Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought this new story was interesting. A woman went with some other parents to take a group of Girl Scouts to see the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall in New York. As she entered, her face was scanned and recognized by cameras and computers, and security guards denied her entry; they let her daughter in, but the woman had to wait outside throughout the performance. The reason was that she works for a New Jersey law firm that's currently working on a case against Madison Square Garden Entertainment, which runs the Rockettes show (I don't know what MSGE's exact ownership situation is there). MSGE responded with:
"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.
The law firm has responded by challenging MSG’s license with the State Liquor Authority, claiming that they're unlawfully discriminating against members of the public. I'd like to see how this ends up.
I thought this new story was interesting. A woman went with some other parents to take a group of Girl Scouts to see the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall in New York. As she entered, her face was scanned and recognized by cameras and computers, and security guards denied her entry; they let her daughter in, but the woman had to wait outside throughout the performance. The reason was that she works for a New Jersey law firm that's currently working on a case against Madison Square Garden Entertainment, which runs the Rockettes show (I don't know what MSGE's exact ownership situation is there). MSGE responded with:
"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.
The law firm has responded by challenging MSG’s license with the State Liquor Authority, claiming that they're unlawfully discriminating against members of the public. I'd like to see how this ends up.
Years ago, it would just be pictures of banned people in the ticket office.
Not saying there aren't other privacy concerns (esp with regards to how her info was obtained)... but not exactly THAT much different. Exponentially more effective, of course.
Years ago, it would just be pictures of banned people in the ticket office.
Not saying there aren't other privacy concerns (esp with regards to how her info was obtained)... but not exactly THAT much different. Exponentially more effective, of course.
We needed that at the library. When my boss said that we should be able to recognize banned patrons on sight, I cringed, as I am not particularly good at facial recognition.
We needed that at the library. When my boss said that we should be able to recognize banned patrons on sight, I cringed, as I am not particularly good at facial recognition.
There were pictures of me at a couple or three bars where I went to college.
Remember the display of bad checks that some stores had by the cash register? I would sometimes examine it while waiting my turn. I noticed that almost all of the checks were fancy extra cost designs. Whether this is a trend, or whether few of us buy plain checks, I do not know. My bank now offers a customized check specific to the bank. I only went with it last time because it was the same price as the cheapest checks.
The threat to try to get the venue owner into trouble for invading people's privacy has been carried out, and now there's the possibility of NY state banning the practice. It's interesting to see how this technology is being used, and whether it's going to be legally accepted or not. Usually this stuff is done by police agencies, but this time it's a private entity. In cases like this it looks like petty attacks against people they consider to be enemies, but how sinister could it get?
The threat to try to get the venue owner into trouble for invading people's privacy has been carried out, and now there's the possibility of NY state banning the practice. It's interesting to see how this technology is being used, and whether it's going to be legally accepted or not. Usually this stuff is done by police agencies, but this time it's a private entity. In cases like this it looks like petty attacks against people they consider to be enemies, but how sinister could it get?
I think it needs to be pointed out that the POTENTIAL "illegality" here isn't the use of the technology. But the alleged "discrimination" being practiced.
Quote:
Banning lawyers who represent clients in litigation against the company could discourage attorneys from taking on cases, including sexual harassment or job discrimination claims against MSG.
While it does mention the "use" of this technology MAY be illegal - it's hard to tell if this is specifically stated in the warning or just the interpretation of the article's author.
Quote:
The Jan. 25 letter notes that the ban on individuals entering the buildings, as well as MSG's use of facial recognition technology to enforce it, may violate civil rights laws.
In either case - it's simply a warning that "hey, this may not be legal".
Again, at the very basic level, this isn't really much different than having security carrying pictures of folks they don't want in their establishment.
As a security/privacy professional - this is an interesting topic as the information gathered is essentially public. When you walk into an establishment, there are cameras etc. Not to mention when you are out in public, your appearance is obviously out there. And your phone number, address, etc. is certainly out there.
The key here though is that we now have technology that can correlate all this information. And how that information is used can be problematic. For examples - The collector of this info using it for their own needs (security, VIP identification, etc.) vs. selling that information for profit.
And back to the fundamentals - If you run a coffee shop, and your neighbor who is suing you walks in, should you be allowed to refuse his/her business?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
