NBC: Face Recognition Tech Gets Girl Scout Mom Booted From Rockettes Show — Due to Where She Works

[China]

Face Recognition Tech Gets Girl Scout Mom Booted From Rockettes Show — Due to Where She Works

 

A recent incident at Radio City Music Hall involving the mother of a Girl Scout is shedding light on the growing controversy of facial recognition, as critics claim it is being used to target perceived enemies — in this case, by one of the most famous companies in the country.

 

Kelly Conlon and her daughter came to New York City the weekend after Thanksgiving as part of a Girl Scout field trip to Radio City Music Hall to see the Christmas Spectacular show. But while her daughter, other members of the Girl Scout troop and their mothers got to go enjoy the show, Conlon wasn't allowed to do so.

 

That's because to Madison Square Garden Entertainment, Conlon isn't just any mom. They had identified and zeroed in on her, as security guards approached her right as he got into the lobby.

 

"It was pretty simultaneous, I think, to me, going through the metal detector, that I heard over an intercom or loudspeaker," she told NBC New York. "I heard them say woman with long dark hair and a grey scarf."

 

She said she was asked her name and to produce identification.

 

"I believe they said that our recognition picked you up," Conlon said.

 

A sign says facial recognition is used as a security measure to ensure safety for guests and employees. Conlon says she posed no threat, but the guards still kicked her out with the explanation that they knew she was an attorney.

 

"They knew my name before I told them. They knew the firm I was associated with before I told them. And they told me I was not allowed to be there," said Conlon.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

"This whole scheme is a pretext for doing collective punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSG in their multi-billion dollar network," said Sam Davis, a partner at the firm where Conlon works.

 

Davis is now upping the legal ante, challenging MSG’s license with the State Liquor Authority.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[tshile]

I don’t really have a problem with that. She was told she’s not allowed to be there and went anyway, so she was kicked out. 
 

I don’t know if their policy is “right” that she can’t be there because her firm is in active litigation, but on the surface it seems fair. It’s a private establishment right? 

[GoCommiesGo]

How did MSG have her in their database, where do they get all the information?

 

Also, I may just be unaware, but how common is facial recognition software being used in everyday life?

[Wildbunny]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don’t really have a problem with that. She was told she’s not allowed to be there and went anyway, so she was kicked out. 
 

I don’t know if their policy is “right” that she can’t be there because her firm is in active litigation, but on the surface it seems fair. It’s a private establishment right? 

I would say that's another proof of technology pushed a bit too far.

 

That kind of tool is useful for terrorists and stuff like that. I'm fine with that, but as always you've got genius that thinks it's cool to push it so that match their own interests.

 

You bet those guys that kicked her out would get infuriated if they were offered the same treatment just because they work here.

 

Edit; Next step of this **** is China.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Wildbunny

[tshile]

1 minute ago, GoCommiesGo said:

How did MSG have her in their database, where do they get all the information?

 

Also, I may just be unaware, but how common is facial recognition software being used in everyday life?

I’m sure they pulled her picture from LinkedIn or the firms website. They love to have official photos for things (social media, marketing in general, etc). I’m sure none of that is hard to figure out. 
 

computer vision (a subcategory of Artificial Intelligence) has made huge advances. It involves facial recognition but also object recognition, reading license plates (very common for police these days), etc. 

 

modern phones tablets and computers do it to unlock devices…  the government has been using it for years to identify people they capture. It’s really just a matter of justifying the cost. 

[GoCommiesGo]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I’m sure they pulled her picture from LinkedIn or the firms website. They love to have official photos for things (social media, marketing in general, etc). I’m sure none of that is hard to figure out. 

 

computer vision (a subcategory of Artificial Intelligence) has made huge advances. It involves facial recognition but also object recognition, reading license plates (very common for police these days), etc. 

This is interesting, they just run some type of program to pull the names / pictures of people to add to the dataset. Appreciate the info, I don't enjoy this. 

 

Quote

modern phones tablets and computers do it to unlock devices…  the government has been using it for years to identify people they capture. It’s really just a matter of justifying the cost. 

This I was aware of, the using it by private companies is something that I was not aware of. 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I would say that's another proof of technology pushed a bit too far.

 

That kind of tool is useful for terrorists and stuff like that. I'm fine with that, but as always you've got genius that thinks it's cool to push it so that match their own interests.

 

You bet those guys that kicked her out would get infuriated if they were offered the same treatment just because they work here.

 

Edit; Next step of this **** is China.

It’s pushed too far because someone who was notified they’re not allowed to enter a private establishment, entered anyways and got caught immediately?

 

sounds like technology working exactly as it’s supposed to, and people whining cause they can’t get away with stuff they want to. 
 

it’s just like red light and speeding cameras - if someone is manipulating the system to cause you to get caught doing something you otherwise would t get caught doing (like shortening the red light timing cycle which we’ve seen done) then that’s one thing. But otherwise it’s people complaining they got caught doing something they weren’t supposed to do anyways….

 

one area I think is an example of going to far is with a specific use of license plate readers. Where they track everything they see and build their own database. Then act solely on that. An example would be the police cruisers in town picking up that the same license plate seems to leave the local bar at 12:30 am every night and eventually flags the car for a potential dui stop. Potential social good aside - I’m not sure that should be allowed. That’s quite different than having a license plate in the system that’s flagged for being a fleeing fugitive from a serious crime and that initiating a stop (like we saw with the smith mountain lake shooter years ago)

1 minute ago, GoCommiesGo said:

This I was aware of, the using it by private companies is something that I was not aware of. 

Been going on for a long times. Banks and casinos were likely among the first. Governments been doing it for a while. 
 

they can even even identify people by their gate from satellite or other cameras in the sky. 

[LadySkinsFan]

I can see autocracy misusing this particular technology. Autocrats love this stuff. 

[Wildbunny]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s pushed too far because someone who was notified they’re not allowed to enter a private establishment, entered anyways and got caught immediately?

It's pushed too far because of the reason she was kicked out. That kind of technology shouldn't be used for that kind of reasons.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Wildbunny said:

It's pushed too far because of the reason she was kicked out. That kind of technology shouldn't be used for that kind of reasons.

Well if you want to argue she shouldn’t be barred from entry for that reason - ok. I can see it going both ways and have no idea how legal that is. Is a small restaurant owner required to serve someone that’s actively suing them and keeps frequenting the establishment? I would think “no, they have the right to bar entry” is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. I don’t think making the establishment a giant corporation changes that. 
 

But to say it’s too far because it allows them to lawfully identify and kick out someone they already put on notice they are not allowed to enter? Lol no, that’s dumb. That’s “wha I can’t break the rules anymore“ logic. 

[Mr. Sinister]

This totally will be used for lawful purposes. 

[The Evil Genius]

Meh..she is a lawyer. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[dfitzo53]

This headline is intentionally obscuring relevant information. Drives me nuts. 

[bearrock]

I view availability and access to legal representation to be a greater concern than a private business' right to withhold their service from specific individuals who wish to consume their goods or services on equal terms with other members of the general public.  Imagine if Google could delist a business for suing or raising a complaint.  Things like litigation privilege and anti-slapp laws exist for a reason because we hold that free and unrestrained access to the legal system is an extremely important value.  If the lawyer committed malfeasance during the litigation, handle it within the court system, not use the power of the corporation's influence outside the courtroom. 

[Corcaigh]

28 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Meh..she is a lawyer. 

And a Girl Scout mom. 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

one area I think is an example of going to far is with a specific use of license plate readers. Where they track everything they see and build their own database. Then act solely on that. An example would be the police cruisers in town picking up that the same license plate seems to leave the local bar at 12:30 am every night and eventually flags the car for a potential dui stop. Potential social good aside - I’m not sure that should be allowed. That’s quite different than having a license plate in the system that’s flagged for being a fleeing fugitive from a serious crime and that initiating a stop (like we saw with the smith mountain lake shooter years ago)

Sorry. I think people should have an expectation of privacy. 
 

For example, with license plates/cell phone location/phone call data, I have a problem with the government building a database of the location/contacts/communicationof everybody in the world, just in case they think of a reason for wanting it, later. 
 

And I have a problem with corporations doing it, too. 

9 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

This headline is intentionally obscuring relevant information. Drives me nuts. 

When I read the headline, I thought the Girl Scouts had kicked out a Mom for being a Rockette. 

[balki1867]

I assumed the problem was going to be that she'd been kicked out and banned from another MSG venue for doing something (i.e. being drunk and disruptive) and the facial recognition caught her, in which case I'd be all for it.

 

This one seems excessive, but an event ticket is a revokable license, and the MSG has the right to do whatever. It's just not great PR when they kick people out for working for a company MSG is having a beef with.

[tshile]

55 minutes ago, Larry said:

For example, with license plates/cell phone location/phone call data, I have a problem with the government building a database of the location/contacts/communicationof everybody in the world, just in case they think of a reason for wanting it, later. 

So do I. I specifically listed an example of that as something I think is over the line. 
 

but then you have the smith mountain lake shooter example. That information that was stored by the cruiser was used 10 minutes after it was obtained, and doing that allowed the officer to know the shooter was now east bound on 66 instead of north bound on 81. They got him like 10-15 minutes later on 66 just past the PWC line if I recall correctly. 
 

there’s a lot of nuance required to discuss where to draw draw the line. Which sucks because law enforcement, corporations, and the laws that are passed don’t do well when nuance is required. You have to weight that vs the good. It’s tricky. It doesn’t help that many people don’t seem capable of discussing things like that, including people in power. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, balki1867 said:

It's just not great PR when they kick people out for working for a company MSG is having a beef with.

But only really because it’s a giant corporation and people hate corporations. I’ve heard a bunch of people justify shoplifting from corporations and other things just because they hate corporations for one reason or another. 
 

change MGM to a restaurant owner in a small town and suddenly few people have an issue with someone actively suing the place to get its liquor license revoked being banned from the place. 

 

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

But only really because it’s a giant corporation and people hate corporations. I’ve heard a bunch of people justify shoplifting from corporations and other things just because they hate corporations for one reason or another. 
 

 

 

 

Just pointing out that

 

1)  I've specifically listed a reason why I object to it.  And "They're a big business" wasn't the reason.  

 

(Although yes, I do tend to assume that only really big corporations engage in really big data mining.  They can afford it.  

 

Quote

change MGM to a restaurant owner in a small town and suddenly few people have an issue with someone actively suing the place to get its liquor license revoked being banned from the place. 

 

2)  And I think you've got your chronology backwards.  First she got banned.  Simply because she works for the same company where somebody else is doing something.  And then she sued to go after their liquor license.  

 

--------

 

Now, though.  You want a different example?  

 

I remember once seeing a news story, about medical malpractice.  And they said that in some place (California?), the doctors have actually created a database of people who are suing multiple doctors.  So the doctors can not take them as new patients.  The story showed the "credit report" on one patient, who has seen 14 doctors in the last two years, complaining of "back pain".  And is suing 12 of them.  

 

I'm not sure I have a problem with that kind of a database.  

 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

2)  And I think you've got your chronology backwards.  First she got banned.  Simply because she works for the same company where somebody else is doing something.  And then she sued to go after their liquor license.  

Ah. But her firm was involved in active litigation and were notified of the ban because of it. But ok. 
 

as for point 1 - cool, wasn’t specifically referencing you. 
 

as for your other point about the doctors - with the provided information, sure makes sense. 
 

I really think it’s case by case. In the OP’s case - the technology is not the problem. Nor is the use of it. They could kick a person out that’s banned by stationing a guard at every spot and having them manually check faces. But that’s silly for multiple reasons and using technology makes sense. 

 

also “building a database” can mean so many things. Information can be anonymized or hashed and protected such that it’s collected and used but not necessarily the way many people think it means. Companies like google and Netflix run into it all the time. 
 

like what’s the difference between tracking all Larry’s Netflix picks in a list called Larry’s Netflix picks that I can reference or give to people whenever I want

 

and

 

tracking Larry’s Netflix picks but all I’m storing is what he watches so I can establish what “someone like Larry likes to watch” so that that when someone (even Larry) finishes watching a show/movie I can ask my database “what do people who like this, tend to also like, so I can suggest it to this person”.  But I cannot ask my database “what movies has Larry watched in the last 6 months”, that isn’t an answerable question.  
 

it gets tricky especially when people writing articles or tweets or whatever aren’t aware of a difference in things like that. 
 

 

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

like what’s the difference between tracking all Larry’s Netflix picks in a list called Larry’s Netflix picks that I can reference or give to people whenever I want

 

and

 

tracking Larry’s Netflix picks but all I’m storing is what he watches so I can establish what “someone like Larry likes to watch” so that that when someone (even Larry) finishes watching a show/movie I can ask my database “what do people who like this, tend to also like, so I can suggest it to this person”.  But I cannot ask my database “what movies has Larry watched in the last 6 months”, that isn’t an answerable question.  

Better analogy. 
 

I have a problem with my cell phone company, (likely several companies. And the NSA.), keeping a record of my GPS coordinates, accurate to 100 feet, every 15 minutes, for the last 10 years. 
 

I have no problem with my provider keeping track of how many people in my subdivision are streaming Disney+ on the typical Tuesday afternoon. 
 

One is personally identifiable. One is monitoring quality of service. 
 

Also. I'm talking generalities, too. 
 

I think I'd approve, if the government wants to record every conversation on every burner phone in DC.  Special case, simply because I assume there's so much national security stuff, there. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Larry

[PokerPacker]

My goodness, who ever could have guessed  technology would be used this way?  If only somebody had warned us.

[Corcaigh]

Another good reason to wear a mask …

 

 

[Jabbyrwock]

33 minutes ago, Corcaigh said:

Another good reason to wear a mask …

 

https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2021/01/04/news-release-airport-screening-while-wearing-masks-test