This strikes me as similar to the debate about whether censorship should be allowed in social media. On the one hand, it's clear the constitution prohibits the

This strikes me as similar to the debate about whether censorship should be allowed in social media. On the one hand, it's clear the constitution prohibits the government from censoring free speech. Analogously it's clear that a facial recognition match, or close match, shouldn't be sufficient to arrest somebody. On the other hand, there is no legal prohibiting on private companies limiting free speech. Analogously, a private roller rink banning a customer has and should have a much lower bar for taking action. One complication with the analogy is that the social media companies are giant monopolies whereas presumably this roller rink is not. Though maybe it's the only roller rink in town. What should the standards of evidence be here? Suppose an employee said "I remember that girl, she caused a fight last week." Would you be allowed to ban off of that, even though it may be as or more fallible? I also think it's interesting how the article doesn't explain how we know the face recognition system was wrong. The girl says she was never at the rink before, but that doesn't seem dispositive to me.