Polychrome Dec 22, 2022
The bit about a lawyer being stopped from entering a music hall in the US because its facial recognition system picked up that she's part of a law company that's suing them is even crazier than I thought.

The law company isn't suing the music hall - it's suing a restaurant, in another state, which is owned by the hall's parent company MSG Entertainment. MSG gone ahead and harvested photos of all the lawyers in the firm and fed it to an image recognition system to ban them from every MSG Entertainment owned location.

People always tell me that if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear. She's got nothing to hide and they still went after her.

If this doesn't start making people worried about facial recognition then there's serious trouble coming.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/facial-recognition-flags-girl-scout-mom-as-security-risk-at-rockettes-show/
MSG defends using facial recognition to kick lawyer out of Rockettes show

MSG Entertainment began using facial recognition at venues in 2018.

Ars Technica
Show threadMGoCoder
@Polychrome Punitive retaliation against a lawyer for simply representing a client with a case against you should be a federal crime.
Dec 22, 2022 at 3:24amWeb
Show threadPolychrome Dec 22, 2022
@MGoCoder she's not representing the client or has anything to do with the case, she just works in the same company. They banned the entire company.
Show threadMGoCoderDec 22, 2022
@Polychrome That is even more obscene.
Show threadMatthew HardemanDec 23, 2022
@Polychrome @MGoCoder The facial recognition part is creepy, but I think they have a right to exclude people for any non-discriminatory reason they like. In fairness, if you have the ability to exclude them, you don’t want anyone from opposing counsel accessing your facilities or talking with your people outside of a formal structure.