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

71–80 of 683 posts

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

#71

Post by monksy »

So I have been rejected and "banned" from a MSG venue. It's not fun, and it has nothing to do with your behavior.

It was at the Chicago Theather and it was the Chris Rock show back in 2017. I bought the ticket, I don't believe that it had any special restrictions [this was a long time ago], the ticket had no indications about the "phoneless"/phone encasing demand. The event page didn't say anything about this. However they were trying to force this. I refused

Why did I refuse? The Bataclan attack* happened less than 2 years before this and mobile phones did [it was reported at the time] help people communicate for help and escape. This is a big venue, and I certainly don't trust a venue who doesn't trust their ushers who can't get people to stop filming. Think they're going to know how to call the cops/handle an emergergcy? lol.

What happened? Since I was denied, I asked for a refund from the venue. The main security guard corralled me against the wall, waited for the manager, the manager argued with me and refused refund [even despite the ticket saying nothing about this, their overall policy said nothing about this [I checked to see if I could bring my small camera with me]], when the manager left to get an artist rep she felt the need to "ban me" to another security guard, they got a "artist rep" trying to argue against me using "well this is the artist's preference". (Why they brought out the stupid artist rep is beyond me)

Ultimately I lost that 80$ and will shit talk Chris Rock, any venue, and any artist who uses the yondr device.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

mrexroad wrote: post #63
Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the ultimate goal of all facial recognition: to identify subversives and remove them from society.

And don’t forget that facial recognition is only one tool for identifying individuals— gait recognition, clothing patterns, etc. are utilized as well.

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by hnuser847 »

advisedwang wrote: post #57
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…

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.…

> 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.

So you're okay with the principle of denying individuals entry to a private business, but you're NOT okay with businesses enforcing this with technology? How does that make any sense?

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

#75

Post by fullshark »

RC_ITR wrote: post #29
renewiltord wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working against one's own interest because one believes in a higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call "being principled".

Sure but this whole “being principled” thing is so weird when people focus exclusively on the laws. Sure they can do this without anyone getting sued, but they can still face consequences for doing it (like people not going to see the Rockettes). People like the OP seem to forget that legality is not the ultimate moral code.

Being compelled by the state to do something you don't want to do (e.g. provide a service to someone) is what they are objecting to in principle I think, and they see THAT as a potential slippery slope more so than the opposite issue (being unable to pay for services due to societal freeze out).

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

#76

Post by RC_ITR »

monksy wrote: post #46
RC_ITR wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting that they have the right to not sell tickets to whomever they choose, but once that ticket is sold, they are on very shaky ground to ban someone unless they misrepresented who they were when buying the ticket. Tickets are contracts! How can they prove this isn’t some bogus way to account for oversold seats? What if an airline did the same on oversold flights?

Nope they always have a clause stating that they can remove you from the venue for what ever reason they want. Ticket master also has anti-chargeback clauses as well.

Oh, remove and deny entry mean the same thing now?

Listen, if you’re going to be a pedantic law critic, at least be iron clad.

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

#77

Post by guerrilla »

renewiltord wrote: post #23
guerrilla wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you working against your own interest?

Working against one's own interest because one believes in a higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call "being principled".

Let me rephrase then: Why is GP working against the interests of everyone who isn't a rich asshole abusing their power? I hope that's clearer.

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

#78

Post by RC_ITR »

fullshark wrote: post #75
RC_ITR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but this whole “being principled” thing is so weird when people focus exclusively on the laws. Sure they can do this without anyone getting sued, but they can still face consequences for doing it (like people not going to see the Rockettes). People like the OP seem to forget that legality is not the ultimate moral code.

Being compelled by the state to do something you don't want to do (e.g. provide a service to someone) is what they are objecting to in principle I think, and they see THAT as a potential slippery slope more so than the opposite issue (being unable to pay for services due to societal freeze out).

Again, I’m not arguing laws in this branch of the thread.

I’m just saying people who lean on “the law is this, they are in the right” ignore a major part of society and commerce to their own detriment.

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

#79

Post by RC_ITR »

defen wrote: post #37
RC_ITR wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting that they have the right to not sell tickets to whomever they choose, but once that ticket is sold, they are on very shaky ground to ban someone unless they misrepresented who they were when buying the ticket. Tickets are contracts! How can they prove this isn’t some bogus way to account for oversold seats? What if an airline did the same on oversold flights?

> they are on very shaky ground to ban someone unless they misrepresented who they were when buying the ticket. Then I suppose it will come down to whether the ticket terms included a clause that the purchaser/attendee was not employed by a firm involved in a lawsuit against MSGE.

Show me on the Ticketmaster website where the TOS is shown before purchase.

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

#80

Post by BizarroLand »

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.

I am not sure why you would say that she has no case. On the one hand, it's a common understanding that businesses can bar anyone from their premises for any reason, and that would be the normal interpretation of this issue, but in this circumstance, the lawyer does have a legitimate response in that they have agreed to waive that authority in exchange for the permission to serve alcohol on premises.

On the other hand, they sold her a ticket to a show and then unilaterally voided that ticket without warning based on something that had only the smallest connection to her, which could be considered retaliation against the law firm that is handling the case.

There isn't any doubt about the facts of the case, the only question is how will a judge and jury allocate fault and responsibility.

That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now.

Post reply on HN