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

91–100 of 683 posts

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

#91

Post by slingnow »

hnuser847 wrote: post #74
advisedwang wrote: post #57

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.…

> 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…

Rephrased:

So you're OK with countries using guns to conduct warfare, but you're NOT okay with countries using nuclear weapons? How does that make any sense?

Hopefully you can see the difference.

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

#92

Post by advisedwang »

hnuser847 wrote: post #74
advisedwang wrote: post #57

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.…

> 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…

I'm saying there's a difference between blocking 10 people and 10,000, or 1 million. And I'm saying that technological change allows the latter, and we need to be cognizant of that when we decide what we're going to accept in society.

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

#93

Post by patja »

mcphage wrote: post #49
hnuser847 wrote: post #17

TL;DR A personal injury lawyer ("in a wreck, need a check?") was banned from an attending a show. She attended anyway and was asked to leave. Computers were involved.

> was banned from an attending a show. Weird that they still sold her a ticket, though.

It is possible that the tickets were bought by someone else for the group without individually assigned names.

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

#94

Post by xoa »

sneak wrote: post #59

Covid is still around. Always wear your mask in public. Don't show ID unless it's a cop demanding it (when it's legally required). Private parties can't demand ID. Don't give ID for routine transactions. Practice saying no to routine demands for your papers. It doesn't improve unless a lot of us start ending the transactions.

>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 the transaction.

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

#95

Post by thesuitonym »

version_five wrote: post #6
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #3

A lawyer and a Rockettes show today, could be an angry tweeter and their tesla tomorrow or your Facebook post and a healthcare provider.

Yes this was exactly my thought. Every day we hear about someone kicked off google without recourse, often because of an automated decision incorrectly made. How long until people are banned from public venues for the same reason? For a long time now, governments have failed to modernize laws and regulations, and companies have stepped in with their own vigilante systems. We don't need more regulation, but we need up…

> We don't need more regulation, but we need updated standards

Otherwise known as regulations. If it's just a standard that's not enforceable, companies will not comply.

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

#96

Post by justanorherhack »

moloch-hai wrote: post #88
monksy wrote: post #71

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. Howeve…

This sort of thing, everywhere, is exactly what to expect from "deregulation".

Yes and if enough people actually thought about it and cared then they wouldnt participate and the market would change. But instead just like with regulation they don't care. It's just one is forced and one is a choice.

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

#97

Post by stickfigure »

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.…

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 occupation isn't a protected class.

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

#98

Post by fullshark »

RC_ITR wrote: post #78
fullshark wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that's what he's saying so much as the law reflects the principle I outline and they likely admire: state should in general not compel individuals (or businesses) to do things they don't want to do.

The idea that the law is just a bunch of words and your job is to advocate for them to change if it improves your life in any way is not a great guiding principle.

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

#99

Post by raldi »

monksy wrote: post #71

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. Howeve…

What was the phone requirement that you refused? Did they want to confiscate your phone, lock it in a bag you physically couldn’t open, seal it in an envelope you got to keep but could open in an emergency, just demand you keep it in your pocket…?

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

#100

Post by reaperducer »

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…

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 business.

Actually, no. At least in New York State. While you can ban someone for the "violent" offense you picked, you cannot "deny entry to persons [you] dislike."

The victim in this case, being a lawyer, is taking the clever and lawyerly route with this:

Davis is now upping the legal ante, challenging MSG’s license with the State Liquor Authority.

"The liquor license that MSG got requires them to admit members of the public, unless there are people who would be disruptive who constitute a security threat," said Davis.

Post reply on HN