71–80 of 102 posts
If they pulled Miller out of the line and only then checked his photo ID, and the allegation is they used facial recognition to trigger this, then that implies they already had his biometrics in their database. The legal disclaimer shown at the venue implies that the biometrics are collected (and “retained, stored, and converted”) at the venue. That’s clearly only half of the story. They must also be collecting (and…
The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out.
I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?
Way too much circle jerking in this thread over what the first amendment means as if people a few hundred years ago had a better grasp on what is right and wrong in today’s context than anyone living and breathing and thinking today. In my opinion the deference given to what long dead people wrote is a cause of many of this country’s problems. It’s supposed to be a living constitution and we’re still trying to divine…
I don’t give a shit about first amendment interpretations and I agree completely that laws need an update. How about this: ban biometric detection. Ban facial recognition. Throw the CEO in jail if a company breaks the ban. That would be a good use of government power. Fuck the surveillance state, it’s not a place I want to live - and we don’t have to accept it.
1: https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/portland-passes-the-tough...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They scrap adversarial law firms websites for photos of employees to ban them so yeah.
Is that legal? This would be a clear GDPR violation in Europe. You could probably argue a legitimate interest if you're collecting face recognition data on proven hooligans, but scraping pictures of people that have not been to your venue off a website clearly isn't a legitimate interest for such privacy invasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a 1st amendment issue. This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a single comment made publicly can blacklist you from participating in any cultural event for the rest of your life. Think of how many radio stations, venues, internet channels etc have been bought up by megacorp. We have all the bad parts of a Gibson cyberpunk…
While that may be technically correct I don't think it's actually correct. Just because it doesn't violate the 1st amendment doesn't mean it doesn't violate free speech. Democracy isn't just a form of government, it is also a type of society. Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions.
I don't understand why there's so much focus on facial recognition on this article? The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out. I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?
I don't understand why there's so much focus on facial recognition on this article? The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out. I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?
I don't understand why there's so much focus on facial recognition on this article? The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out. I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?
IIRC, he didn’t even buy the ticket? At no point was his name used in the transaction, so how exactly did they know this person was at MSG in the first place? The conjecture is facial recognition.
Most venues require a name on the ticket, and many will validate that the person holding the ticket is the person who is named on the ticket.
This is a very common anti-scalping measure.
I don't understand why there's so much focus on facial recognition on this article? The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out. I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?
There must be many thousands of people named Frank Miller, Jr. So something in addition to the name had to be used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that legal? This would be a clear GDPR violation in Europe. You could probably argue a legitimate interest if you're collecting face recognition data on proven hooligans, but scraping pictures of people that have not been to your venue off a website clearly isn't a legitimate interest for such privacy invasion.
Laws are no longer enforced in the US.