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 exec noticed that the computer could scan through all the personnel files and fire people who were close to retirement to save on paying out their pensions. It would have been prohibitively expensive to pay a person to do that, but with the computer, it was a quick SQL query (or whatever query language IBM used back then). The problem wasn't that the personnel files were computerized, it was that they were being used in a very evil way.
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 kid to buy a quick meal.
Without facial recognition: Joe's grown up and matured. The manager was either replaced years ago, or doesn't remember the incident, or vaguely remembers but doesn't care about it anymore. Joe and his family pay, eat, and leave.
With facial recognition: the system notices that someone on its "do not allow" list has entered the store and summons police to deal with the trespasser.
When human judgment is involved, we rarely deal with absolutes. A lifetime ban isn't really for life. It's until both parties grow up and the situation cools down. A ban on a competitor's employees isn't absolute. Maybe you won't serve the owner, but if his dishwasher comes to your place on a date, you're not gonna hassle the kid. We're really, really bad at designing automated systems that handle nuance. It's way easier to write code like `if photo_hash in banned_people: ...`.
assuming it was scalable, would it be OK then?
However, today, with facial recognition, it's possible for Madison Square Garden to have blacklists consisting of thousands, or even tens of thousands of people and check against them just as quickly and as easily as if they were a list of a dozen people. That's a qualitative change, and I think it's valid to treat it as a separate kind of thing than a bunch of security guards, each with a stack of photographs.
Yes I think so. Some technologies are inherently no good, lacking any obvious positive use cases, but enabling obvious abuse. It is a mistake to shift the blame to "policy" or malevolent actors and claim the technology is merely a neutral enabler. No. The technology itself contains a gamut of evils.
There’s a level of enforcement where a reasonable policy or law becomes unreasonable.
Cameras on every street corner enforcing every infraction, no matter how minor, is an extreme. There’s a threshold before that extreme where the policy combined with the enforcement becomes unreasonable.
I think the combination of policy and enforcement outlined in the article is well over the line.
The problem is not that it provides new opportunities, the problem is determining which of these opportunities are acceptable to pursue, and under which circumstance.
I don't like the "this is bad because it allows current laws/practices to be efficiently enforced" attitude that a lot of people seem to hold.
Oh no, in my opinion, by all means, make it 100% efficient, cheap and easy to enforce _EVERY_ policy under the sun.
We need to get on with cleaning up and amending policies until it's not a complete shit show.
Any policy should be written as if it will be effectively and quickly applied to 100% of the cases, and if that makes it look shitty, then it is and must be fixed.
But guns sure help.
The most devastating tool for fighting crime is not increasing the penalties or making jail more miserable. No, the most effective way to stop crime is by drastically increasing the chances of getting caught and correctly sentenced.
> Asian and African American people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white men, depending on the particular algorithm and type of search. Native Americans had the highest false-positive rate of all ethnicities, according to the study, which found that systems varied widely in their accuracy.
One. Hundred. Times. The camera may say it recorded John Smith breaking into a house, but it’s incredibly likely that it was actually Ron Jones. Who’s the jury going to believe, though: John Smith who was at home with his girlfriend at the time, or the hugely expensive video system that the city just bought?
Facial recognition doesn’t work. It’s bullshit tech, and we should stop using it until we make it deliver on its promises AND decide how to deal with its ramifications.
[1] https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discriminatio...
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recogni...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/federal...
A video completely indistinguishable from the video presented by the prosecution. Not sure where we go from there.
<< A lot of people seem OK with it when it’s policing the bad parts of town. This is their reminder that it can be used against them, too.
What is fascinating is that AI recognition did not reach individual homes yet ( say.. won't let you add family members to 'approved' members to open doors, but maybe I should not be giving ideas ). I did hear about it being a toy for the rich though.
CCTV and facial recognition are both used around the world accross cultures and political systems and not 1 citizen voted for (or against) them. Not in totalitarian regimes nor in countries that pretend to be democratic.
If the venue manager had kicked her out because he personally recognized her, would that be better?
Corps are a lot like the "Sponsored Nation" concept from the 2300s, but without the discrete geographical boundaries. This makes it, by design, as some argue, too easy to find one's self in violation of Corporate policies. Usually someone makes a wrong turn or enters the wrong door and winds up in front of an Adjudicator.
Since the merger, however, enforcement of overlooked policies has been on the rise. Given the complexities of the merge conditions, it became very difficult to remember who was employed by whom, which inevitably led to misassociation with non-colleagues. What used to be a social faux pas, paid for with a sheepish smile, would now find you among the Unemployed.
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 business.
4. I, as a business owner (eg: a restaurant), should I not be allowed to deny entry to persons affiliated with a business I dislike (eg: the next door restaurant employee who is copying my menu) from my business?
If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye. But kicking out every person on payroll at any firm that has a lawsuit against any venue in the parent company, the scale has now transformed this into a different thing.
The next step people worry about is that this same technology could be applied to more than just busniess you dislike. Why not block people who have disparaged your business on social media? Why not block people with poor credit scores or a criminal history?
So you could draw a line between (3) and (4), but you should also be adding
5. I, as a business owner, should I not be allowed to invent new ways to deny entry to entire categories of people.
* obviously blocking people on visual characteristics like skin color is already possible. And that is widely regarded as unacceptable!
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.
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?
Obviously this woman should get her money back, and imo they should comp her for the pain/expense related to arranging her schedule/travel/lodging around this show since she wasn't denied at point of sale.
What's your opinion about Facebook or Twitter blocking people? I'm pretty sure they block people using computer technologies, and that these technologies let them do it at scale.
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 class of individual.
I actually don't see that as the key element at all - Doing something that is already legal, faster, doesn't make it illegal does it?
People aren't going to want to have a phone on them at all times anyway and risk possibly breaking or losing the phone. It will just hang on the wall like the rotary phone in a stand so you know where it is but you won't have to worry about the pesky cord anymore.
Technological progress is a linear process that is always good with zero higher order cultural effects based on how new features are used in practice.
Face recognition? What could possibly go wrong. I recognize faces literally every day!
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?
What if it was an inverse, say you could only enter a business if you are a member of X group? Now most of the planet is banned from your property except a small group of people that qualify for X, where X could be as specific as “straight white males”.
It seems to me, some people just want the idea of the law but not the enforcement of it. Probably for their own self interests, mainly: getting access to someone else’s cool private property.
Basically, as an individual regarding your private property you have total control to discriminate freely. That's individual freedom. You're allowed to choose your own guests. (Note that if you're renting a room though, that becomes a business, so this no longer applies.)
Regarding #3, as a business owner, it's necessary to create policies to be able to ban individuals based on their relevant reasons that is set as policy, which includes past demonstrated misbehavior (e.g. violence). But not because you "dislike" them. Feelings don't matter, only relevant (non-arbitrary) policies do.
Similarly for #4, again feelings don't matter. No, a business should not be able to discriminate against people who work for or own competitors. (You can ban taking photos however, since that applies to everyone.)
Basically this is all predicated on a slippery-slope argument -- as soon as you allow bans for arbitrary "dislikes" rather than "relevant reasons", you're opening it up to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That's the immoral part. People's desire for equal accomodation from a business strongly outweighs a business owner's "dislikes", especially as a business owner is often the exclusive one providing a certain good in a certain area.
And so this case, I would strongly argue that banning employees of a law firm which is suing you from purchasing entertainment tickets is immoral. It's ultimately no different from a Democrat-owned business banning Republicans. It's nothing more than a "dislike".
You’re suing my restaurant because you claim a patron of mine was over served by a bartender and subsequently killed someone while driving drunk.
I do not want your lawyers or their investigators or staff coming in and chatting with my staff or poking around my business without my lawyer being there.
Your business place, assuming a public business, is indeed that: a place open to the public by default.
In France (and, as far as I'm aware, most European countries), there is a very clear line: either your business place welcomes the general public, or it does not.
Once you fall in the first category - and, as soon as you're selling something in that business place, you are in that category - then you must have very strong arguments if you refuse to let a prospective customer in or even if you refuse to sell to a particular person the products or services that it is the purpose of your business to sell.
Those arguments usually boil down to either (i) some law preventing you to sell something to that prospective customer or (ii) that prospective customer actively disturbing the public order or presenting a high risk thereof (eg: they're a thief, they're drunk, they can't prove that they will be able to pay, ...). Of course there are provisions for specific settings, but which merely soften the (ii) to allow filtering on public safety grounds for places welcoming more than X simultaneous guests - including eg nightclubs and such.
Anything not in falling into these exceptions is just what it is: discrimination. And actually, this seems very sound to me. The fact you own a business puts you in the public world: you may not refuse to serve someone because you don't like them.
In the USA at least, you can kick out or ban anyone you want from your business for any reason, unless it is one of a very small enumerated list of disallowed reasons including race, religion and so on. If I don't want people wearing green shirts in my store I can kick/keep them out. I'd be an asshole, but I am 100% allowed to do that.
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.
That's the thing that gets me. I get the desire to retaliate against people you feel have wronged you somehow, but as an actual strategy it seems like playing games like this with lawyers invites more trouble than it's worth. If they're trying to collect evidence, they will just send in an uninvolved third party to do it, not go themselves. But by attacking them personally, now they're going to use their legal skills to give you a headache.
I think that's 100% legal, even in NYS. You can't deny entry based upon membership in a protected class, but other than that, you can't be forced to serve someone!
"Yes, we took your cash in return for promise of delivering goods and services, but our policy forbids us from delivering" sounds more like Rule of Acquisition.
If you were not letting other, strangers, in for money. (Unsure if "for money" matters) then you are not, or should not, be so allowed.
If you are in trade than (in civilised jurisdictions) you cannot refuse to trade with a person because of prejudice and/or bigotry.
This is a slippery slope.
Facial recognition matched with digital currencies is a real serious problem.
If you removed a person from your business because of something they did, then denying them subsequent business is an extreme measure and will most likely not hold unless there is language in laws that you can use, like violent activity, criminal behavior, etc.
The law is like code. If you say, "persons I dislike" but you mean people of color, you have Jim Crow, which is deeply immoral. On they other hand, your point #3 is clearly valid. To resolve this, 42 U.S.C. §2000a talks about protected classes (https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public...). People with good and bad intentions have been arguing ever since then about what is a public accommodation and who belongs to protected classes. In this case, even if it's legal, MSG is not being terribly smart to 1) use dystopian technology to enforce bans 2) be petty and expansive about banning people 3) do so against a now-very-angry legal expert.
Lawyers work for their clients, and in the vast majority of cases are not personally invested deeply in the case (except when you do dumb crap like in the article). They request evidence via the court, they do not go gather it themselves. If further on site evidence is needed by non-standard methods a PI will show up at the location, and if they are any good will never be noticed. By banning the lawyers they are either petty, or they feel they are still involved in some kind of potentially illegal activity and need to reduce risk. Not a good look.
See https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196....
However federal law does not prevent discriminating on other grounds. Such as political affiliation or profession. For example landlords can choose not to rent to lawyers, and every so often someone gets fired for political views.
State law may disagree. And her liquor license trick is an example of how.
This is similar to
5. I, as a government, can lock up people who engage in behaviors I dislike (e.g. because they were violent.)
6. I, as a government, can lock up people who are affiliated with groups I dislike (e.g. political groups not in power)
He worked for a company that Miller Brewing company contacted with and a newspaper took a photo of him at a public event drinking Budweiser.
Different situation, same kind of pettiness and retaliation.
Not sure if Budweiser / AB does the same thing back but its a really backwards way to run a company culture.
Fired for driking Bud Light. Is that even beer I ask as a German...
Now whether it's GOOD is a different question.
And to answer your question, yes, it is beer, as defined by https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-I/subchapter-A...
Why do spokespersons frequently speak in non-sequiturs? They simply underline the absence of any good argument. I hope it isn't because many people don't realize this, though I fear it might be so.
I also hope the second sentence will turn out to be as logically incoherent as the first.
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.
Notice that there is no claim here that it is a safety issue.
If MSG fears certain employees may reveal things it does not want known, it should constrain those employees from contact with the public within its venues.
The key part of the second sentence: they are confident. Tricky to argue just how confident they are.
But if I want my face catalogued next to my social credit score why not go all in and move to China?
It’s not great but the only mechanism in sight that seems equipped to deal with this is restraint semi-enforced by social consensus. God knows Congress isn’t going to do anything: piss off both law enforcement and tech? Yeah I think that’s a hard pass from them.
The Constitution wasn't designed for a multi-racial democracy, either. It took a bloody civil war to settle the slavery question though.
Thinking about it, why would we be? I can't see a good answer to that without appealing to weird/nationalistic/naive ideas about the moral character of states themselves, or simply the understanble nonlogic of "well this is my country, they wouldnt be like that here." At the end of the day, priorites are priorites, incentives are incentives. Efficiency doesn't know or care about culture, it is self-justifying.
As someone who has spent many years of my life living outside "America and the West": this is not remotely true.
This is such black-and-white thinking. Most EU countries are kilometers ahead of the US, and the US is miles ahead of Russia. Putin would love for Russia to race to the bottom and get to China's level, but Russia is way behind China in terms of technical expertise, investment, infrastructure, and actual coordination/coercion between government and industry (vs crony corruption). And then there are the new Chinese colonies in Africa who get all the surveillance and none of the benefits.
So the chance of false positives is minimal.
It depends on the purpose. For identity verification purposes, when you already have independent reason to suspect that someone is specifically Person X, then a "very low" false positive rate is likely sufficient.
For filtering, however, "very low" isn't enough. Suppose your facial recognition system has a 0.001% false positive rate (one per 100k), but you have a list of 1000 banned faces and your venue sees 10,000 visitors per night. You're making ten million comparisons, and that "very low" false positive rate will still result in 100 false matches.
That could still be okay, if a match just involves (here) pulling the patron aside for an ID verification. Asking 100 people for ID is much more benign than turning 100 people away at the turnstile. MSG here did appear to follow the match with a secondary verification (per the article), but I shudder to think of all the venues that will hear "very low false positive rate" and not really think through the consequences.
And the government never makes mistakes.
They're taking an image, segmenting out the face and they're improving an existing model for that individual. Super scary stuff that's going on. (Other than the fact that they have an existing image)
If she was in IL .. she should persue them with the BIPA act.
High level, perhaps private venues shouldn’t be able to ban someone from a venue simply because of who employs them? Perhaps craft the legislation around annual patrons served.
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.
I'm surprised that the policy of banning litigating lawyers ever passed their legal department to begin with. It's just inviting a guaranteed headache without providing any additional legal advantage.
The law firm's previous personal injury lawsuits against MSG were because they served alcohol to someone who later drove drunk. Multiple lawsuits were successful, in one case getting $20 million.
In general they appear to represent drunk driving victims and associate with MADD.
> "I don’t practice in New York. I’m not an attorney that works on any cases against MSG," said Conlon.
> But MSG said she was banned nonetheless — along with fellow attorneys in that firm and others.
But I can see how this has a chilling effect if you can lose access to goods and services because you're taking legal action against the company. Reminds me of the story I heard, though I forget the details (or even if it was true), about someone retaining numerous law firms which made it nearly impossible to find a lawyer who could sue them without it being a conflict-of-interest.
Maybe said company can have such a policy, but they probably shouldn't.
SPOILER
When Tony and Carmine are getting divorced, Tony consults with every lawyer in town, creating a conflict of interest and not allowing Carmine to use them.
Funny, that's the opposite of what I thought. Corporate revenge via technology sounds very American to me.
That must be really tickling the layers when it's time to ask for damages in civil cases: "well, we're asking to hold the entire group in solidarity for damages, since they conduct business in solidarity, whatever subsidiary we are actually naming in the suite".
But yeah, this is James Dolan, he's banned people for refusing to take jobs before.
I am very glad to live in a country where you have to just delete everything after a while, which includes data extracted from said material. I don't feel less safe because of that, although I would even prefer to not have these solutions at all.
https://www.dsslaw.com/our-firm/attorneys/kelly-analiese-con...
It wouldn't take much to feed the 7 pictures into a system.
For example, getting banned from all McDonald’s restaurants is qualitatively different from getting banned from one McDonald’s restaurant.
So how does one go about qualifying / quantifying (1) the potential risk or harm caused by an individual violating terms for service and (2) the harm caused to the individual resulting from corrective actions; and then balance the two against each other?
Booting one chaperone from a trip could put the entire party out of compliance with the organization's policy and require exclusion of some fraction of the group or possibly cancellation of the trip.
Typical Girl Scout policy here:
https://www.gsnorcal.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsnorcal/doc...
(Note the requirement that at least one chaperone be female and at least two of the chaperones be unrelated, and note that if you have to split the girls you probably need to send a minimum of two chaperones with each half..)
For discussion, let's take MSG's statement in good faith, and assume the attorney was notified twice.
Are there legitimate reasons to do this other than a "pretext for doing collective punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSG" as suggested?
I don't think barring someone from your property is a good punishment against someone who is trying to sue you, since that kinda implies they "dislike" you already and wouldn't want to engage with you
Example of a different firm where you can even filter by school: https://www.wlrk.com/attorneys/?asf_l=View%20All
I'd bet she self-identified as being an employee and posted to social media about it.
IMHO, it’s a bullshit story because the issue is whether a lawyer working for a company suing MSG should be booted from other MSG venues.
Companies/venues had blacklists (deny lists) before face recognition became ubiquitous.
> Conlon is an associate with the New Jersey based law firm, Davis, Saperstein and Solomon, which for years has been involved in personal injury litigation against a restaurant venue now under the umbrella of MSG Entertainment.
"I don’t practice in New York. I’m not an attorney that works on any cases against MSG," said Conlon.
But MSG said she was banned nonetheless — along with fellow attorneys in that firm and others.
No, no it is not. It is very much American. The one thing more American than that situation is Americans saying something bad is un-American. You are what you do, not what you say. US Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and stop being blinded by the con of American exceptionalism. You’re not better than others, you’re not revered, other countries don’t look up to you. You are not a bastion of freedom or justice. You are a country drunk on its own kool-aid, being played by the worse people you have to offer. You need the courage to admit you’re not who you thought. Only then can you enact change to who you want to be.
Quoting George Carlin: “they call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it”.
What an absolute cluster. I don't envy the courts. It's going to be interesting if everyone starts weaponizing every aspect of political affiliation, employment, residence location and social status.
No. Very easy to disprove: there are many examples of protected status that is not easy to tell just by looking at someone.
1. Race (esp. mixed race)
2. Religion
3. Pregnancy
4. National origin
5. Sexual orientation
6. Disability
7. Genetics
Easy targeting was not the issue, the combination of pervasiveness and the belief that it was unwarranted and/or resulted in an excess of social strife if tolerated was. (Sometimes, it is misportrayed as being about innate characteristics, but this is very obviously not the case with religion, where freedom of religion as a right waa very clearly the outcome of exhaustion with centuries of strife, largely between different factions within Western Christianity.)
There is certainly a line that needs to be drawn, since I somewhat understand the intent behind the ban. However, this will quickly get out of hand now that we can effectively disciminate on so many new factors scale.
A business owner should be able to decline to host someone adversarial to that business.
> "MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, which was notified twice," a spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement.
Seems pretty cut and dry if true. The law firm is litigating against the company, and the company notified the law firm of their policy to not allow employees to attend their venues.
If anything, lawyers deserve this treatment.
1. A laser-targeted law banning facial recognition technology used for the sole purpose of denying service.
2. Not letting corporations get as large as MSG in the first place.
I'm a fan of (2). If there's one thing I would hope people across the political spectrum could agree on it's that the Federal government has seriously fallen down on its anti-trust authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Square_Garden_Entertai...
> A sign says facial recognition is used as a security measure to ensure safety for guests and employees.
Use of facial recognition is disclosed with a reason for its purpose. They used the same technology for a different purpose without full disclosure. This is grounds for a violation, although civil. IANAL.
However, she is going about this through another route. Liquor license does not allow them to eject people from service. MSG has a civil policy they will not allow anyone (including lawyers) associated in litigation to enter their venues. Obviously both policies contradict at this point.
My opinion is no one should have any policy that allows lawyers of parties to a lawsuit to be hurt in any way.
Personally I don't think facial recognition should be allowed for public identification.
On the other hand, I think it's perfectly fine to bar opposing attorneys actively working against you from entering your business. This is not a member of the "general public" and wasn't denied entry based on identity characteristics. She was banned because she (her firm) is SUING THEM. That seems like a pretty good reason right there...
You are not the company you work for. And she's not even involved in that case.
Critical of Ticketmaster online and they start to take notice? I guess you wont' be allowed into most venues or concerts for life on this continent. We also won't tell you why you were banned or offer a way out (because that's how Google and Facebook operate and it suits us). It's allowing people to be kicked out of "real world" walled gardens.
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.
Not only is it a numbers game (too many people to police), it is also very annoying for other patrons when people are constantly told to stop.
So banning the phones is a great solution that solves a number of problems.
> Think they're going to know how to call the cops/handle an emergergcy? lol.
Of course they do.
I really don’t think you rationale for refusing to hand over your phone holds up.
Why didn't you chargeback for services not received?
On the other hand it does kind of make sense that they would refuse service to people actively suing their company. I would do that too. I mean it's kind of common sense
Some people are suing MSG.
Those people hired lawyers.
Those lawyers work at a firm.
MSG is banning not just the plaintiffs (the people "actively suing"), and not just their lawyers, but every lawyer at the firm.
Similar to the video rental privacy act.
One would presume that there would be measures in place during checkout that would inhibit transactions that go against their policies to not go through.
Another angle is their insurer
Another angle is their payment processor
You can likely get them back into community expectations
I mean, I'm thankful to live in a place where we are too boring to even think of these kinds of shenanigans. We have our own but they are not as bad.
Like where do they get this data from in the first place? From a data broker? Is it possible to request to have facial data removed from the data broker?
Did she consent to them using facial recognition technology on her at the venue? (If this isn't already a law, that is to say requiring consent... it should be)
Please, no one make this.
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.
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/anti-facial-recognition-...
https://www.survivopedia.com/6-ways-to-defeat-facial-recogni...
What a crazy world we live in...
For multi-national corporations, global clique analysis of investors, supply chains, competitors and regulators may be required.
The more we privatize, the more we allow to converge in the private hands of the wealthy few, the less recourse the "public" has.
I feel like it's to reduce "on the ground" discoveries in civil cases, but I don't understand why, as far as I know those are neither forbidden nor unethical, there is a later opportunity to debate whether those discoveries gets introduced as evidence in the case.
There is zero motive here other than retaliation.
Ah, the Devil is always in the Details.
It would also be very interesting if the law firms that were litigating MSG started putting 'different' faces on their employee websites... a little bit of misinformation could cause lots of issues.
If there is a need for them to be there, law enforcement will be accompanying them.
You're mixing her up with her co-workers. She wasn't involved in any lawsuit against MSG.
b) the lawyers they're banning aren't employed by the plaintiffs, but happen to be working at the same firm the plaintiffs went to
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 updated standards for how technology like facial recognition can be aligned with previous norms and laws that came into existence when mass surveillance and communication tech didnt exist
This seems like a very American thing to do all of this. The lawsuit, the facial recognition, the counter lawsuit. So very American.
https://www.wired.com/story/soccer-world-cup-biometric-surve...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15435620/champions-league...
But this is a controversy because Girl Scout Mom got spotted by facial recognition I guess. Not the fact that she was trespassing.
Last month MSG revoked the corporate suite leased by a law firm that was _actively suing them_. And they made the same big stink about how unfair it was that they can't go to Knicks games anymore.
Weird that they still sold her a ticket, though.
It’s neither punitive nor petty. It’s simply practical from a legal perspective.
This isn’t someone who is actively suing them.
While it's reasonable to disagree with this policy, it's not really related to social dystopia, so I think it's dramatic to lament this in the vein of "today it's this, tomorrow it will be getting banned due to Tweeting about your politics", or whatever. I mean, yes, that may happen, but the only thing concerning about this case is the tech itself, and not necessarily the rationale under which it was deployed.
Tolerance for use of the technology without restrictions is, arguably, a way in which this relates to social dystopia.
Technology doesn’t do anything on its own; people using it (and other people allowing other people to use it) in certain ways is always social.
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.
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.
There are a ton of laws preventing this behavior by venues. Basically if you sell tickets to the public, you HAVE to let the ticket holders in, barring bad behavior at the gate or contraband. The idea that something is private means you can do whatever you want is very naive.
> if she doesn't like this policy she can start her own Christmas Spectacular show.
She can also just sue and demand hearings about licenses that further prevent this kind of behavior (i.e. public venue, hospitality, zoning, liquor, food and beverage, etc...). From a social/business standpoint, punishing lawyers for working for an opposing firm is very small minded.
Also facial recognition telling gate agents who a member of the public works for is scummy.
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?