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 threadBecDec 22, 2022
@Polychrome If it impedes the Law, can MSG be hauled before court for obstruction or whatever?
Show threadPolychrome Dec 22, 2022
@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.
Show threadBecDec 22, 2022

@Polychrome

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.

Show threadMatthew HardemanDec 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.
Show threadPolychrome Dec 23, 2022
@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. 
Show threadMatthew HardemanDec 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?
Show threadBecDec 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.

Show threadMatthew HardemanDec 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.
Show threadBecDec 23, 2022

@mdhardeman

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
Show threadBecDec 23, 2022

@mdhardeman

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.

Show threadMatthew HardemanDec 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.
Show threadBec

@mdhardeman

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.

Dec 23, 2022 at 8:53pmWeb