of making orientation a protected class in education in 2020.
The result wasn't that orientation is a protected class. It was that discrimination by orientation is an example of discrimination by sex, and sex is a protected class. So if it's not legal to fire someone for being female in Alabama, it also isn't legal to fire them for being gay, since that's the same thing.
But none of that would apply to the first amendment, since it's statutory and the first amendment is constitutional. Is there a distinction between race and sexuality relevant to the first amendment?
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.…
Would be interesting to see the future where (almost) every business would refuse to deal with anyone with criminal record. Would we see lower crime rates if getting caught meant you basically couldn't function in society anymore? Or would that just spiral people who get a speeding ticket into mugging people for their groceries?
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…
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.
I couldn't find a single reference to where the data set came from that trained the model they are using to do facial recognition.
Someone did theorize that it could be taken from a hypothetical law firm website but IIRC a single photo of someone is not good enough to reliably train a model that is not overfit.