[HN Gopher] Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rocke...
___________________________________________________________________
Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due
to employer
Author : 04rob
Score : 489 points
Date : 2022-12-20 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nbcnewyork.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnewyork.com)
| gregors wrote:
| The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were
| banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people
| used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for
| discrimination. Other variables (such as who you work for) well
| that's not easily found out...until now. AI is now allowing for
| new innovating hate and discrimination to drive decisions.
|
| 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.
| archontes wrote:
| I think this should be protected.
|
| A business owner should be able to decline to host someone
| adversarial to that business.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The reason why we have "protected status" is that people were
| banning people based on their racist/hate views. Those people
| used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated for
| discrimination.
|
| 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.)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| rexpop wrote:
| acdha wrote:
| It's an activist court. They'll block anything which could
| discriminate against their supporters but as we've seen no
| level of precedent is going to prevent a decision which those
| supporters want unless there's an extremely clear direct
| constitutional prohibition.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| After taking a civics course in college and quitting social
| media none of their decisions have shocked me. I think more
| people need to learn the purpose and role of the court.
| acdha wrote:
| Shocked, no. Disappointed, yes. If you were willing to
| explore the space intellectually you'd find many legal
| scholars who could explain how what's happening now
| represents a significant deviation from the past. The
| discussion of the court's legitimacy isn't a social media
| phenomenon.
| madrox wrote:
| Factor into this the consolidation of so many industries, and
| if you happen to run afoul of one company you've effecively
| become a pariah. Getting banned from Google is bad enough.
|
| 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.
| bmitc wrote:
| That's not what happened here though.
|
| > "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.
| hgsgm wrote:
| makestuff wrote:
| Why do the lawyers deserve this?
|
| I can kind of understand the lawyers actively involved in the
| case being banned from the arena, but why should a lawyer who
| is not even licensed in NY, and does not appear to be
| involved in the case be banned?
|
| Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are
| litigating against?
| bmitc wrote:
| That was just a sentiment because lawyers bring this
| adversarial behavior into society, and I have a general
| dislike of lawyers because of this behavior I've
| experienced for no reason. (I was once threatened by a real
| estate lawyer just because I chose another firm after an
| initial phone call, for example.) Do they really deserve
| it? Maybe not, but I'm not a huge fan of the power lawyers
| wield and their incentives, so them getting a taste of
| their own medicine seems okay with me. (This is a very
| generic sentiment though, and not targeted towards
| particular people.)
|
| Regarding the policy, is it really that absurd? They are
| being sued, presumably, by the law firm. When I was at a
| company with ongoing IP litigation, there were extremely
| strict measures put into place while that went on. The law
| firm was even notified. So the lawyers purely ignored it.
| Lawyers are pretty apt to point out when you ignore
| communication, so why did they do it? They could have
| communicated prior to the trip, but instead they showed up
| and gave their surprised Pikachu face.
|
| > Should lawyers be banned from going to hospitals they are
| litigating against?
|
| Irrelevant hypothetical because that's not what happened
| here, and there are different rights to medical treatment
| than there are for seeing an entertainment show.
| tantalor wrote:
| > used their 5 senses to easily target the people they hated
|
| 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
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You've been downvoted, but I'd agree; most of them are not
| necessarily "visually obvious" and more "stuff you can't
| easily change".
| michpoch wrote:
| I assume that is a US thing. How does that exactly work? In
| what sense are these people protected?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| In the legal sense.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
| freeone3000 wrote:
| You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black.
| These characteristics are protected in the sense that
| discrimination against them in certain areas is illegal.
| donmaq wrote:
| > You cannot, for instance, fire someone for being black
|
| So now companies don't put that as the termination
| reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave
| the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'.
|
| "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves
| burden of proof to the victim, who needs to lawyer up &
| chase the proof via discovery.
| davidgay wrote:
| > So now companies don't put that as the termination
| reason, & fire them anyway for 'culture fit'. Or leave
| the term reason blank, b/c 'At-Will'.
|
| No, for large companies (those at risk of being sued) it
| works the other way round: they collect very detailed
| data to objectively justify any firing, otherwise they
| are at high risk of losing a discrimination lawsuit.
|
| Hence "improvement plans", "needs improvement" ratings,
| etc, etc.
|
| It is likely true that small and medium companies can get
| away with abuse though.
| mcherm wrote:
| > "Protected class" isn't very protected, as it leaves
| burden of proof to the victim
|
| Surely though, you understand and agree that having this
| law is better than the alternative, where employers ARE
| allowed to fire someone simply for being a member of a
| protected class, and are even welcome to brag about doing
| so.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Exactly, but there are even more fundamental problems
| with all these identity laws.
|
| 1. They're inherently unjust and anti-equality.
|
| 2. In the case of stuff like race and gender, the law
| doesn't even clearly define what terms like "black" and
| "white" are supposed to mean. There is no scientific
| definition because in physical reality race doesn't
| exist. It's assumed everyone follows race ideology, but
| even if we assumed that to be true then the premise of
| such suits is that someone committed a thought crime.
| Such cases are bound to lead to wrongful convictions as
| well as actual discrimination going unpunished because it
| can't be proven. These discrimination suits are the
| modern day equivalent of medieval witch trials.
|
| 3. They create division and conflict. That may be an
| intentional feature instead of a bug though.
| em-bee wrote:
| i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of
| a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's
| enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there
| is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason
| for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no
| justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service.
| finding the real reason for the discrimination is not
| necessary
| michpoch wrote:
| Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone
| shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your
| height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it.
|
| Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I
| oversimplifying something here?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Many reasons that's not protected:
|
| 1. The "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act"
| specifically bans using "Genetic Information" in certain
| circumstances, which is generally understood to mean e.g.
| DNA testing. Discriminating on height does not fall into
| this.
|
| 2. You could still fall into issues with e.g. the Civil
| Rights Act of 1964 by having a height requirement if e.g.
| far more men than women fall into that height range,
| _however_ there are exceptions[A] built into that act
| when a job has specific requirements, one being you can
| ask for "male models" to model clothing targeted at men.
|
| A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_q
| ualifi...
| [deleted]
| oceanplexian wrote:
| They are called bona fide occupational qualifications.
| Even a private business can discriminate against say, an
| actor who can't play a particular role due to the race or
| gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that
| involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.
| michpoch wrote:
| Could you say that you need a white male bartender for
| your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are
| racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel
| uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the
| protected status?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Look up the definition of the term "bona fide" and tell
| me if you think that would qualify as a good faith
| requirement allowing a business to discriminate their
| workers.
| unreal37 wrote:
| Hooters hires "performers", not waitresses.
|
| So this is indeed how it works.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of
| artistic works, due to the first amendment.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| In addition, mere customer satisfaction secondary to the
| primary job is not enough to establish BFOQ; it's a thin
| line though as Hooters seems to hide behind BFOQ (thus
| essentially stating that the primary reason for their
| serving staff is sex appeal), while flight attendants
| cannot.
|
| I suppose if you had an airline called "cleavage air" and
| had all the flight attendants wear low-cut tops, then you
| might get away with it.
| michpoch wrote:
| That is quite fascinating to me (as a layperson and non-
| american). Are there any articles or is there any
| literature that you'd advise in that topic?
|
| I'd be interested in something that gives more context,
| details and examples than the wikipedia article, but not
| targeted at lawyers and not excessively long.
|
| How does that work in practice for a company like Hooters
| - do they spend millions on lawyers to be able to defend
| their position? What if you'd open a local place working
| in similar way to Hooters - would you go bankrupt trying
| to defend yourself?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I don't know of any good resources, but application of
| the laws is mostly common-sense, with a slight bias
| towards non-discrimination in the gray areas.
|
| It doesn't take a lawyer to tell that Hooters' primary
| product isn't chicken wings (Chris Rock even made a joke
| about it).
|
| The reason behind the laws isn't common-sense, in the
| case that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is basically a list
| of "things currently happening that we think are bad"
| rather than an exhaustive list of things it's bad to
| discriminate on; it's also limited somewhat by the legal
| framework that the US congress was working within.
|
| Labour laws in the US are also weird for similar reasons.
| There was a point at which union members were beaten and
| killed, with the local police being bought-off to not
| intervene. It escalated to at least one pitched battle
| between a private army and workers. Things like assault,
| battery, and murder are enforced at the local ("state" in
| the US terminology, not in the meaning everywhere else in
| the world) level not federal level, so rather than
| arresting the people doing this, laws were passed giving
| special protections to unions. Then a few decades later
| people argued that the special protections made unions
| too powerful and a bunch of extra rules limiting what
| unions can do were passed.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _How does that work in practice for a company like
| Hooters - do they spend millions on lawyers to be able to
| defend their position?_
|
| They certainly spend millions on lawyers. They've been
| sued for not hiring men several times, AFAIK always
| settle out of court. They defend their position by
| claiming being a woman is a BFOQ for working at Hooters,
| but aren't eager to risk losing in court.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| They have certainly been sued many times, but I could
| only find two suits related to not hiring men. The older
| one resulted in a large settlement and an agreement to
| hire regardless of sex for non-waitress positions
| (including bartender and host/hostess). The latter was
| against a single franchise and had non-disclosed
| settlement terms (I'm not sure how a class-action suit
| can have a confidential settlement; wouldn't all members
| of the class be notified?).
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Indeed. The law says that sex is characteristic that
| _may_ be a BFOQ, and in the case of Hooters it seems to
| be. BFOQs may apply to sex, religion, and national
| origin, but not the other protected classes.
| michpoch wrote:
| Could Hooters then reject a woman based on visual trait
| connected to a race, arguing that it doesn't give her the
| required "sex appeal"? Skin colour would be of course to
| obvious, but lips size or body shape?
| LarryMullins wrote:
| No.
|
| The only way Hooters could in principle discriminate on
| the basis of race is if they come up with some first
| amendment pretext for it; e.g. the waitress job is
| actually an artistic performance and for some reason the
| art demands the performer be a certain race. That works
| for movie productions, but for a bar hiring waitresses?
| In practice it wouldn't work because the courts and the
| public would both write you off as an obvious racist.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > 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?
| [deleted]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of
| artistic works, due to the first amendment.
|
| This is technically wrong, in that the First Amendment
| limitation on title VII is separate from BFOQs, and race
| can expressly never be a BFOQ. But the effect of the
| limitation is similar to allowing race to work like a
| BFOQ in certain circumstances in artistic contexts.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Why are people outside of this range not protected?
|
| Because legislation has been written to target _certain_
| characteristics. The experience of short people in
| American history doesn 't quite match that of black, gay,
| or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled
| sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on
| average.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| In almost all cases, there were people in the protected group
| who were able to disguise that status. So in those cases just
| 5 senses weren't perfect. But it was sufficient for at least
| some cases, which is where the laws came from.
| moonchrome wrote:
| Just because you can't tell 100% doesn't mean you can't
| discriminate - and accuracy doesn't factor much in prejudice.
| FunnyBadger wrote:
| namaria wrote:
| The problem here is not facial recognition or AI. The problem is
| automatic and opaque enforcement of arbitrary rules with no
| recourse. It's a scary world where you can be approached by
| private security and forced to comply without recourse because
| "the system" flagged you. This dehumanizes us. We're creating a
| world where people are being treated like cattle, merely handled
| by systems beyond our capacity to fight back.
| Karunamon wrote:
| This is a bit too Luddite for my taste. Humans were involved at
| quite literally every step of this process. The human decided
| that this other group of humans is not allowed on their
| property. The only thing interesting the computer did is tell
| security that someone not allowed to be there was there.
| tmpburning wrote:
| bluelightning2k wrote:
| On the one hand this sounds super dystopian.
|
| 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
| mannykannot wrote:
| "A spokesperson for MSG reiterated in a statement that safety is
| their highest priority and that facial recognition is just one of
| the methods they use. MSG Entertainment also said it is confident
| their policy is in compliance with all applicable laws, including
| the New York State Liquor Authority."
|
| 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.
| robocat wrote:
| > second sentence will turn out to be as logically incoherent
| as the first
|
| The key part of the second sentence: they are _confident_.
| Tricky to argue just how confident they are.
| voidmain0001 wrote:
| This explains why MSG called out the NYSLA -
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirnbaum/2022/12/07/madis...
| mannykannot wrote:
| Thanks for the link.
|
| 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.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yea, I would go on to state that MSG is 'fucking dumb'.
| Now, I don't know how things work in NY, but at least where
| I'm from the lawyers do not go to your place of business
| and ask questions. They go to the courts and put in a
| filing for demands. If anyone shows up to question
| employees it's going to be private investigators that are
| seemingly unaffiliated and you won't know to block them in
| the first place (NY law might be different here).
|
| To me this screams "MSG is doing illegal/contract breaking
| shit"
| [deleted]
| jerf wrote:
| Because it works. Human brains are fairly bad at detecting non
| sequiturs. Even with practice it is still hard, because the
| brain does not want to activate the expensive rational thought
| system unless there is a good reason. If you can get it to
| activate that expensive system, it is often then easy to see
| through, but that is a tall bar.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > 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.
| josephcsible wrote:
| I feel like the facial recognition part of this is a red herring.
| The two bigger problems I see here are banning people because of
| what their co-workers are doing, and enforcing bans when people
| show up instead of when they buy their tickets.
| stickyricky wrote:
| Businesses which sell to the public should provide accommodation
| for the public. Bad actors should be handled by the legal system.
| When their sentence expires they should be allowed to re-enter
| the public spaces they previously disrupted. A private "legal
| system" administered by global conglomerates is totalitarianism
| by another form.
| dbttdft wrote:
| How does some bar theater whatever have a database of where
| people work? This is broken as fuck.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| A lawyer and a Rockettes show today, could be an angry tweeter
| and their tesla tomorrow or your Facebook post and a healthcare
| provider.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| That is the ultimate goal of all facial recognition: to
| identify subversives and remove them from society.
| mrexroad wrote:
| And don't forget that facial recognition is only one tool for
| identifying individuals-- gait recognition, clothing
| patterns, etc. are utilized as well.
| [deleted]
| xdavidliu wrote:
| nit: transpose "Rockettes show" with "Lawyer" to get the
| correct parallel construction
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Aha!
| version_five wrote:
| 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
| 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
| thesuitonym wrote:
| > 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.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> but we need updated standards for how technology like
| facial recognition can be aligned with previous norms and
| laws
|
| Can we just make personal data collection and sharing
| illegal? We got by before this was even possible.
| [deleted]
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| Everyone always goes for the discrimination angle, but what
| frightens me is that like other modern automated tech of this
| decade the facial recognition used here probably has a horrendous
| false positive rate which most institutions will none the less
| treat as the final truth. Unrelated this is also why I fear most
| of this new AI stuff so much despite working in the field; the
| accuracy rates on these things in production is atrocious.
| lja wrote:
| The false positive rate on quality facial recognition is
| actually very low. I'm not weighing in whether or not it is
| proper to always use it, just as someone that's deeply
| experienced in commercial applications of facial recognition.
| monksy wrote:
| It's not just that. It's the collection of updated face data
| that's a concern.
|
| 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.
| Majromax wrote:
| > The false positive rate on quality facial recognition is
| actually very low.
|
| 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.
| lja wrote:
| I completely agree with you on this point. AI practitioners
| have an ethical responsibility to communicate these
| shortcomings to clients. I know my firm regularly talks to
| clients how humans should intervene in the AI systems we
| build. It's a necessary conversation to ensure clients know
| we aren't building them something flawless.
|
| I loved your .001% example, I'm going to steal that when I
| talk folks. We often describe how systems fail at scale and
| talk about how being wrong 1/1,000,000 times can wildly
| backfire at large numbers.
|
| All that being said, I just don't want people around this
| forum thinking facial recognition is some fringe, low
| accuracy modeling exercise like they used to be. The models
| are actually incredibly impressive these days.
| idiocrat wrote:
| The low rate of false positives have been well documented in
| the Archibald Buttle vs Archibald Tuttle case.
|
| And the government never makes mistakes.
| tomp wrote:
| They didn't ban her on the basis of face recognition. She just
| got flagged by security, after which they asked for her ID and
| banned her on the basis of her real identity.
|
| So the chance of false positives is minimal.
| akira2501 wrote:
| So.. what if she wasn't carrying ID? Now it's back to a
| judgement call, and I can bet I know which side the guards
| are going to err on.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I give it a year before the venue fires the bouncer to pinch
| pennies and just relies on the facial scanner
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I don't like the consequences of facial recognition tech and what
| it's going to do to our society and its potential to enhance
| social discrimination of all kinds, but I have a hard time
| faulting the venue for using it to enforce an (arguably
| reasonable, or at least legally viable) admittance policy that
| had been communicated beforehand to the law firm. This doesn't
| seem to be a case of discrimination.
| gedy wrote:
| I morbidly enjoy this idea, but only as an extreme form of tort
| reform.
| benreesman wrote:
| The Constitution wasn't designed for this. The framers did an
| amazing job at writing documents and expressing ideals that have
| held up astonishingly well through insane technological change.
|
| 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.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Take some hope. This case exposes the technology for the naked
| fascism it really is. We always knew this is where it would
| lead, and that there are few legitimate, ethical uses for face
| recognition tech. That it was a lawyer taking her kid to a show
| is priceless and will surely contribute to the blanket ban we
| all hope for.
| humanistbot wrote:
| > The Constitution wasn't designed for this.
|
| The Constitution wasn't designed for a multi-racial democracy,
| either. It took a bloody civil war to settle the slavery
| question though.
| inetknght wrote:
| And even after the civil war was ended, over 150 years ago,
| there's still significant portions of people in the modern
| day who don't act as if the matter is settled.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| I know this is just a rhetorical point of yours, but maybe we
| can start to accept that America and the west as whole is not
| actually significantly different from China with stuff like
| this.
|
| 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.
| chrisbaker98 wrote:
| > America and the west as whole is not actually significantly
| different from China with stuff like this.
|
| As someone who has spent many years of my life living outside
| "America and the West": this is not remotely true.
| FredPret wrote:
| I moved from outside into the West and I'm inclined to
| agree with you. It feels different here. There's much more
| trust, even when Westerners mock their institutions, there
| is a higher baseline and more implied trust.
| sneak wrote:
| 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.
| eouwt wrote:
| It's not uncommon for the T&Cs of tickets and such to require
| photo ID...in which case?
| xoa wrote:
| > _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.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| Many organizations (including the Girl Scouts) have required
| chaperone-to-kid ratios for trips like this.
|
| 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..)
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Maybe the girlscouts should set up facial recognition for their
| troop events to identify and blacklist policy violators.
| hnuser847 wrote:
| 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.
| mcphage wrote:
| > was banned from an attending a show.
|
| Weird that they still sold her a ticket, though.
| patja wrote:
| It is possible that the tickets were bought by someone else
| for the group without individually assigned names.
| habibur wrote:
| Employee - Employer is here a lawyer based on the law firm.
| Before you click the title and waste your time.
| worik wrote:
| Do lawyers have fewer human rights?
| reaperducer wrote:
| Up next: Everyone on HN who posted that they disagree with MSG's
| use of facial recognition is permabanned from all MSG venues,
| with no notice or recourse.
| theironhammer wrote:
| whoopdedo wrote:
| What does the Bar have to say about being a customer of a
| business you're suing. Wouldn't this be more of a concern for the
| law firm than the venue?
|
| 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.
| lscdlscd wrote:
| You might be thinking of the Sopranos:
|
| 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.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Also a plot point in Noah Baumbach's movie Marriage Story.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Although -- I've only seen this on, like, other online
| chitchats so take it with a heap of salt, but -- I'm under
| the impression that the main thing accomplished if someone
| tried these sorts of antics in real life would be a
| reasonably pissed off judge with reason to believe that one
| party wasn't engaging with the legal system in good faith.
| strix_varius wrote:
| I have personal experience with this. Small town. Handful
| of law firms. None of them would take a case against a
| local small business because they all had some kind of
| relationship with that business.
|
| The case was strong, and I had no trouble hiring a
| reputable firm one town over to litigate, but it was
| inconvenient and one can imagine a scenario in which there
| is no "one town over" with alternatives.
| somebody78978 wrote:
| *Carmella, not Carmine, lol. Carmine is another mob boss.
| eastbound wrote:
| Imagine doing a chargeback on Google for a bug in their app
| purchase, and your Gmail accounts being revoked.
| justincormack wrote:
| What does the bar have to say about facial recognition for all
| its members being easily available to anyone with money,
| apparently? Where does the data come from?
| rtkwe wrote:
| She's only tangentially related not directly on the team,
| though it would imo be odder for MSG to know the entirety and
| status of everyone working for someone suing them so it's
| simpler to just ban everyone employed at the firm.
| philip1209 wrote:
| Imagine this system, but for chargebacks. "You issued a charge
| back against us once, so you're no longer allowed in any of our
| physical locations ever again. You should have talked to us
| first."
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| I think the issue is that MSG is too big of an organization to
| fairly institute a policy like this. It's like [FAANG of
| choice] refusing to serve someone because their
| [mother/spouse/hairdresser] posted a bad review of the coffee
| at [FAANG's] office in [fill in a city].
|
| Maybe said company can have such a policy, but they probably
| shouldn't.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| As someone not involved in the suit?
| _trampeltier wrote:
| It was here on HN, but I also don't remember the details. I
| think it was like a big company had a relationship with
| almost all layers or something like this.
| crmd wrote:
| The legal rights of a corporation should rapidly decrease as it
| gains market power. My neighborhood bar should be allowed to 86
| me for just about anything, but Madison Square Garden
| Entertainment, Ticketmaster, and Live Nation should not. Same
| thing with google and Amazon banning people from their platform
| for a single good faith credit card chargeback.
| pfisherman wrote:
| This is a pretty interesting concept. I think way this is
| described as "fewer rights" is not precise enough to pass
| muster. But I agree with the principle that the harm to an
| individual resulting from a ban is proportional to its scale /
| reach.
|
| 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?
| monksy wrote:
| Consider your neighborhood bar may be under a group, i.e.
| hammock hospitality group.
| francisofascii wrote:
| Unless your neighborhood bar is the only bar.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't think I agree. You don't have right to be served
| alcohol within convenient walking distance.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean, there are lots of other bars, so it's not really
| meaningful statement.
| JackFr wrote:
| Seems like it's an unpopular opinion, but it seems fairly
| reasonable to me to restrict someone who is currently, actively
| suing you from using your place of business.
|
| It's neither punitive nor petty. It's simply practical from a
| legal perspective.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| If you want to ban someone from using your place of business
| you shouldn't take their money and sell them a ticket to a show
| then
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > it seems fairly reasonable to me to restrict someone who is
| currently, actively suing you from using your place of
| business.
|
| This isn't someone who is actively suing them.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Even if it were, would that make it better??
| amanj41 wrote:
| I don't take issue to that. I think using facial recognition
| paired with a database of naughty / nice individuals is going
| to pose a plethora of societal issues down the road. It is
| evocative of China's social credit system somewhat.
| godelski wrote:
| How did they identify her? Where is MSG getting the data for
| their facial recognition? This part is confusing to me (I assume
| some third party vendor, but that's besides the point). Do they
| have you upload a photo of yourself? Do they have access to
| driver license photos? If the latter, that's a serious issue that
| I think we should be talking about: private companies having
| access to government biometric data. It's already an issue that
| the gov can track us, but even bigger if they are giving that
| data to corporations. I think that's the bigger story here.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| there are tons of people id databases. the photos probably came
| from her posted to her own account somewhere and got scraped
| xapata wrote:
| Probably from a photograph on the lawyer's website. They often
| post photographs of themselves looking pleasant and well-
| dressed, along with a summary of their careers.
| godelski wrote:
| Still, this doesn't leave me with a good taste in my mouth.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I'm thrilled to see facial recognition applied against people in
| a position to speak out loudly against it. 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.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Oddly, me too. Things change only when a representative
| sufficiently well connected person/high status individual is
| inconvenienced by the current system. Lately, this seems to be
| the way to actually change things.
|
| << 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.
| test6554 wrote:
| Just because you have someone on camera committing a crime in
| this age of deep fakes is no guarantee that they are guilty...
| But it definitely provides police with a suspect to investigate
| further.
|
| 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.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I'm wholeheartedly against facial recognition in legal
| systems. The fact is that they don't work well, and they
| specifically have a bad tendency to identify the wrong black
| person much more often than they misidentify white people.
| From [3] below:
|
| > 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/fede
| ral...
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I think it's possible that multispectral imaging may solve
| the difficulties these systems have with dark skin. However
| even if this were resolved, I would still oppose these
| systems because I don't want to live in a panopticon prison
| society, even if all the technology works correctly and
| never makes a false accusation. I think such a society is
| aesthetically disgusting.
|
| Furthermore, an accurate system is not the same as a
| morally just system. A ubiquitous system which recognizes
| people with 100% accuracy could be used for evil if it ever
| fell into the wrong hands. Such powerful systems should
| never be created in the first place, the juice isn't worth
| the squeeze.
| superbatfish wrote:
| I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards. The problem isn't
| that it doesn't work -- the problem is that it _does_ work.
| And to the extent that it isn 't perfect, well, it's still
| improving all the time. You cited a 3-year-old article
| reporting on data from up to eleven(!) years ago -- an
| eternity in this field. Not even worth reading at this
| point.
|
| The racial bias issue is still important for now, but it's
| fast becoming irrelevant. We should be asking ourselves
| where our priorities lie even if bias weren't a concern.
| bboygravity wrote:
| I don't think what a lot of people think about facial
| recognition is very relevant for its adoption or evolution?
|
| 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.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| It's because we aren't governed by a democracy, we're
| governed by a massive administrative state. Some middle
| manager vying for a promotion decides adding cameras will
| benefit him in some way, privacy be damned. For example, TSA
| recently started doing facial recognition in airports and
| most passengers were just happily going along with it last
| time I went through security. The public is expected to
| submit and comply, there's no democracy anywhere in that
| process.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I get the lack of resistance to the TSA thing. I'm not
| saying my opinion here is the correct one, but here's how I
| see it:
|
| That ship has sailed. You no longer have a reasonable
| expectation of privacy in an airport. Courts have ruled
| that safety concerns override privacy considerations inside
| them. Alright, well, if this is the system we're stuck
| with, then we might as well make it efficient. Now we have
| TSA PreCheck where you can give up all pretense of personal
| privacy in exchange for a relatively pleasant airport
| experience. And the facial recognition kiosks I've seen
| don't seem inherently more invasive than having a human
| security guard doing their functional equivalent, and we've
| had that for many years.
|
| I'm not thrilled about the situation, but feel powerless to
| change it. It seems like the majority of my countrymen
| think this a good tradeoff, so I can't say I'm fully on the
| right side of the argument anyway. So if stuck with a
| system I can't change, and most people don't _want_ to
| change, if this makes the practical experience of dealing
| with that system faster and less unpleasant, then fine. So
| be it.
| duped wrote:
| Human security guards forget. Servers don't.
|
| I don't mind a security guard checking my ID. I do mind
| some random contractor building a facial recognition
| system that does it automatically and saves my picture
| and my identification information for all time without my
| consent or control.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Sure, I'm with you on that. As a one-time transactional
| system, like verifying that the person presenting an ID
| card is the person on its photo, fine. I don't want it
| going into a permanent database.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _TSA PreCheck_
|
| That system was created to avoid what you mention
| earlier, privileged people in society being
| inconvenienced and feeling motivated to speak out against
| these systems. Instead of subjecting the movers and
| shakers to the full brunt of the TSA, such people are
| allowed to opt out of the tyranny for a small (to them)
| fee.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Democracies have more luck voting against them:
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-bans-
| use...
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > it can be used against them, too
|
| 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.
| TheFattestNinja wrote:
| Both. Id argue that in addition to the policy being bad, she
| probably didnt agree to her image feeding into the dataset
| backing the facial recognition, which raised some spicy
| privacy questions: how did this private company get the
| image? Under what terms of use?
| archontes wrote:
| Consent isn't required if you don't have a reasonable
| expectation of privacy.
|
| I can take your photo in public, and there's nothing you
| can do about it.
|
| I can even distribute that photo, and you can't, and if you
| do, I can sue you for copyright infringement. I own your
| likeness, in a finite way.
|
| https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/but-it-s-a-photo-of-me-
| cel...
| saveferris wrote:
| Not so fast....In Illinois anyway. You cannot do any of
| that without consent if you use that data for any
| commercial purpose.
|
| https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=300
| 4&C...
|
| I think anyway, IANAL but I believe this law prohibits
| the collection of, in this case, images/facial
| recognition, etc.
|
| So, you can take my picture in public and keep it on your
| phone, you cannot upload it to say Instagram without my
| permission, all kinds of recent lawsuits about it. I
| think the intent of the law is to prevent my picture from
| winding up in say Instagram without my permission but for
| sure it cannot be used in the way it was used in the
| article - to scan it and prohibit me from entering an
| establishment. Apparently, no matter what state I go
| to....
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/one-us-state-stands-
| out-r...
|
| It's a complex law and a complex topic in general so I am
| not 100% sure what is and isn't covered....
|
| edit; spelling
| hgsgm wrote:
| quanticle wrote:
| assuming it was scalable, would it be OK then?
|
| The problem with automated facial recognition technology is
| that it makes what used to be infeasible suddenly routine and
| cheap. In the past, would the security folks at Madison
| Square Garden have even thought about implementing this kind
| of policy? No, of course not; it would have been obvious from
| the very beginning that such a policy would have required far
| too many resources to feasibly implement. At best, they'd
| have been able to hand out pictures of a few folks, known to
| be bad actors, and told their security personnel, "Hey, watch
| out for these people and don't let them in." It's highly
| unlikely that a random obscure attorney working at the same
| firm, but not specifically tied to the litigation at hand,
| would have made it onto that list.
|
| 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.
| wombatpm wrote:
| This is while it's in the hands of corporations. Wait until
| the local HOA sets up cameras to real-time scan for people
| on the sex offender registry.
|
| In the future ounishowill be swift and eternal
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Is it facial recognition that's the problem here
|
| 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.
| kstrauser wrote:
| 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 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: ...`.
| underwater wrote:
| Scale is also an issue. So many things are either owned by
| a megacorp or run via a centralised platform. Getting
| banned by a store pales in comparison to being banned by
| Uber, Google, Visa, etc.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Just as most websites today use captchas run by one or
| two companies, we may see a scenario unfold where most
| brick and mortar businesses use a facial recognition
| blacklisting system run by one or two companies. Get
| labelled as trouble by the system and you'll be banned by
| every store in town.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| See Las Vegas Casio's who have been doing that for awhile
| thwarted wrote:
| This was already a problem with the email spam
| blacklists, DNSBL.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| This is not allowed in my state thank god
| kstrauser wrote:
| That's a great point. For that matter, imagine that being
| maintained by Verisign or the like. Get a ding on your
| social credit report, and voila, you can't walk into a
| grocery store anymore.
| monksy wrote:
| 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.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Can you imagine getting into an argument with a bartender
| and being asked to leave - and then you can't go into any
| other bars either? Yikes!
|
| Reminds me of the hidden low-level-banking-employee
| blacklist that some would end up on for not forcing
| enough customers into expensive products they didn't
| need.
|
| Or the opiate painkiller registry that doctors use to
| centrally track folks who come to them for painkillers,
| and which by the way counts any painkillers you might
| have gotten from the vet for your dog.
|
| Fewer central registries please!
| lmm wrote:
| Blacklisting is something we already recognise as wrong;
| banning who you want from your own establishment is fine,
| but passing around a list of people and banning them on
| someone else's say-so isn't. Perhaps the laws against it
| should be enforced, or strengthened.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think in many contexts this would be desirable. If
| someone was belligerent and gets banned for starting a
| fight on Delta airline, I wouldn't want to sit next to
| him on my United airline flight. Venues should have the
| freedom to use whatever judgment/algorithm they feel will
| keep their customers safe, including sharing lists of
| troublemakers. If the list is too inaccurate, it stops
| doing its job and becomes a net-no-help to the venue
| using it.
| lmm wrote:
| That's how you end up with redlining or worse. It's too
| easy to slip a few "undesirables" into the list you're
| sharing, and as long as you don't do it too often then
| your list remains a net-positive so people keep doing it.
| (See also the guy who put his ex-wife on the no-fly
| list).
|
| For something like starting a fight, you can go by actual
| court records, which are public and have processes in
| place to correct them if they're wrong (and we have rules
| about e.g. when convictions should be expunged). Just
| sharing lists of names is too abusable.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I don't know of any laws against this at all, at least in
| the United States.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Laws around collusion might vaguely apply, but it would
| be a real stretch imho.
| bigwavedave wrote:
| The parent may be referring to employment laws; google
| claims 29 states have made blacklisting illegal in an
| employment context.
| rg111 wrote:
| It's always the policy that should be modified, and not the
| tech that should be stopped.
|
| Because bad policies can do only damage.
|
| And tech can do both good and bad.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I'd amend that: it's always the policy that should be
| modified _in the longer run_. Sometimes it's wholly
| appropriate to pump the brakes on the tech that would
| allow mass application of the bad policy.
| bmitc wrote:
| Why is the policy bad? They are preventing employees from a
| law firm in active litigation with them from attending
| their venues while the litigation takes place. It's not
| some draconian thing.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| I'm certain you didn't read the article. The link between
| the woman and the litige case is very tenuous.
|
| She doesn't work on the case, and the venue has nothing
| to do with the case either, besides that a huge
| corporation owns both the venue and the restaurant under
| litigation.
| bmitc wrote:
| I did read it. MSG notified the law firm of their policy
| while the litigation is ongoing, twice.
|
| > "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.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| That does sound pretty draconian to me, you haven't
| adressed my point.
| techwizrd wrote:
| Also from the article:
|
| (a) Conlon does not practice law in New York where Radio
| City Music Hall is located.
|
| (b) Conlon is not an attorney pursuing active litigation
| against the MSG Entertainment. She works for a NJ-based
| law firm who representing another party in litigation
| against an unrelated restaurant which now happens to now
| be owned by MSG Entertainment. She's not part of that
| ongoing litigation.
|
| (c) > A recent judge's order in one of those cases made
| it clear that ticketholders like her "may not be denied
| entry to any shows."
|
| (d) > "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. "Taking a mother, separating a mother from
| her daughter and Girl Scouts she was watching over -- and
| to do it under the pretext of protecting any disclosure
| of litigation information -- is absolutely absurd.
|
| Refusing her entry doesn't even make sense according to
| their stated policy, and it is absolutely _draconian_.
| She doesn't work on the case--she just happens to work
| for the same company. If this firm was representing a
| client suing Meta or Google or Apple, would it be okay
| for Meta/Google/Apple to ban all attorneys from using all
| of their services? This type of behavior just discourages
| firms from taking on clients suing large companies.
| romwell wrote:
| The policy is bad because it results in unfair outcomes.
| bmitc wrote:
| When are lawyers considered with fairness?
|
| I'm not sure I see what's unfair here. They were
| notified. If they wanted to negotiate around it, they
| could have done ahead of time. They're lawyers. They
| should know to read material they're sent.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I see it as things returning to how they were. In a small
| town, the person running the fast food joint often did work
| there for decades and everyone recognized everyone. Theft
| was hard to get away with because you don't just blend in
| to the masses like a modern city. Now tech is allowing us
| to hold people accountable again.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I think that's a romanticized memory. While holding
| people accountable is good, so is eventual forgiveness.
| If you steal a candy bar from Old Man Smith at the town's
| only gas station, and he's the kind to hold grudges,
| you're boned. Never mind teens trying to buy condoms when
| every cashier in town knows them.
|
| There's a happy medium in there somewhere. You don't want
| to let repeat offenders off scot free, but there needs to
| be a cooling off period, too.
| vagabund wrote:
| As unsurprising as it is absurd if you're familiar with the
| petulant child that is James Dolan.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Yea I think the bigger issue here is just that Dolan is an
| oligarch heir piece of shit and we need to rethink how
| inheritance works. The facial recognition stuff is an issue,
| but if dolan had to actually work for any of the stuff he's got
| I think he'd behave very differently.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Hey, HN was just talking about him yesterday!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496
| itronitron wrote:
| This is a service I think some parents would be eager to sign up
| for, although since the woman kicked out was chaperoning a school
| field trip it seems like poor judgment on the part of MSG.
| jasmer wrote:
| Who the hell even thinks to do any of this? Why are people so
| stupid and petty?
|
| 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.
| vleon42 wrote:
| 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 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?
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It should be noted that (3) is not true. You cannot deny entry
| to black people because you are a racist, for instance. You can
| deny someone who was previously violent, for the violence. Not
| because you dislike them.
|
| 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)
| xapata wrote:
| The difference is the scale of the Madison Square Gardens
| business. You could argue that they have a sort of monopoly
| power that holds them to a different standard than the typical
| business.
| HD103720b wrote:
| To me its pretty straight forward because this is how social
| credit systems start.
|
| This is a slippery slope.
|
| Facial recognition matched with digital currencies is a real
| serious problem.
| crazygringo wrote:
| In terms of morality (as opposed to current law), I would argue
| #1 and #2 should be legally permitted, while #3 is inconsistent
| and #4 should not be permitted.
|
| 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".
| JackFr wrote:
| Dislike has nothing to do with it.
|
| 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.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Which was not the case here. You can not summary ban every
| employee of a large company that's doing something you
| don't like.
|
| Kelly Conlon is not involved in the case against MSG, and
| (as far as I understand) had no knowledge of the case.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _You can not summary ban every employee of a large
| company that 's doing something you don't like._
|
| Which laws forbid this?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Then tell your staff not to chat and not let anybody poke
| around. The lawyers may order food but not walk into the
| kitchen, just like literally every other customer.
|
| Frankly if you're running a public business then I don't
| care if you don't want lawyers there, the same as I don't
| care if you don't want people of another race there. If
| people are coming to eat and they're not being disruptive,
| then serve them, end of story. It's not your private home,
| it's a business open to the public.
| nashashmi wrote:
| No, you should not be allowed as a business to deny entry, or
| deny service, or deny product to a person/entity you do not
| "like" or a person who is associated with someone/entity you do
| not "like".
|
| 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.
| 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
| 5. Block people who are likely to have a medical emergency at
| your business.
| advisedwang wrote:
| 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. 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!
| hnuser847 wrote:
| > 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?
| BizarroLand wrote:
| You missed the point.
|
| They're okay with the principle, AND they're okay with the
| technology, what they're NOT okay with is using the
| technology to microneedle and retaliate against
| tangentially innocent people.
|
| The technology didn't decide to single the lawyer out, some
| manager or legal person did. It's not the tech that is
| wrong, it's the people's use of it.
| pixl97 wrote:
| eh, kind of both.
|
| When you invent a hammer someone is going to use it to
| hit someone else over the head with it. It is an
| unavoidable foregone conclusion. Now, instead of a hammer
| in which society thinks they are useful and that anyone
| should have one, lets look at more controversial things
| like guns. In the US we tend to think everyone should
| have one, other countries tend to think the opposite, and
| are crime statistics reflect that.
|
| And I would hold the same is true when it comes to
| 'business crimes'. The US will likely uphold that
| businesses can use advanced technology against the
| general public, and countries in the EU will more than
| likely prevent businesses from discriminating with it.
|
| There is a reason we have laws regarding technologies.
| People will abuse them and the law is there to punish
| those who are abusers.
| slingnow wrote:
| 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.
| advisedwang wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| But I think the parents 4 questions are still an
| appropriate starting point for productive discussion. Are
| these rights that an individual or organization has?
| Technology is secondary.
|
| If your answer is yes to all 4 is yes, the answer to 5 is
| also yes.
|
| If your no or conditional to some of them, then you can
| discuss where the line should be drawn (e.g. numbers,
| characteristics, or technology allowed)
| TheCapn wrote:
| I kinda get what he's saying and there isn't an easy
| answer. Things done bit by bit are often different than
| things done at large scale. Especially when automated by
| tech taking out the individual human element. The nuance
| between people making informed decisions vs algorithms
| dictating action off generalized heuristics can get muddy.
|
| Just think of anonymized user data. Individually that info
| isn't really all that important, but taken at massive scale
| it can lead to worrying trends. Consider something like the
| Cambridge Analytica scandal.
| wombatpm wrote:
| 10 deaths are a tragedy.
|
| 1,000,000 deaths are a statistic
| matt123456789 wrote:
| The two ideas are not incompatible. Consider that it's much
| easier to drag and drop a list of faceless names and
| categories into a "Deny" list on a GUI, than it is to argue
| to a mother's face that she cannot attend an even with her
| daughter's Girl Scout troop because she happens to work at
| the same firm as some opposing lawyers. There is, or was, a
| higher cost associated to this action. Denying people
| access was OK back when you had to _really care_ about it.
| The easier it gets, the more likely you are to exclude
| people that it just _sounds_ like a good idea to exclude.
| The issue, of course, is that this leads to a world where
| your child gets excluded from playgrounds and theme parks
| because you had the wrong opinion on the Internet back in
| your 20s. Maybe you were too woke, or maybe you weren't
| woke enough. We'd all be happy to forget about it after a
| few years, except that facial recognition databases won't
| let you forget about it until the day you and all your
| progeny have died.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| But he isn't, though?
|
| 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.
| FateOfNations wrote:
| > This is a specific person who is a lawyer for a firm
| which is actively working against MSG
|
| Has there been allegations that the firm or its
| partners/employees have acted maliciously with respect to
| MSG, or are they just representing a client within the
| standard scope of practice for the legal profession?
| theLiminator wrote:
| Imo it's fine if they can explain why and they're not
| discriminating against a protected class (or one that should
| morally be protected).
|
| 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.
| baandang wrote:
| I just picture someone worrying about people dialing phone
| numbers while driving in the car in 1990? What a stupid thing
| to worry about since obviously the cord won't be long enough.
|
| 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!
| pixl97 wrote:
| While I'm not sure of the historical accuracy of the
| following article, well, many people should have realized
| that by the 90s.
|
| https://thenewswheel.com/history-of-the-car-phone/
| scintill76 wrote:
| Reminiscent of how things like license plate readers are
| legal, but maybe only because the legislators didn't imagine
| a day when every person could be surveilled constantly,
| retroactively, everywhere.
| xwdv wrote:
| It has not transformed into a different thing. It is the same
| thing it was before. A person can deny someone access to
| their private property. The law is not "A person can deny
| people access to their private property but only in slow
| inefficient ways..."
|
| 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.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You can't be against cancel culture but for all the tools
| that allow its implementation.
|
| In most civilized countries including the US you couldn't
| put up a sign that said straight white males only. In the
| US you cannot discriminate based on protected classes
| including not not limited to Race, Religious belief,
| National origin, Age, Sex.
|
| Ability to recognize and ban people at scale is absolutely
| a game changer whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
| It is not remotely "the same thing" because it allows
| previously impossible consequences and failure modes. You
| are thinking too small if you are considering only this
| silly show. This kind of feature is in many cases in theory
| commendable and logical but equally problematic.
|
| Consider shoplifters an odious bunch if there ever was one.
| Were I a shopkeeper I would certainly want to keep a fellow
| that ran out with some goods from coming back and its only
| friendly to share such a naughty list with my fellows.
| Steal from one and find yourself unwanted all over town.
| What could go wrong?
|
| What if I DID pay for the goods but I was incorrectly
| flagged? For instance came back in with my just paid for
| goods to get something I forgot and went out a different
| exit.
|
| What if said flagged person now cannot reasonably obtain
| food or other critical resources? For instance more than a
| few private enterprise operate public transit resources and
| a huge portion of the US has exactly one ISP. For instance
| I work for one ISP and utilize another. If they banned
| people who work for the competition I would literally have
| to move.
|
| What if the person did wrong 10 years ago and has turned
| their life around since? Computers never forget and
| communicate across jurisdictions.
|
| What if flagging is used not to punish actual criminals but
| merely those we disagree with politically?
|
| What if its used to punish those who write negative reviews
| or do too many returns. Statistically if our supply chain
| has a certain amount of broken trash and we serve millions
| of people a certain number are going to get a much higher
| than average number of broken things or have more than
| average bad experiences.
|
| I for one have seen both return fraud and plenty of people
| who cause their own problems and then complain endlessly.
| Were I to operate a business I would kill for a way to
| eliminate such worthless customers. What about the
| collateral damage of those legitimately wronged?
|
| Looking at your profile you complain about "cancel culture"
| but seem oblivious to the fact that cancellation is
| implemented either directly as a million decisions about
| one's own personal property OR preemptively based on
| vendors who are acting to protect themselves from those
| same decisions. What you are arguing for is the method for
| cancel culture to explode in the public sphere.
|
| Do you really want to worry about writing an honest
| negative review, being mistaken for someone else, saying
| something controversial on the internet, revealing yourself
| as part of a group disliked by some, or subject to a
| database error and find yourself banned all over town? Do
| you want to talk to a drone who tells you the computer told
| him you can't come in and he can't fix it but you can talk
| to his equally useless manager who will tell you the same
| thing?
|
| Here's a laugh for you. Lets suppose I took your comment
| wrong and decided your bit about straight white males was
| an indication of homophobia. I make no such implication
| herein but suppose I did and added you to a bigot list that
| was ultimately picked up not by a single bad list but a web
| of bad lists as maintained by multiple people who pick up
| and push their lists to other more pervasive lists like
| adblock lists.
|
| You find shortly that you can neither buy a loaf of bread
| nor get a sandwich down the street from your house anymore
| because we have collectively decided that our "cool private
| property" is not for you. You find a way to get off one
| list 3 steps removed from the genesis of your discontent
| but are re-added later courtesy of a different list. Nobody
| will tell you why you are on their list nor even if you are
| they just tell you that you aren't welcome. You spend the
| next 5 years chasing ghosts never figuring out that a
| single post on hacker news is why you can't get that job
| you wanted.
|
| Again you can't be against cancel culture but for all the
| tools that allow its implementation.
| briffle wrote:
| I can't help but wonder how they got the pictures of all the
| employees from this law firm? Perhaps headshots on the 'about
| us' section of the web site? I can't wait to see yet more
| legal disclaimers added to everything...
| teepo wrote:
| My guess is they used something like LinkedIN Sales
| Navigator to feed the MSG "no fly" list.
| vleon42 wrote:
| Thanks, makes a lot of sense
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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.
| advisedwang wrote:
| It matters because of scale. Our current laws and social
| norms are based on a world where it's not feasible to check
| against a list of 1,000,000 disallowed people. Technology
| now allows this, and we should re-assess whether our laws
| and norms should change with this new reality.
|
| Obviously I think we should add some new checks. Perhaps
| every blocklist should be transparent and have an appeals
| process. Or maybe blacklisting should be time-limited. Or
| maybe expand the list of protected classes.
| chucksmash wrote:
| > Who cares what technology they use?
|
| As you say, they could accomplish the same thing by
| checking IDs at the door. Given the choice, I'd personally
| prefer an explicit ID check that I know is happening and is
| inconvenient for everybody rather than one that leaves me
| oblivious to the fact I'm being tracked and researched.
| thih9 wrote:
| > They could also check ids at the door and cross-reference
| their naughty list.
|
| They couldn't, it seems impractical for an event of that
| scale.
|
| Plus, it's easier to bypass a door check or even convince
| the person doing the check to let you in.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| This is in fact more practical than setting up face
| detection system, all you need to do is ID scanner and
| some simple OCR system to cross check the name on ID
| against blacklist, each person entering slaps ID against
| scanners (similar to how you do it with boarding passes
| at the airport or with public transit passes at gates),
| after one second either red or green light flashes.
| Shouldn't take more than 5 seconds per person.
| strix_varius wrote:
| Here's how we know this isn't true: they evaluated how to
| do this at scale, chose facial recognition, and then
| implemented it successfully in a 6,000 person stadium.
| bonzini wrote:
| Not because it's impractical to check IDs, but because
| facial recognition is less explicit and thus more easily
| "normalized".
| theironhammer wrote:
| lovich wrote:
| >Who cares what technology they use?
|
| A quantitative difference can create a qualitative
| difference. See all the discussions around cops tailing
| people in public when the laws were set during a time where
| that involved an actual officer following them the entire
| time, vs tossing a $20 dollar gps module on their car and
| being able to track the person at will
| hnlmorg wrote:
| Agreed. For me, the issue is that this restriction is
| upheld at point of entry and not point of sale.
|
| I get it's a harder problem to restrict who tickets are
| sold to, but if a venue like that wants to get petty about
| who can attend their shows then the responsibility is on
| them to communicate that before the event.
|
| To flip this another way, in any other normal circumstance,
| when you get banned from a venue you'd get a very clear
| communication telling you so. There is no ambiguity, you
| know you're banned. Yet here the venue is still happy to
| take peoples money but doesn't want to admit them. They're
| basically having the best of both worlds.
| teepo wrote:
| A theater ticket is not like booking with an airline. The
| venue doesn't assign a validated name to each seat. In
| this case it was likely one name for the entire batch of
| tickets in their group.
| monksy wrote:
| They're sold as non-refundable.* (Non-refundable by the
| buyer's request.. yes you can kind of take it to the
| resell market.. but now that's being invaded by the
| people who sold the ticket)
| baandang wrote:
| Yea how stupid.
|
| Everyone in this thread has already recognized how many
| faces so far today with their eyes and nothing blew up?
|
| Look at the personal computer? It is just a better place
| to hold your recipes. We basically live in 1980 + having
| a more efficient way to hold your cookie recipes instead
| of in cumbersome recipe books.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| It's not that simple. Scale and ease of use matters. That
| is why when the government attempted to cross-reference
| the various administrative (mostly paper) files in a
| single database, around a single social security number,
| using a computer, it caused a huge scandal, the project
| was abandoned, and an independent regulatory agency was
| created in order to prevent something like this from
| happening again (and also deal with other data privacy
| issues).
| alwa wrote:
| To be fair, in the article, the venue management claims
| to have told the law firms involved about the ban well
| ahead of time:
|
| "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.
|
| Whether or not that notice was in fact adequate, it seems
| like they're at least sensitive to giving the impression
| that they communicated the ban very clearly ahead of
| time.
| tedunangst wrote:
| I'm not sure why everyone is assuming she was denied a
| refund.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Well, I'm sure she was refunded or that would be another
| part of the suit.
|
| Now, look at these 2 situations.
|
| "Hello, I see you are buying this ticket, but since we're
| not going to let you enter we will prevent you from
| buying it"
|
| is much different from.
|
| "Hello, I see you got a baby sitter and took an uber to
| come down here and now we're refusing you access to a
| place you had a ticket for, on a reason you could not
| have possibly predicted"
|
| There is an accrual of many other costs on the second one
| that are not refunded.
| briffle wrote:
| Of course, there is also the fact she entered as a group
| (girl scouts) and most likely was not the purchaser. To
| get group rates, many venues make you purchase all the
| tickets by one person.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| > we're refusing you access to a place you had a ticket
| for, on a reason you could not have possibly predicted"
|
| MSG claims to have notified the company twice.
| nulbyte wrote:
| Given the power imbalance here, I'm inclined to side with
| the individual refused entry. MSG can claim whatever they
| like. They refused access to an event open to the public
| to someone who was apparently unaware of their policy. It
| could easily have been that MSG communicated their intent
| poorly or not at all. It could also be that the law firm
| ignored them.
|
| What MSG did was petty and doesn't make only them look
| bad. Given how iconic they are, to me, they make New York
| City look bad.
|
| I'm not sure I'd ever want to visit MSG. I work for a
| well known subsidiary of a well know NYC-based company.
| Who knows, maybe I'll be on the list one day! I see
| something like this in the news and think I'm not missing
| much having never been to NYC. Clearly, MSG hasn't
| thought through the optics of this. Or, if they did, they
| think they're too big to need to care. I hope they have
| another think coming.
| wanderer2323 wrote:
| They won't be able to refund her missing out on spending
| time with her kid.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology
| is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale
|
| 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?
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Why wouldn't it ? Speeding tickets being an obvious
| example.
|
| The 1974 SAFARI scandal seems to be quite relevant here too
| :
|
| https://www-lemonde-
| fr.translate.goog/blog/bugbrother/2010/1...
| himinlomax wrote:
| Another take: personal information is valuable, it belongs to
| the individual concerned with some fair use exceptions, making
| electronic files with said personal information in a way that
| obviously harms the individuals concerned infringes on their
| most personal intellectual property and is not fair use.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Facts however are not generally protected though which is
| what most of this is about. That's why map makers include
| non-existent cities so there's something other than just
| facts involved in their product.
| himinlomax wrote:
| Depends on the jurisdiction. Facts that happen to be
| personal information are very much protected in the EU.
| cortesoft wrote:
| In the US, at least, there are restrictions on 3. You can't
| deny entry to black people, for example, just because you don't
| like black people.
| btilly wrote:
| The restrictions in question come from the Civil Rights Act.
| Which sets a bunch of protected classes, including race,
| color, religion, sex and national origin.
|
| 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.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>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.
|
| I know more than a few MD's that refuse to see lawyers as
| patients - can't say I blame them.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| You can, however, deny employment to Dalits, and Oracle
| argues that it's Just Fine because there's no law.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| How is that not an obvious protected class? It should
| easily fall under the national origin qualifications.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > It should easily fall under the national origin
| qualifications.
|
| How? Dalits aren't from Dalitland.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _How is that not an obvious protected class?_
|
| Basically because it wasn't on the radar of American
| legislators when they wrote up the lists of protected
| classes.
| btilly wrote:
| I would think race fits better.
|
| But we'll just have to watch cases like
| https://thewire.in/caste/cisco-case-caste-discrimination-
| sil... to see whether the courts agree with us that caste
| discrimination should be illegal in America. (And if the
| courts disagree, time to lobby the politicians...)
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| A reminder : still using "race" like it's still the 18th
| century (up to the 1950s?) and like it's still a valid
| scientific concept effectively makes the US government a
| promoter of racism :
|
| https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.asp
| x?I...
|
| The postmodern term is "ethnicity" (which does get
| mentioned in your article), with the understanding that
| it's overwhelmingly about culture, and while genetics do
| matter in very specific cases (like for lactose
| tolerance), typically they matter very little, and your
| ethnicity is something that you can _change_ (though it
| gets ever harder after your teenage years).
|
| P.S.: I really don't know enough about "caste" and its
| history to comment on that, though the ancestry issue
| doesn't look good.
|
| (One thing that has been bugging me for a while is how
| the number of our ancestors grows exponentially with each
| generation - at least before inbreeding starts to
| dominate - which seems like any of those ancestry-based
| discriminations are just arbitrarily stopping at some
| convenient for them point/in complete coverage, and can
| basically make up excuses about discriminating against
| you or not. But I guess that I shouldn't be surprised
| about it when totalitarian regimes do it : the fear of
| the arbitrary is a powerful weapon they have, and so it's
| likely on purpose !)
| josephcsible wrote:
| IMO, your right to deny people entry to your private property
| should end once you take their money for tickets to enter.
| After all, it's not like she bought her ticket under a fake
| name.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| This is an important distinction with "deny access to
| business". They already took her money, now they're denying
| their end of the contract.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| What if you didn't take their money and they bought a ticket
| via 3rd party, as is often the case?
| josephcsible wrote:
| Then you should have required the 3rd party to provide a
| list of names at the time of purchase.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Change "dislike" to "actively works against you".
| pixl97 wrote:
| Eh, I take that as a very bad take.
|
| 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.
| TomK32 wrote:
| But, even if she did work on cases again the company, would
| attending an event have to do anything with the court
| disputes?
| guerrilla wrote:
| This is less of a problem if when public places aren't private
| property, but we still have the second part of the problem: can
| one be forced to do business with someone one doesn't want to.
| It seems like in this case, she was already sold a ticket, so
| that seems to be a moot point on this particular case.
| tootie wrote:
| Honestly I think the biggest free speech issue is their grounds
| for excluding her. And perhaps a violation of the 4th amendment
| too. Not because of cataloging her face but by abusing their
| authority to retaliate against people for exercising due
| process. What if law firms struggle to hire for fear of being
| blacklisted for indirectly participating in lawsuits? It will
| make it that much harder to seek redress in courts.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| Your premise is a little off. This is not exactly private
| property, but a public accommodation (https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U.... That is why MSG likely
| has to meet ADA accessibility construction standards, among
| other things. Different laws apply when you invite the general
| public into your property.
|
| 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. SS2000a 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.
| worik wrote:
| > 1. I, as an individual, am allowed to deny entry to persons I
| dislike from my private property.
|
| 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.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| They shouldn't have taken legal obligations to do otherwise,
| i.e. they shouldn't have sold the ticket and shouldn't have
| applied for liquor permit.
|
| "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.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Given she was there with a Girl Scouts troop she probably
| hadn't given her name to MSG and the tickets were probably
| bought as a large group. Also do we know if they refunded the
| ticket I don't remember seeing that said either way when I
| read it.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| Tough shit. People can resell things they own, like for
| example tickets, so assuming she and her daughter obtained
| tickets legally (directly or indirectly, I have no reason
| to doubt they did, though I don't know for sure), by that
| act she was already given explicit permission to enter the
| venue and remain there for the duration of event.
|
| If they don't like it, they can sell named tickets, and BTW
| since Girl Scouts are known for being vicious hooligans,
| maybe they should have instituted football-like regime up
| to and including stadium bans for their mothers.
| rapht wrote:
| Your private property is what it is, private.
|
| 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.
| dehrmann wrote:
| The less dramatic version of 2 is a bouncer saying "no, you're
| friends with Bob, and Bob always causes trouble."
| CaptainZapp wrote:
| Except that you're not standing in the queue to be processed
| by the bouncer, but you have a valid ticket, which they sold
| to you.
| Zak wrote:
| Venues should be required to refund tickets if a person is
| denied entry provided they weren't previously told they
| were banned from the venue.
| josephcsible wrote:
| If you buy a ticket, you can't just unilaterally decide
| that you don't feel like going after all and get a
| refund. Why should the seller get to do the equivalent?
| JackFr wrote:
| The law firm were notified prior (2x) that employees
| would not be allowed entry to MSG. Having been so warned,
| she bought a ticket and tried to go.
|
| After having been warned and then being prevented from
| going in, her response is to sue them again.
| duped wrote:
| It wasn't entry to MSG, but entry to radio city music
| hall which is owned by MSG. It's not clear how obvious
| the warning was.
| Zak wrote:
| I don't think notifying her firm is good enough. She
| should have to be notified individually, directly, and
| provably for them to get out of refunding the ticket.
| tqi wrote:
| I think if a business is the beneficiary of a number of public
| subsidizes and allowances, then they lose a lot of that
| discretion.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _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._
| DaveExeter wrote:
| >you cannot "deny entry to persons [you] dislike."
|
| 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!
| einherjae wrote:
| Apparently you do, if the liquor license you agreed to
| requires it.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > being a lawyer
|
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| Which is pretty unfavourable for the world.
|
| Any other occupation isn't allowed to use their occupation
| to retaliate
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Any other occupation isn 't allowed to use their
| occupation to retaliate_
|
| Sure they do. It happens all the time. Politicians do it.
| Food service workers. Tradesmen.
|
| One place I worked pissed of a local plumber's union, and
| guess what -- a week later the city condemned the sewer
| pipe leaving the building. Once we made up with the
| union, the city magically changed its mind.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| She's not illegally "retaliating". MSG wants to ban her
| so they must forfeit the liquor license. She is pointing
| out the rules of a license that MSG is violating. What's
| wrong with that? MSG could forfeit it and keep her banned
| and all is square.
| pavon wrote:
| If the liquor license really limits who can be denied
| service, then I don't consider this to be retaliation.
|
| By analogy, if a lawyer is denied entry because they are
| black and they sue, that isn't retaliation it is just
| requiring the business to follow the law. If a lawyer is
| denied entry for some legitimate reason (say drunk and
| belligerent), and they dig up some other unrelated
| offense to sue about (while ignoring the hundreds of
| other establishments with the same minor offense), then
| that is retaliation.
| kstrauser wrote:
| #4 could (and almost certainly would) be used for broadly awful
| reasons. For example, "I'm not discriminating against
| minorities! I just don't want to serve anyone who's worked in a
| chicken processing plant."
| Waterluvian wrote:
| With the merge being approved, there were now only four
| Corporations. Sure, there were many off-world Corps, but they
| didn't have any meaningful affiliations and were really just a
| novelty for Roamers. Everyone, from birth, was employed by a
| Corp. Mind you, employment doesn't endow a title, salary,
| benefits, or duties. It just meant you were permitted access the
| various amenities it provided: transportation, tech, telcoms,
| housing, food, water, and of course, a social access permit.
|
| 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.
| gabythenerd wrote:
| Sounds like the worldbuilding behind Cyberpunk 2077, it has
| major corpos and finding yourself among the unemployed leaves
| you in very bad shape.
| rocketbop wrote:
| William Gibson?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Just "inspired" by the article and the potential implications
| of companies buying companies and finding yourself no-longer
| permitted in some establishment.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| Yesterday's Dolan Family Drama:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34044818#34060122
| plusminusplus wrote:
| _" we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an
| inherently adverse environment"_
|
| 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?
| ezfe wrote:
| I mean, I think it's standard operating procedure not to allow
| any interaction except through proper channels when there's
| litigation involved, and they can apply this here.
|
| 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
| dehrmann wrote:
| 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.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The problem _is_ that her eviction has no case, so might as
| well weaponize the liquor license to arrive at a similar
| outcome. They got Capone on tax evasion. Picking a fight with
| sophisticated legal practitioners seems...poorly thought out?
|
| 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.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| 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.
| gregors wrote:
| When you say "can bar anyone from their premises for any
| reason" I don't think you've fully thought that out. Can I
| ban you from attending based on race? That answer is no, I
| cannot. Why? Because that is a protected status. The Civil
| Rights Act of 1964 is a good thing.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Banning someone because they're part of a protected class
| is typically the only exception, and not applicable here.
| mission_failed wrote:
| Given that a small number of companies are concentrating
| ownership of businesses, there really should be
| legislation that restricts their ability to 'ban' people.
|
| Australia has 2 main supermarket chains, and they also
| own numerous other stores/brands. If one decided to ban
| you from every store it makes it very hard to shop for
| food.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > 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.
| treis wrote:
| James Dolan, as any Knicks fan will tell you, is a gigantic
| idiot. He's CEO of his daddy's company and basically sucks
| at everything he does.
| tqi wrote:
| Yeah this seems like a Dolan special: petty, poorly
| thought out, and potentially costly.
| robocat wrote:
| James' name showed up in the comments yesterday because
| he is CEO of AMC:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496
| baxtr wrote:
| She wasn't allowed to a show because she is working as a lawyer.
|
| _> 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._
| gonzo wrote:
| "You have zero privacy anyway, get over it." -- Scott McNealy,
| then CEO of Sun, Jan 1999
| happytoexplain wrote:
| >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 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.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Jumping from "attorneys pursuing active litigation" to anyone
| working with such persons, and from "litigation against the
| Company" to "any ongoing litigation against subsidiaries
| despite date of purchase or litigation" makes it far from
| clear. Also selling the ticket despite such a "straightforward
| policy" seems like it may bring up a tricky contract issue.
| kuschku wrote:
| It becomes a social dystopia when it's not just "you're banned
| from places you're suing" but "you're banned from places in
| half the country because they're all actually just owned by the
| same company"
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > While it's reasonable to disagree with this policy, it's not
| really related to _social dystopia_ [...] While it's reasonable
| to disagree with this policy, it's not really related to social
| politics, 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
|
| 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.
| _boffin_ wrote:
| Question: if she purchased the ticket under her own name and she
| held a valid ticket upon entry to the venue, would it be fraud if
| one doesn't get access to the event? Even more so if she doesn't
| get a full refund?
|
| 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.
| creaghpatr wrote:
| Guessing their on-site security stack must not be integrated
| with their transaction platform. Or someone else could have
| paid for the tickets.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| Yet the audience of hacker news typically leans on hating any
| sense of ethics in AI (check my recent comment history). This is
| a problem. We need to take ethics in AI seriously.
| irrational wrote:
| > It's un-American to do this.
|
| This seems like a very American thing to do all of this. The
| lawsuit, the facial recognition, the counter lawsuit. So very
| American.
| [deleted]
| rrdharan wrote:
| Actually it sounds very European to me - banning known
| hooligans from soccer stadiums?
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/soccer-world-cup-biometric-surve...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15435620/champions-league...
| _visgean wrote:
| they are banning them because they have already caused
| trouble in similar situation. This is very different, she is
| being banned even though there is no indication that she
| would be security threat.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| You don't need any facial recognition for that, just get
| their ID to check if they are not banned while selling them
| tickets.
| bmelton wrote:
| Tickets are transferable. Not-banned persons can give them
| to banned persons.
| xeromal wrote:
| Seems pretty weird to require IDs for a simple ticket to a
| show.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| We're talking about football games, not a show in this
| subthread.
| xeromal wrote:
| They're all the same to me. Entertainment.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Not really, risk profile is totally different between
| football game and opera.
| brezelgoring wrote:
| Anecdotal but having visited a few countries that have
| national IDs, they use them with just about anything
| worth having. Tickets, SIM cards, Service Agreements, you
| name it.
|
| I live in Uruguay and you need to use your ID very often
| when doing commercial stuff.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. Last
| thing we need here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| tedd4u wrote:
| How do you suppose they got her photo (and associated it with her
| identity)? Is there someone at MSG (or their facial recognition
| vendor) whose job it is to look her up on Facebook (Or her
| employer's "about" page)?
| unreal37 wrote:
| Probably she is associated with that firm on LinkedIn... It's
| not easy to imagine how someone gets a database of photos of
| employees of a law firm.
|
| I'd bet she self-identified as being an employee and posted to
| social media about it.
| lavishlatern wrote:
| Common practice for the websites of law firms (and some other
| fields like private equity) to have the headshots of all
| employees on their website with job title and description in a
| nice table.
|
| Example of a different firm where you can even filter by
| school: https://www.wlrk.com/attorneys/?asf_l=View%20All
| [deleted]
| pfoof wrote:
| So they discriminated a lawyer to not get sued? Doesn't that
| sound like they just jumped into an anthill?
| methodover wrote:
| Dystopian SaaS idea: Integrate facial recognition and Yelp
| reviews. If someone shows up who gave you a negative review, send
| a text to staff and/or deny sale at POS.
|
| Please, no one make this.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| A lawyer was banned from seeing a popular show for reasons
| entirely unrelated to physical safety, with an FR twist. She then
| hit back at their liquor license. Who's got popcorn??
| tyingq wrote:
| The hit back at the liquor license (which apparently requires
| admitting the general public, with only very specific
| exceptions) sounded pretty clever to me.
| nemacol wrote:
| Clever but a clear sign that we have no protections on the
| books for anything like this.
|
| That someone needs to resort to clever liquor license dispute
| adds to the dystopian feel of this story.
| rexpop wrote:
| It's a hack in a domain in which I am not a hacker! Makes me
| feel vulnerable.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Yes, people in a vulnerable position routinely get hurt and
| just about every citizen is vulnerable to multiple
| someones.
|
| It's unfortunate that certain professions have extremely
| high walls around them: police, doctors, lawyers, even
| certain elected officials and select other professions are
| very hard to displace, while their position grants them
| very easy tools to displace, manipulate, or harm others.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Hence the popcorn!
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| The woman's law firm is in active litigation with MSG
| Entertainment. She knows she's not allowed on the premises
| while the lawsuits are unresolved. They saw her and kicked her
| out.
|
| 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.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| Sure we can take that matter of fact approach, and she
| accepts. However MSG is now not allowed to have a liquor
| license as a matter of fact.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Nah MSG is still allowed to sell alcohol. But this woman is
| not allowed on the premises.
| gpvos wrote:
| For now, yes. But they'll have to stop selling alcohol
| soon.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| So I get that this is true, but I don't understand why people
| are being so "Bob's your uncle" about it. I get that it's a
| policy but why do so many act like it doesn't deserve
| criticism?
| gpvos wrote:
| FR = ?
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| Facial Recognition
| defen wrote:
| Radio City Music Hall is a private venue, they can ban or exclude
| anyone they want, as long as it's not due to membership in a
| protected class. You don't have a right to attend a Rockettes
| show, and if she doesn't like this policy she can start her own
| Christmas Spectacular show.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Why are you working against your own interest?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Working against one's own interest because one believes in a
| higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call "being
| principled".
| guerrilla wrote:
| 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.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| 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.
| fullshark wrote:
| 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).
| RC_ITR wrote:
| 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.
| fullshark wrote:
| 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.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| But treating the law as ironclad and immutable to the
| detriment of practical outcomes is just as bad. Therein
| lies the tension of civilization that must be kept in
| balance.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >state should in general not compel individuals (or
| businesses) to do things they don't want to do.
|
| This is a very easy thing to say as a member of majority
| groups, but American (and South African and European,
| and...) history has shown that this attitude leads to
| some of the most grotesque outcomes in history.
|
| And where does it end? Should subsidies and variable tax
| rates be illegal (hope you're not a member of a church or
| a supporter of the arts!)? Those are control mechanisms
| the government uses to influence behaviors.
|
| Should federal employment be illegal? I don't think most
| Soldiers would risk their lives if not for the
| paycheck/benefits.
|
| Is the problem only with mandates?
| BizarroLand wrote:
| "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"
|
| That's not what happened though. They sold admission to a
| person and then rejected it because that person works for
| a firm that has an open case against another company that
| they're conglomerated with.
|
| It smells like retaliation to me, but I guess it will
| come down to what the courts decide.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Working against one's own interest because one believes
| in a higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call
| "being principled".
|
| It can be a good thing while we regularly and objectively
| evaluate a principle's worth. We humans have a history of
| allowing principles to obtain rigidity and the diminished
| outcomes that follow. We also tend to allow principle creep
| w/o sufficient examination.
| guerrilla wrote:
| -
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I assume because GP is at a point where they can use and
| value a principle but have not yet realized that (to
| remain beneficial) principles need rigorous reevaluation
| and updating.
| ProAm wrote:
| Except for the state provided liquor license they have that
| dictates differently.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| While in principle I'm inclined to agree, I'm not sure I want
| to live in a world where you might get yanked from a business
| after paying for entry because your employer is deemed to be
| adversarial. This has a nasty tinge of a cyberpunk dystopia. It
| fells at best illiberal, in the classical sense it like a kind
| of techno-mercantilism.
| Orangeair wrote:
| What really bothers me here is that the lady wasn't even
| involved in a lawsuit against Radio City Music Hall, it just
| happens to be the case that they're connected through some
| billion dollar conglomerate to the restaurant that she's
| involved in litigation with.
|
| Pissing off a mom and pop store and getting banned from that
| one location is one thing, but treading on the toe of an
| enormous corporation and being met with this just doesn't sit
| right with me.
| drewbeck wrote:
| Yeah the possible chilling effect here is terrifying tbh,
| especially with all the mergers happening. Using the courts
| to get redress is a core pillar of our world (whether it
| should be or not is another topic). Imagine if Live Nation
| had a policy that anybody who works for any firm who is
| involved in any litigation against the company (or it's
| many subsidiaries) can't attend any of their shows or go to
| any of their venues. Firms would absolutely hesitate before
| they took on any related case bc of the impact on their
| employees, functionally increasing the ability of LN to do
| more bad.
|
| It's a gross system.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Moving corporate conflict resolution out of the courts
| looks like a slope that could become quite slippery in
| the future.
| indymike wrote:
| > Radio City Music Hall is a private venue, they can ban or
| exclude anyone they want, as long as it's not due to membership
| in a protected class.
|
| 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.
| monksy wrote:
| MSG Certainly does not abide by that.("you have to let ticket
| holders in")
|
| I was banned entry [Chicago Theater] (not formally but at the
| door which was weird as that I was not trying to progress in)
| for refusing to encase my phone in the yonder pouch. Once
| denied, I requested a full refund of my ticket. I don't
| recall having the notice when I bought the ticket and the the
| ticket didn't state the phone casing. (This was chris rock)
| indymike wrote:
| They will say, so sue us, and you should.
| ipaddr wrote:
| You could have launched a lawsuit claim damages.
| xeromal wrote:
| That would probably cost them more than 80$
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Wonder if there was a way to register as future
| plaintiffs for a potential class action suit of everyone
| else who was turned away for similar reasons.
| monksy wrote:
| I would be 100% willing to be apart of this.
| monksy wrote:
| The question later was:
|
| 1. How much time would this take
|
| 2. How willing would attorneys be willing to persue this?
|
| 3. How many attorneys can you actually contact about
| this? (This deals with the entertainment industry..
| they're very well funded and very aggressive.
|
| ---- Then it came down is.. is it worth reaching out to
| the IL Attorney General about this? I didn't because I
| was exhausted by then and they probably wouldn't take it
| up due to the complexity of the transaction.
|
| This situation simply is: A third party holder of tickets
| (TM) issueing a ticket to a show venue (Chris
| Rock+MSG|Chicago Theater), rejecting entry to an
| individual (me) with a ticket, but preventing me from
| being able to honor the ticket (due to rules from the
| Chris Rock group to the venue). And the whole case
| involves a group v 1 conversation involving all parties
| except for TM.
| fullshark wrote:
| Well with advances in surveillance tech maybe we should rethink
| that general principle, as we have re: the protected class
| carve out you mention. You may be ok with this but how about
| excluding certain members due to low social credit scores? Or
| because they vote a certain way? Or because they said something
| mean on twitter about the owner? etc.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| similar to the legality of unpleasant speech .. a private
| venue does have the right to exclude because it is..
| privately owned.
|
| Instead of taking to the streets (or social media) in
| righteous anger, I suggest considering your economic support
| right now, of companies that build and operate societal
| surveillance machinery; that build and operate companies that
| rely on indentured servitude; companies that build and
| operate private shopping areas with pleasing music and eye-
| catching ads while paving the living earth and hiring private
| snoopers. worthy of scrutiny and operating widely today in
| your town, no?
| fullshark wrote:
| Data collection / sharing regulations should absolutely be
| passed in America asap. Laws re: facial recognition are
| being passed in part because it creeps us out but that's
| just the tip of the iceberg. EU is taking the lead here
| because these are American companies, but I no longer look
| at things like "right to be forgotten" or GDPR or whatever
| and scoff at those wacky Euros.
| analog31 wrote:
| It's a corporation, which blurs the notion of what it means to
| be "private." To assert its rights as a private entity, the
| venue could restructure itself as a Sole Proprietorship or
| Partnership.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's a corporation, which blurs the notion of what it means
| to be "private."
|
| Legally, under established precedent, it does not, though a
| legal doctrine that as creations of the state through law
| corporations are bound by the same due process and equal
| protection rules that would affect all other state organs
| _would_ be interesting, as would the corollary that _foreign_
| corporations, as creations of _foreign_ states, are arms of
| their governments, and that their agents, including employees
| and domestic subsidiaries and _their_ employees, are agents
| of foreign governments subject to all the rules and
| restrictions applicable thereto would be interesting.
| analog31 wrote:
| There are aspects of corporate law, such as limitation of
| liability, that correspond to no natural rights of private
| individuals. In fact, that's probably the granddaddy of all
| entitlements.
| monocasa wrote:
| I mean, taking the article at face value (which, albeit, can be
| a bit of a leap sometimes), they've had both a court order to
| stop this practice and it's out of compliance with other
| regulations to ban these individuals.
| kodyo wrote:
| Amen. Parallel industries will spring up to serve those
| disenfranchised from establishment dystopian nonsense, and the
| ongoing ideological self-segregation will accelerate.
|
| Best of all possible outcomes.
| rurp wrote:
| I wouldn't be so sure of this. There are countless examples
| of businesses applying gross discrimination practices for
| _generations_ , and only stopping when forced to by the
| government.
| kodyo wrote:
| Yep. That's the current narrative. Well done.
|
| Jim Crow laws were passed and enforced by the government.
| There are countless examples of businesses having no choice
| but to discriminate because government told them to.
|
| The government itself determined that segregation was A-OK
| as long as things were "separate but equal."
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Parallel industries are hard to spring up when, as mentioned
| elsewhere in this discussion, entrenched oligopolies like
| MSGE and Live Nation buy up all of the independent venues.
| Unchecked corporate interests are the biggest enemies to free
| market competition and capitalism.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Radio City Music Hall is a private venue, they can ban or
| exclude anyone they want
|
| I don't think anyone is arguing that this is outside of their
| legal rights.
|
| Things can be undesirable without being illegal, and just as
| MSG can legally punish this lawyer for distant connection to a
| lawsuit against them without violating the law, other people
| can note the behavior, criticize it, and even punish MSG for it
| in their business relations without violating the law.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| 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?
| defen wrote:
| > 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.
| skywal_l wrote:
| Yes, that's why every time I buy something I check the list
| of companies my employers is in litigation with. /s
| [deleted]
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Show me on the Ticketmaster website where the TOS is shown
| before purchase.
| monksy wrote:
| 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.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| nashashmi wrote:
| Her legal case:
|
| > 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.
| MBCook wrote:
| We all know how this works. It's perfectly legal until someone in
| congress is impacted, then legislation will suddenly appear about
| this "new horrible invasion of privacy".
|
| Similar to the video rental privacy act.
| monksy wrote:
| 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
| rmorey wrote:
| I've gone to several comedy shows (5 or so?) that use the Yondr
| bags, and honestly I think they're a pretty good solution. I
| think it's fair for artists and comedians to want to prevent
| filming, and the phone jail thing is quite clever, actually.
| The bags are not indestructible, it seems like a sharp pair of
| scissors or a knife would get you in. And I think the magnet
| lock is actually bypassable otherwise. It's just inconvenient
| enough that everyone pretty much just complies, while retaining
| physical possession of their phone. I kinda like the experience
| as an audience member, I think the phone thing does keep the
| audience more engaged with the show. I'm open to arguments
| against, but as it stands I find the phone jail charming
| monksy wrote:
| I fully respect your preference there. I'm also glad we can
| have a civil agreement/disagreement about this.
|
| > it seems like a sharp pair of scissors or a knife would get
| you in
|
| You have neither of those during the time of an emergency.
| They've already taken those things away at the door with the
| metal detector.
|
| They do "have an area where you can unlock it" however it's a
| restricted area.. and not much of a use during an emergency.
|
| > It's just inconvenient enough that everyone pretty much
| just complies
|
| I feel like that's why it's gotten so far as it has.
| chroma wrote:
| I guarantee that you clicked through some terms and conditions
| while buying that ticket, and it almost certainly said that
| phones weren't allowed. This is quite common at comedy shows
| because comedians develop their material over time. They don't
| want clips of jokes failing to land or being taken out of
| context, as that could hurt their career. Recording also
| emboldens hecklers, as one friend can record (or even
| livestream) while another insults the performer.
| 15155 wrote:
| How does Yondr prevent recording? Why is my phone not
| recording inside the pouch?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Back in 2017 it wasn't that common yet. I think Yondr is a
| great solution for comedians, but can also totally see that
| it wouldn't have made it into terms and conditions yet. I
| don't think you can guarantee anything in this case unless
| you have the actual T&C from that particular show.
| monksy wrote:
| I disagree with your statement about the comedians, unless
| you're talking about a full length recording that is being
| sold on. But for those people, you go after them in the
| courts for piracy after the fact.
|
| Most of the bits captured are/will be out of context and
| useless. My personal desire to "record" is short "i'm here"
| clips or pictures. (Music productions, clips, photo for the
| show) TM claimed "there was nothing extra" on the ticket.
| (I contacted them but did not try to pull a refund as that
| I know that TM is going to pull the "well this is the
| venues' issue")
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Most of the bits captured are /will be out of context
| and useless._
|
| Actual history shows the opposite. The entire reason for
| Yondr is precisely because people _were_ posting bits
| that comedians were trying out, and then people were
| jumping on "so-and-so told an offensive joke!" on
| Twitter and it becomes a whole thing. Comedians are
| terrified of getting "cancelled" because they tried
| wording their joke a different way to see what the
| audience reaction would be.
|
| If people were just recording "I'm here" clips then Yondr
| would never have existed.
| monksy wrote:
| This has been a long time ago, it's possible, I know the show
| description at the time of purchase didn't mention it, the
| ticket didn't mention it and the venue policy didn't mention
| anything about this. Ticketmaster after the fact didn't state
| there were any additional T&Cs attached to the ticket.
| slingnow wrote:
| monksy wrote:
| I was assertive and not aggressive. I tried to do friendly
| chit chat with the security guy trying to corner me against
| the wall so "I wouldn't escape into their venue". (People
| dealing with the public have very short fuses when it comes
| to non-polite language on ejecting you/banning you/etc.. I
| have no plans to giving them the ability to invoke that
| policy despite their frequent gas lighting "well this is what
| the artist demands")
|
| > unclear
|
| This about a venue's (MSG, which also runs the one that the
| Rockeets played at) overzealous and seedy decisions to deny
| entry.
| moloch-hai wrote:
| This sort of thing, everywhere, is exactly what to expect from
| "deregulation".
| pessimizer wrote:
| A venue can dictate how you dress and behave, but can't
| dictate that you not carry in a cellphone?
|
| Not clearly telling someone with anxiety that their (very
| common) safety blanket isn't allowed in the venue before they
| buy the ticket it a problem, but it's a problem with how we
| treat Terms-of-Service and EULAs that are too long and
| legalistic as binding. It's good that people can't have their
| cellphones at comedy shows.
| justanorherhack wrote:
| 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.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| An artistic show tend to have weirdly inelastic demand. If
| someone is a committed fan, they will typically pay any
| amount of money to "worship their idol" (not in a negative
| way, ritualized communal, artist performances are some of
| the earliest human traditions we have).
|
| To see a society in which very few limits were placed on
| who could see a concert, look up Metallica playing when the
| USSR fell, absolutely massive.
| notinfuriated wrote:
| I'm unclear on how this is a regulation or deregulation
| thing. There could be a regulation that specifically allows
| for _or_ denies smartphones at such events. It 's
| hypothetical at this point, so why is deregulation to blame
| in this case now?
| monksy wrote:
| You can make the claim that ADA/disability rights were
| denied by the venue. (See the bluetooth gluclose monitors
| and people are extremely fragile or blind with the use of
| aids)
|
| With regulation this a slam dunk.
|
| With deregulation- they're getting away with "per venue's
| discretion" - But I have heard of medical staff being
| rejected because they were oncall or parents who had a baby
| sitter.
| crmd wrote:
| It's only a big deal because regulators allowed companies
| like MSGE and Live Nation to buy up all the independent
| venues. No one would care if a single fascist club owner
| was terrorizing customers because the free market would
| punish him.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Presumably you could have a law saying what kinds of things
| are or aren't sufficient grounds to ban people from places.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| > Ultimately I lost that 80$
|
| Why didn't you chargeback for services not received?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The yondr device looks like it could be defeated with a magnet
| or a sharp knife.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Places that use Yondr also make you go through airport-like
| security and won't allow either of those things in.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| A magnet can be attached to your keys so it looks like a
| prox pass. No security guard is going to argue about the
| contents of your keyring.
|
| I've had success with keeping (small) pocket knives on me.
| Those metal detectors are almost always badly tuned since
| false alarms are disruptive. I used to consider getting
| some kind of fancy thermoplastic pocket knife but frankly
| any cheap small knife works.
| namuol wrote:
| Yeesh. This whole thing sounds like some gross
| commercialization of a problem blown out of proportion, that
| doesn't really work, hurts honest customers, and only gets
| enforced due to some sunk cost fallacy going on in the minds of
| the venues/entertainers that were duped into using this
| "product" by the IP attorneys that are throwing bad ideas out
| there to justify the size of their salaries. I have no doubt
| the same sort of thing is going on with the linked article,
| only it's a different branch of the legal team involved this
| time.
| raldi wrote:
| 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...?
| vidanay wrote:
| My guess would be "no phone allowed."
|
| (Specifically, no video recording allowed, but most
| enforcement is too stupid so they have a blanket
| restriction.)
| monocasa wrote:
| There's also a 'I as the artist don't like to see the
| audience on their phone' component a lot of the time as
| well.
| monksy wrote:
| There are a lot of claims here. Their offical statements
| are:
|
| 1. They don't want their show recorded.
|
| 2. They don't want their show "leaking" on the internet
| ("loss of ticket sells")
|
| 3. People using their phones "ruin the experience"
|
| Realistically it's due to:
|
| 1. They say libalious things. (Aka Hanable Burris talking
| about Cosby before formal conversations were had) Also,
| they say things that upset groups of people who try to
| "boycott." Aka Louie and the Parkland shooting
| joke./"Cancelled"
|
| 2. They are pissy about bad recordings going up on the
| internet and being caught behaving badly.
| (https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/dave-
| chappelle-fan...)
|
| 3. It's there to protect notorious joke stealers from
| being caught in the act.
| monksy wrote:
| Nearly all of the shows I've been to have "no recording
| requests"/rules etc.
|
| Most of the time who gets caught are the ones that bring a
| full video camera. (Poor Rammstein requests no filming but
| people have their phones out the whole time.. comes with a
| big show)
|
| This is an extra enforcement deal I'm referring to.
| monocasa wrote:
| The yondr bags are sealed faraday cages to keep you from
| recording the show or being on your phone.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Reading about those... They basically lock away your phone
| and they don't give you the key.
|
| Not quite as bad as chaining people in their apartment
| buildings to keep COVID-19 quarantines, but it certainly
| would be reason enough for me to avoid a venue.
| filoleg wrote:
| They don't quite lock it away. They give you a special
| pouch that locks, you put your phone in that pouch, lock
| it, and then they unlock it for you at the end of the
| show. Your phone doesn't leave you at any point.
|
| Not trying to argue for or against that policy. But
| comparing it even remotely to the COVID situation you are
| describing (that is currently happening in a certain
| country) is about as self-aggrandizing and out of touch
| as it can get.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| If the pouches had a tamper evident tool-less ripcord to
| open it in the event of an emergency, I think that would
| resolve the concerns about a Bataclan scenario.
| monksy wrote:
| I'd never thought of that. I would have accepted that
| situation if it had a rip cord and not had been happy
| about the requirement. However, I'm very confident that
| it'll never happen as that people will pull the rip cord
| to record. (Heck I would probably obey the rules and pull
| the ripcord right before handing back the case to remove
| the phone)
| andybak wrote:
| Yeah. I've never heard of this and "phoneless/phone encasing"
| isn't returning much.
|
| GP - what?
| sunsunsunsun wrote:
| Not OP but there are a few performers who like to either
| confescate phones or place them in locked baggies to stop
| the people who hold their phone in the air filming a video
| nobody will ever watch.
|
| In theory I like the idea but in practice I agree with OP.
| monksy wrote:
| > to stop the people who hold their phone in the air
| filming a video nobody will ever watch.
|
| This is the statement that I want to go up to you in
| person physically grab you, shake you and tell you I love
| you for making that statement. It's frustrating to be
| gaslit by artist claiming that a youtube reproduction of
| their concert/show is going to cause a justifiable loss
| of future revenue. Looking back at the Rammstein stiched
| concerts only makes me want to go more.
| monksy wrote:
| Look up "phone free" and you'll find the references. What
| it is: It's a strong fabric case that locks you out of your
| phone with a very strong magnet.(defaces the object you
| have) This prevents you from answering the phone, making
| calls, using the camera etc. Have a medical/police/medical-
| staff being called back emergency? Good luck buddy, no one
| cares about this.
|
| The company who is doing this is Yondr. They've been doing
| this for years. They've been doing this with musicians,
| comedians, courtrooms, and even at schools. I'm amazed that
| they have been getting away with this for so long.
|
| Yondr has had a lot of astroturfing over the years so it's
| harder to find the people who have had a bad experience
| over the years. You'll see non-normally participating
| people pop up in every comment section that mentions the
| phone ban: "well i like that everyone isn't on their phone"
| etc. Also, you'll see near promo news pieces on this.
| Additionally there has been no public comment with this
| that I know of, which is super auspicious from the US or
| Europe. (Just did the research Placebo and Bono have
| enforced this in Paris.. a bit brave considering the
| bataclan)
|
| EDIT: Dang, yes I said the a word (ends with turfing), this
| is not a statement thats happening here.
| progman32 wrote:
| If a venue insists on treating me like guilty-until-
| proven-innocent cattle, I will not go. I can't be alone
| in this sentiment.
|
| A friend of mine uses their phone to run an insulin pump.
| Are there suitable exceptions? How about doctors which
| may have obligations to their patient's calls?
| filoleg wrote:
| Never seen it happen at concerts, but it happens more often
| than not at standup comedy shows.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Credit card chargeback.
| monksy wrote:
| That would have invalidated my other tickets held by
| Ticketmaster. I think I held a Metallica ticket at the time.
| (Metallica let me into solder field with a Lecia Lumix LX10)
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Funny about Metallica. They went from being one of the lead
| crusaders that brought Napster down, to now releasing their
| new music with no restrictions, and allowing filming at
| their concerts, because they have realized that on balance
| they are gaining more from the publicity than they lose on
| music sales.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Then charge those back as well and bad mouth all those
| bands.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Plus you'd probably never be able to go to any show that
| Ticketmaster sells tickets to for the rest of your life.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > ushers who can't get people to stop filming.
|
| 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.
| elmomle wrote:
| While I am fine with bans on phones for performances, I too
| would absolutely bristle and feel strongly inclined to
| complain if that was not made clear at the time I bought a
| ticket.
| ezfe wrote:
| If they actually kicked people out, not just say "please put
| your phone away" people would learn it's not okay. The only
| reason people do it is because they don't think they'll get
| in trouble.
| melony wrote:
| Many open source software license have an automatic revocation
| clause in the event of litigation too. Considering the viral
| nature of software libraries, that could make life very difficult
| for people too.
| jt2190 wrote:
| > 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.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| nraynaud wrote:
| can someone explain a bit the reasonning behind banning opposing
| lawyers from the defendant's venue?
|
| 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.
| monksy wrote:
| Retaliation.
| nraynaud wrote:
| I was trying to be generous and open in my question.
| himinlomax wrote:
| It's similar in purpose to sending your goons to break one of
| the lawyers' knees, and barely more ethical.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| One angle is the liquor license
|
| Another angle is their insurer
|
| Another angle is their payment processor
|
| You can likely get them back into community expectations
| monksy wrote:
| 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.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Now two law firms and the entire New York public sector cant
| get in!
| nraynaud wrote:
| So if someone sues a subsidiary of the group they are banned in
| the entire group?
|
| 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".
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I think it would be helpful in the comments to separate the issue
| of using facial recognition for public identification and entry,
| from the other issue of whether this person should have been
| allowed in regardless of the policy.
|
| 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...
| CosmicShadow wrote:
| The fucked thing about this is that as it's normalized and
| justified it allows companies and venues to start blocking people
| it doesn't like for whatever reason and essentially banishes them
| from society for life.
|
| 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.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Facial recognition by private entities used to police a public
| venue should be restricted or outlawed
| jmbwell wrote:
| Agreed, but what should we do when the "public venue" is owned
| and controlled by a private entity?
|
| The more we privatize, the more we allow to converge in the
| private hands of the wealthy few, the less recourse the
| "public" has.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| This reminds me of an incident that showed up in one of my
| college courses: A forklift driver who got fired for drinking
| Budweiser.
|
| 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.
| kiernanmcgowan wrote:
| The required brand loyalty from Miller crazy - friends who have
| worked for them will pour non-miller beverages into glassware
| so that they can't be photographed holding a competitor's
| product. This is not in public mind you, but at someone else's
| apartment and not on company time.
|
| Not sure if Budweiser / AB does the same thing back but its a
| really backwards way to run a company culture.
| tricky wrote:
| AB did this for sure before the merger. Working there during
| my prime, going-out-to-the-bars age, I was told that I should
| only buy AB products and make sure the label was turned
| outward for others to see. Thought it was weird but I only
| drink whisky so it didn't really affect me.
| panda88888 wrote:
| Also something similar. A motorcycle (scooter) company in
| Taiwan only allows their own brand motorcycle into the
| company parking lot. So if you commute with a non-company
| scooter, good luck finding parking.
| esperent wrote:
| Counterpoint to that: I've been shopping with my girlfriend
| for a new scooter for her over the past few days. We went
| to the Yamaha dealer which has limited space for parking in
| front so all the staff bikes are mixed up with the show
| bikes (it's Vietnam so 10 staff = 10 staff bikes).
|
| We got to see the Honda equivalent parked right next to the
| Yamaha we were considering (Honda Scoopy vs Yamaha Mio
| Classico) and decided it looked nicer. Didn't decide yet
| but she'll probably get the Honda.
|
| So if people are going to the building to be impressed by
| your bikes, yeah I can see that it's reasonable to avoid
| having them parked right next to your competitors bikes
| where the customers will walk past them. That counts x1000
| for the head office where the customer might be shopping
| for an entire dealership instead of just one bike.
|
| This doesn't mean it's ok to say what bikes your staff can
| drive or what beer they can drink, of course. But branding
| at your own company premises is something that you can and
| probably should control.
| whoknew1122 wrote:
| While my experience is over 15 years old now, it was a common
| practice for the majority of beer distributors at the time.
| TomK32 wrote:
| https://journaltimes.com/news/local/he-had-a-bud-light-now-h...
|
| Fired for driking Bud Light. Is that even beer I ask as a
| German...
| TheCleric wrote:
| According to German law, no. According to US law, yes.
|
| Now whether it's GOOD is a different question.
| ArnoVW wrote:
| 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
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Legally speaking, it is beer.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Says so right on the label: "Technically, beer!"
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I don't think whether or not Bud Light is beer is relevant to
| the story.
|
| And to answer your question, yes, it is beer, as defined by h
| ttps://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-I/subchapter-A..
| .
| mindslight wrote:
| It depends on how drunk the horse was.
| rexpop wrote:
| This joke is typically boring, but you've raised it to the
| height of "in poor taste" by wielding it to segue out of the
| serious subject of a man losing his job.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Got warrant?
| schwoll wrote:
| Well I'm never drinking another Miller again...
| tasubotadas wrote:
| That's another one for we-are-getting-closer-to-1984-dystopia
| bingo.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-20 23:01 UTC)