Mastodawn

Senõr DadOps 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

Nerd That Talks Good Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome I hate this timeline.

AnaKaye 🖖🦀🛸✒️Dec 25, 2022

@JetSm00th @Polychrome so do I!

unsponsor Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome I had no idea there were still Rockettes shows

Mark Atwood Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Still working as designed.

Toxteth O'Grady Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Those MSG cowards got caught and are making excuses. I hope it destroys their business, but a shame they own the Rockettes, who will be hurt by their antics...

Gregg Prendergast Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome people warned us that the government would implement something like China social credit system but it doesn’t seem like the government does anything. this is all private sector and unaccountable to anyone.

At her same time I would like to have this ability for myself if I owned a business

Daniel Freysinger Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Between facial recognition silliness and pandemics, I am considering only going in public wearing a full air filtered face mask.

whyJoe Dec 22, 2022

@daniel @Polychrome Eek they work pretty well on a lot of face coverings. You can wear one of those crazy anti-AI patterns tho!

Scout Dec 22, 2022

@whyJoe @daniel @Polychrome Like some of these designs? https://www.businessinsider.com/clothes-accessories-that-outsmart-facial-recognition-tech-2019-10

These clothes and accessories outsmart facial recognition tech

Privacy-focused designers, academics, and activists have designed wearable accessories and clothes meant to thwart facial recognition tech.

Insider

@ScruffyJunco @whyJoe @daniel @Polychrome not sure if this still works in 2022. But camera sensors are sensitive to IR light and pretty powerful IR diodes exist.

Starred Mommy Dec 24, 2022

@whyJoe @daniel @Polychrome From what I have read, they have an insanely high false positive on POC as well. Most of the testing and development was done using white male subjects. So they still have some severe flaws that can hurt people.

whyJoe Dec 24, 2022

@star_ladywv @daniel @Polychrome Yes. Face recognition, and other AI are all basically skewed against POC. There have already been victims of false positives due to the failure of these systems to work on anyone other than white people.

@Polychrome #FacialRecognition should be banned - alongside with any #biometric #database like #fingerprints for IDs like Driving Licenses and Passports.

Bouriquet Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome It’s here. Boarding gates using instead of boarding passes or scanning your phone. Just wait until it tracks you getting on a bus or subway…and where you get off. Guess it’s not just the PRC that will be using it. And what networking shares the data with. Blade runner 2024?

ThinkingSapien Dec 22, 2022

Well, the cat is out of the bag now. Facial recognition isn't going anywhere!

Michael Gemar Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome @mattblaze On top of everything else, this seems incredibly petty — it’s not like her attendance at MSG would have helped her lawsuit. All this has done is made public this creepy behaviour.

Jonne Dec 22, 2022

@michaelgemar @Polychrome @mattblaze I mean, if it makes certain lawyers think twice from taking on cases against that huge parent company, that's a huge win for them. Imagine Ticketmaster doing the same, and forcing lawyers to choose between taking on a case against them or forgoing live entertainment for the rest of their life.

Jonne Dec 22, 2022

@michaelgemar @Polychrome @mattblaze The facial recognition part of this story is creepy on its face, but the bigger issue is that these huge corporations have been allowed to amass so much market power that they are encroaching on people's freedoms.

StillKindaHoping Dec 23, 2022

@jonne
The traditional approach for corporations is to find loopholes or inadequacies in regulations, which for technology are usually far behind what is current. If that fails you just have your CEO stand in front of a Senate interviewer and say "No, we don't do that. I'll look into it but we don't do that." #datamining #facebk #liars #askforgiveness #nahjustdoit
@michaelgemar @Polychrome @mattblaze

Jeff Craig Dec 22, 2022

@jonne @michaelgemar @Polychrome @mattblaze You don't know many lawyers do you?

Most I've ever met would just view this as fuel.

Jonne Dec 22, 2022

@foxxtrot @michaelgemar @Polychrome @mattblaze I mean, I know one. I doubt she'd risk her entire career by knowingly getting herself and everyone at her firm blacklisted to make a point. Not everyone has the stomach to be Erin Brockovich, and definitely wouldn't volunteer all their colleagues for the same treatment.

KenObee 🇦🇺 ✅Dec 22, 2022

@michaelgemar @Polychrome @mattblaze It's not even *her* lawsuit! She just works for the firm.

MGoCoder Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Punitive retaliation against a lawyer for simply representing a client with a case against you should be a federal crime.

@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.

MGoCoder Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome That is even more obscene.

Matthew Hardeman Dec 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.

Silversalty Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome
This is one of the problems for entertainers. Monopoly on venues. This seems a basis for suit, blocked from taking a child to a show.

I wonder if this was used to capture the people in Penn Station that came to the city for a planned crime.

https://abc7ny.com/antisemitism-terrorism-penn-station-weapons/12477284/

Mayor Adams says threat against NYC synagogues was not idle

Christopher Brown told investigators he has a "sick personality" and tweeted that he was going to ask a priest "if I should become a husband or shoot up a synagogue and die," according to the criminal complaint.

ABC7 New York

@Silversalty the child wasn't blocked, she ended up going inside without her mother.

Silversalty Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome
Someone else to stay with?
Still, not a valid basis for refusal. A family occasion. No danger. No threat of demonstration.

allthegoodtaken Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome @Silversalty Yes that will be improved in version 2. The whole familiy will be blocked. Guilty by association.

Bec Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome If it impedes the Law, can MSG be hauled before court for obstruction or whatever?

@beccanalia it does not impede the law, they're just banned from getting service in venues owned by MSG. MSG however is being sued by multiple law firms over this very thing - it's all in the article.

Bec Dec 22, 2022

I will be reading your article.

I was just curious if, not being able to enter MSG buildings can get in the way of lawyers doing their jobs.

@beccanalia I am not a lawyer but I imagine blocking a lawyer who is entering a building to do their job as a lawyer won't reflect well on whatever legal case the lawyer is dealing with.

Bec Dec 22, 2022

Indeed. Likewise. (Thanks.)

Matthew Hardeman Dec 23, 2022

@beccanalia @Polychrome No, if they need something officially, it will be handled inside a formal structure with depositions with counsel from both sides present. Or if it requires a site visit, that will be court sanctioned.

@mdhardeman @beccanalia she wasn't from an 'opposing counsel' tho, she just happened to work at a company that was suing a completely different business I'm another state.

Matthew Hardeman Dec 23, 2022

@Polychrome @beccanalia as in, she worked for a law firm that might be interested in having off the record conversations with people who work for the same corporate enterprise as the one they’re up against in court?

Bec Dec 23, 2022

@mdhardeman @Polychrome

No. Apparently, she isn't working on that case--that was my misunderstanding, even after reading the article. SMH

She's an attorney in a completely different city who was barred from entering a space owned by MSG b/c her company was retained by MSG's opposition.

I believe I got it right now.

Matthew Hardeman Dec 23, 2022

@beccanalia @Polychrome I understand, I’m saying why would MSG trust that someone else who works for the same firm in any capacity might not get retasked to gather information about issues at MSG or to find MSG employees and form relationships with them. They were pretty clear that all firm employees are banned for the duration of the litigation. I think that’s a bit extreme, but there is some logic behind it.

Bec Dec 23, 2022

They can be sure of no malfeasance of the opposing counsel:

1. When an attorney, MSG's counsel has to be told about it. This is done via something called a "File of Appearance."

2. If that attorney had been added to the case, she may have been barred from entering any MSG spaces. Not sure tho: #LawyerMastodon?

3. If the concern was evidence: This is referred back to the Rules of Evidence. These are federal, state, and org specific (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre)

Federal Rules of Evidence

LII / Legal Information Institute

Matthew Hardeman Dec 23, 2022

@beccanalia I’m just saying perhaps MSG wants to ensure any firm employee doesn’t incidentally stumble upon further opportunities or avenues for discovery, see things that make them want to dig into particular questions, etc. In general, self interest would advise making things as inaccessible as possible for the other side. It’s not a nice thing to do, but it probably saves money and/or effort. It likely also has a chilling effect that they consider a pleasant side-effect.

Bec Dec 23, 2022

The laws of Discovery Process seems to dictate that nothing should hinder the collection & establishing the credibility of, evidence; that nothing should be held back. That all evidence must be presented to the court and then the lawyers argue for admissibility or inadmissibility.

To withhold evidence or the pursuit of it while in litigation can be construed, I think, as Obstruction of Justice?

I depend on any lawyers who follow me to correct my mistakes. #LawMastodon?

Bec Dec 23, 2022

However, as this attorney has -NOT been added to the File of Appearance,
-is in an entirely different state, and
-is wholly unconnected with that litigation in any way, she legally is allowed to enter their building. That is nothing about HER situation that would bar her re that litigation.

But as MSG holds the lease or owns the building, they can bar her entry.

What's wrong here was the use of facial ID software, not the barring of her per se.

Matthew Hardeman Dec 23, 2022

@beccanalia I think if MSG has a right to exclude who they want to, there’s no reason they can’t use facial recognition to enforce that right. I’m very uncomfortable with the tech, but I also think private venues are just that. It’s uncomfortable, for sure.

Bec Dec 23, 2022

Surveillance is surveillance. If it touches the street, it endangers passers-by's right to anonymity.

In a place of business, it's creepy and wrong--and usually not needed.

@onekade @onekade knows more about surveillance & the law than I can hope to even distill as a lay person.

Steyrshrek Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome now add deep fakes to that. That’s some pretty scary stuff and I’m not a tinfoil hat wearer

MudMan Dec 22, 2022

@steyrshrek @Polychrome
I'm not sure how deepfakes make this worse.

I mean, if anything, this is a great example of how people are overreacting to many vectors of AI and machine learning because it sounds all sci-fi and scary and it hits the uncanny valley hard, but this type of mass data gathering and matching uses none of that tech and has been in place for many years with much less pushback.

This is 2010 Facebook tech right here.

Sandra Sheridan Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome
Time to stop this nonsense,if even possible any more!

Lawrence Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome @forpeterssake Yeah, this is vile. Perhaps it will be a wake up call.

@Polychrome, reminds me of "we don't serve these customers" boards in shops, in movie caricatures of communist PL. On global scale.

Oblomov Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome also interesting that people worry (rightly so) about the potential abuse from the government for these technology, but this event show how these privacy-invading tech is dangerous in the hands of anyone with a long enough reach.

JuicyMoose Dec 25, 2022

@oblomov @Polychrome why is this dangerous? and how is this any different than posting security cameras stills of shoplifters like you see in just about every gas station and Walmart?

Bryan Culbertson Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome we need to ban the use of facial recognition

Face unlock can stay, but surveillance has to go

Daniel Santos Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome
This makes the term "Free World" even more far from reality.
Welcome to totalitarianism.

Step by step, using and giving power to non-free-software, lead us to this place.
Free Software is software that respects user freedom. Search it on the internet.

dingodog Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Hasn't this been the case for a long time in Vegas casinos?

I know people who were turned away from the blackjack tables when they showed up.

Hans Gerwitz Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Sometimes I can think the EU is too aggressive about privacy, but better this than the @GreatDismal shit unfettered capitalism comes up with.

whyJoe Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Holy shit. Ok well let's feed the pics of every MSG executive onto our facial recognition systems and ban them from... oh, wait. Right. That's the problem.

Srsly tho I have nothing but hate in my heart for them.

Kaylie Fox Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome Welcome to our dystopian cyberpunk future...

vieuxnez Dec 22, 2022

@Polychrome I'm less worried about the technology than I am the people in government that should be stopping this sort of thing but won't if it benefits them not to.