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

[Renegade7]

17 hours 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? 

 

Via facial recognition software, though?

 

Maybe I'm not in favor of a future where I have to accept my face being scanned everywhere I go, let alone to ensure I have permission to do something.

 

Pretty sure China is already at level 11 version of this right now, no thanks.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Renegade7

[Corcaigh]

51 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

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

Not all masks are the same. An ‘adversarial’ pattern such as the one I showed can confuse systems resulting in only a 3.3% success rate.

 

https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2022/07/12/defeat-facial-recognition/

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Seems like this argument is about whether or not she should have been kicked out, not whether or not facial recognition software should be used to identify people who are kicked out.

[Jabbyrwock]

2 hours ago, Corcaigh said:

Not all masks are the same. An ‘adversarial’ pattern such as the one I showed can confuse systems resulting in only a 3.3% success rate.

 

https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2022/07/12/defeat-facial-recognition/

 

Interesting.  The adversarial masks that I've seen don't use repeating patterns like the mask you linked.  They are trained off the Resnet 100 backbone and look like distorted/discolored faces.  I'ma have to look into regular patterns fooling modern FR.

 

 

[Larry]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Seems like this argument is about whether or not she should have been kicked out, not whether or not facial recognition software should be used to identify people who are kicked out.

 

That's certainly the case for me.  

 

If, say, she had been refused admittance, because she was kicked out of the place two years ago, I dare say nobody would have a problem with it.  

[Rocky21]

I like her chances in the lawsuit.

 

[tshile]

7 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Seems like this argument is about whether or not she should have been kicked out, not whether or not facial recognition software should be used to identify people who are kicked out.

There are certainly people who think the technology is the issue here. 
 

I think that’s a silly position to take, but that’s just my opinion. 

[PokerPacker]

28 minutes ago, tshile said:

There are certainly people who think the technology is the issue here. 
 

I think that’s a silly position to take, but that’s just my opinion. 

Technology makes it economically feasible to enact on a whim.  Just like how in the past, if the cops wanted to track you, they'd have to put resources into having a crew to tail you around everywhere.  Then the GPS became a thing and they could simply plant a device on your vehicle and track you for a few dollars.  Once that threshold gets crossed, it becomes something you do routinely for any little thing rather than it being self-regulated to only being implemented for incredibly important reasons due to costs.  With it being something that can now be done on a whim, it's time to look into applying restrictions so it can't just be done on a whim.  Is technology the problem?  Debatable.  But it certainly contributes to massively expanding the problem.

 

In regards to the case at hand, it is only compounded by the ever growing corporate mergers that leave one company in ownership of so much all across society that a giant corporation is enacting punitive retaliation on people using one sub-corporation for a (legal) action involving another sub-corporation.  Follow this to it's logical conclusion and we'll end up with a society in which you cannot speak out against <insert corporation> because you get blackballed from society as said corporation has their fingers in everything.

[Wildbunny]

45 minutes ago, tshile said:

There are certainly people who think the technology is the issue here. 
 

I think that’s a silly position to take, but that’s just my opinion. 

That's more the use of the technology here.

You shouldn't be able to scan and check people jobs to grant access or not.

 

That's where you should draw the line. And even then, you shouldn't be able to own your own databases and use this tool connected to some specific databases.

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

You shouldn't be able to scan and check people jobs to grant access or not.

They didn’t scan and check jobs to determine access. 
 

they had a list of people not granted access, and she was identified as a person on that list. And she confirmed her identity when they asked her, confirming she’s not allowed to be there, and then kicked her out. 
 

it’s no different than having a picture of people denied entry on the wall by the gate for a person to check - except it’s way more feasible to do and (although I haven’t read research to support

 this) id guess it’s more accurate too. Between the number of entry points, the capabilities and diligence of the people that work the gates, the number of people, the impact of how long it takes for a person to get through security, the only thing that technology changed was the effectiveness of enforcing the policy. 
 

your argument seems to be that a person that’s not allowed to be there, should have been able to be there, because they shouldn’t have been able to enforce their policy that bars her from being there. Seems silly. 
 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

28 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

With it being something that can now be done on a whim, it's time to look into applying restrictions so it can't just be done on a whim.  Is technology the problem?  Debatable.  But it certainly contributes to massively expanding the problem.

Yes and this is being worked on although it’s probably not nearly as popular of a topic as it should be. Much like data privacy rights when the big data era kicked off. 
 

additionally the people largely responsible, our law makers both state and federal, have shown themselves to be lacking when it comes to technology in general. 
 

doesn’t really help that the general public is also lacking and easily distracted and riled up by wedge issues instead of pragmatically evaluating their government. 
 

I generally agree with your entire post.  I just think a blanket “no” to technological advances because you’ve found one thing to be outraged about isn’t really the right way to handle things. And if you were to pick one thing - this story isn’t it. 
 

to be honest I’m quite shocked people didn’t seem to understand this stuff has been going on for a while. But I guess I shouldn’t because of the way people discuss things. Just see the “building database” talking point - or people being baffled how a company might have a picture of someone in the social media era where pictures of people are literally all over the internet and found with very basic searching. 

I mean for ****s sake, she’s got it in their firm website (as predicted cause it’s pretty standard practice)

 

 

https://www.dsslaw.com/our-firm/attorneys/kelly-analiese-conlon/

 

there no gross invasion of privacy here or nefarious database building of random people. 
 

they could have you scan your ID or type in your name at the gate and have the same effect. 
 

but I’m guessing people don’t want to be held up at the gate for an extra 2 minutes while that check is done. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

16 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Meh..she is a lawyer. 

 

....can they do this for all lawyers?

[Ball Security]

So does she get her money back or nah?

[Larry]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

In regards to the case at hand, it is only compounded by the ever growing corporate mergers that leave one company in ownership of so much all across society that a giant corporation is enacting punitive retaliation on people using one sub-corporation for a (legal) action involving another sub-corporation.  Follow this to it's logical conclusion and we'll end up with a society in which you cannot speak out against <insert corporation> because you get blackballed from society as said corporation has their fingers in everything.

Just observing, but I'm pretty sure that so far, the only punishments handed out against the Republican Spin Machine for the Big Lie, has been because they said bad things about a corporation.  
 

(And I absolutely agree with your other point. That technology makes it vastly cheaper to enact mass, detail-level, tracking.)

[tshile]

For what it’s worth, and for anyone interested, I would consider the EU data privacy laws to be something that is a great example of reasonable and effective government oversight over technological advances being used by corporations. 
 

Not that it’s perfect, or that I agree with them in their entirety, or can’t be made better - but given the current set of options their model would, imo, be the best one to reference and try to mimic at the moment. 

In fact - some of the few things we have seen introduced over the last few years by tech companies with their products, are a result from them having to abide by those regulations. 
 

I believe that banner about cookies that websites show, and the easy to use configuration options (although there’s still trickery going on there), is one example. 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

there no gross invasion of privacy here or nefarious database building of random people. 

Unless you consider "get me a list of everyone who works for a company that's doing business with some other company that we're having a dispute with" to be a problem. 
 

For example, will it become a problem, finding an attorney who's willing to sue a big corporation that just screwed a Little Person?  

[PokerPacker]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just observing, but I'm pretty sure that so far, the only punishments handed out against the Republican Spin Machine for the Big Lie, has been because they said bad things about a corporation.  
 

(And I absolutely agree with your other point. That technology makes it vastly cheaper to enact mass, detail-level, tracking.)

One way I failed in my post that you quoted was that I said speaking out against the corporation, but in this instance, it's not even that.  It's not the big umbrella corporation under fire, but one of the things it has its fingers in.  Nibble that finger and now suddenly you've got a full hand/arm coming down on you.  Say something about Dasani, and suddenly a Coca-Cola/Live-Nation merger causes you to be blackballed from all live entertainment events.

[Corcaigh]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

....can they do this for all lawyers?

Only when they leave their homes.

[tshile]

Just now, Larry said:

Unless you consider "get me a list of everyone who works for a company that's doing business with some other company that we're having a dispute with" to be a problem. 
 

For example, will it become a problem, finding an attorney who's willing to sue a big corporation that just screwed a Little Person?  

That’s not a technology problem to me - that’s a law/policy problem. 
 

Whether someone should can be lawfully banned for that is not the same as how they enforce the policy. 
 

And I agree with the intimidation aspect but I don’t see that as a technology problem either. That’s also a law issue. Issue with monopolies but also a question of whether a parent company can take that situation and apply it to everything they control. 
 

and I think that’s an interesting issue to consider. And really what this should be about. 
 

not facial recognition. 
 

 

Also @Larry

its not an invasion of privacy to know who someone works for, when they publicly broadcast it. 
 

if you’re gonna stand on the street corner and loudly air your dirty laundry, people hearing you isn’t an invasion of your privacy. 
 

tapping into your computer, email, bank accounts, etc would be though. 
 

unless you have a warrant

or the government calls you a terrorist 😂 

[Larry]

Now, though. 
 

If Disney wants to ban everybody who has ever supported Ron DeSantis?  I'm OK with it. 

[tshile]

Just now, Larry said:

Now, though. 
 

If Disney wants to ban everybody who has ever supported Ron DeSantis?  I'm OK with it. 

Hah ironically banning someone for their political beliefs probably isn’t OK. Although with the gay wedding cakes and the way things go it probably simply depends on who’s deciding that 😂 

 

but banning someone because you’re in active litigation probably is

 

 

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

but banning someone because you work for a company which is working for a company which is in active litigation probably is

Added some important elements, in there. 

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

Added some important elements, in there. 

Elements that have already been in the discussion the entire time?

ok…

Also I think you have that wrong. Her firm is directly involved in the litigation 

 

it’s MSG that is banning someone because the suite is against a sibling company (or is it a child company and MSG is the parent?)

(See corporations are people too!!! 😂)

[Larry]

Just pointing out. In order to get the word "directly" in there, you had to precede it with "her employer", and follow it with "involved in". 
 

I tend to see that kind of chain-following in lots of places. One of the recent ones is that "the shell company that's behind Trump's trading cards has the same cutout mailing address as a bunch of other shell companies, and some of those other companies are associated with ...."

 

Another one I remember was "When Barack Obama was working as a lawyer, one of the companies he worked for once had an attorney (not at the same time as Obama worked for the company), who was on the Board of Directors (for one meeting, before resigning) of a company that once did ...."

 

But. Back to this story. 
 

This woman is not (far as we know) involved in the litigation. 
 

She works for a company, which has been hired by, the company that's suing.