11 ms·

Madison Square Garden Uses Facial Recognition to Ban Its Owner’s Enemies

184 points by mgbmtl 4y ago

marssaxman 4y ago
If someone has declared themself to be your enemy by suing you, and seeks to do you harm, it seems reasonable that you might decline to offer them your hospitality.
defrost 4y ago
previously: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer (nbcnewyork.com) 703 points | 2 days ago | 660 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965
- Lio 4y ago
  Does this count as a dupe if the reporting sites and articles are different? At the very least the reporting styles will be different.
  - notRobot 4y ago
    Agreed. I'd say it's related, but not a dupe.
  - dang 4y ago
    The test from an HN point of view is whether the submissions are different enough to (likely) lead to a substantially different discussion.
criddell 4y ago
I thought it was interesting that the law firm complained to the NY liquor licensing board that their employee was banned from entry to MSG. I thought that was pretty clever. The liquor license says that have to serve all members of the public unless there’s safety concern. The licensing board agreed: > In November, after a complaint about the ban from a law firm, the New York State Liquor Authority sent the Garden a letter advising it that such a policy could violate liquor laws.
- jsiepkes 4y ago
  Clever as it may be it doesn't address the actual problem. They might win the battle but lose the war. You can still ban people to venues that don't have a liquor license. You can probably also find some creative ways around it. Like: Move the bar before the checkpoint, move the face check after the bar but before the main entrance, etc.
  - dtgriscom 4y ago
    Crowd control is pretty demanding; I don't think you could throw a bar into the process without trashing your throughput.
    - williamscales 4y ago
      Honestly, I think they could just move the facial recognition check. It's something that happens in a computer using video feeds. There would be no physical difference in the setup, the security would just come for you after you get your beer. That's what makes this so insidious in my opinion.
- robg 4y ago
  Great point, any way to know if MSG makes more in beer sales than they do in ticket sales? And it must really threaten Dolan if lawyers can show the venue is overselling to already drunk and rowdy attendees.
  - ascagnel_ 4y ago
    Ticket prices at MSG are notoriously high. For comparison, average ticket price for a regular-season NHL game for NYC-area teams during the 2021-2022 season: - New York Rangers (MSG): $273 - New York Islanders: $213[1] - New Jersey Devils: $104[2] [1]: The Islanders played in a brand-new arena last year, so ticket prices were higher than expected. [2]: The Devils were one of the worst teams in the league last year, so ticket prices were lower than expected. And the area NBA teams for that same time period: - New York Knicks (MSG): $394 - Brooklyn Nets: $339 These numbers, as far as I can tell, do not include luxury boxes, which average an eye-watering $16,000 for a regular season NBA or NHL game.
anothernewdude 4y ago
> The company says “litigation creates an inherently adversarial environment” Yeah, I think it's just about to.
superchroma 4y ago
"It’s a dystopian, shocking act of repression" oh no won't someone think of all those poor little helpless lawyers.
- sarchertech 4y ago
  It’s the lawyers right now. Next up it’s anyone who works for any company involved in litigation with them. Then it’s anyone who leaves a bad yelp review.
  - superchroma 4y ago
    I already am afraid of leaving people who have wronged me bad reviews on Google and other services when they know my address. That aside, to use the classic stick reserved for complaining conservatives, it's a private company and venue and they have a right to choose who they want in there.
    - sarchertech 4y ago
      They may or may not be free to choose that depending on what the liquor authority says. They certainly aren’t free to deny someone they’ve already sold a ticket to without cause. A ticket is a contract. But beyond those points, we already make distinctions between private spaces and spaces open to the public that happen to be privately owned. When you invite in the public you waive some of your rights to free association. I see no reason why we can’t add further restrictions beyond the currently protected classes. If you want to build a completely privately funded members only stadium, have at it.
      - superchroma 4y ago
        Well, the smart thing to do would be to preclude ticket sales to those individuals, but as it's contracted out I guess this is the next best way.
        sarchertech 4y ago
asah 4y ago
I'm boycotting MSG over this, and it's an easy call: I didn't bust my ass for 30 years creating tech to have companies pull nonsense like this. Among the issues, this is a violation of their own written policy, stated that this is for "safety" when this clearly about retribution. MSG, you want retribution, you got it. I'm really hoping the CEO faces personal penalties over this, causing other companies to take notice and setting de facto limits on acceptable use of this tech. Normally, I'm not one to take reactionary stances, but the CEO absolutely knew about and approved this policy and exercised __extraordinarily__ bad judgment unbecoming of a public company CEO. A fifth grader would understand that this policy doesn't work at any scale.
- paul7986 4y ago
  The CEO is a billionaire (Dolan) who owns it and many other properties.
- voisin 4y ago
  Let’s take a step back for a second: is it the use of technology to ban certain people from the venue, or the way people are being chosen for exclusion? If the former, and banning people you consider to be your enemies is not an issue here, then I guess I struggle with why using technology to exclude people efficiently is a concern. If the latter, then I struggle as it should be within the rights of any property owner to exclude their antagonizers (or really anyone on any basis not covered by anti-discrimination laws) from their property. I feel strongly about inalienable property rights, and who is anyone else who hasn’t put money up to own the land to tell them what to do with it? Are we all just a giant HOA? Or is the issue that it’s a public company and as such is expected to have separate standards? I don’t mean to be pedantic - I am honestly trying to understand. As a landowner myself (of publicly accessible spaces), if I were to be sued by someone I certainly wouldn’t want to be forced to extend hospitality to those suing me by allowing them onto my land for their own enjoyment. If technology allowed me to do this more efficiently, I’d utilize it if I felt that strongly about the merits of the case against me. But I am not a public company, so perhaps that’s where the issue is? To be clear, if they were excluding people based on things out of a person’s control or otherwise protected by civil rights, I’d understand that society restricts this - it isn’t a society we collectively want to live in. But I am not sure I want to live in a society where someone can antagonize someone else and we force that party to host the antagonizer for the antagonizer’s enjoyment. That seems somewhat dystopian to me as well.
kstenerud 4y ago
I'm glad this is happening this early in the tech's advances so that we have time to legislate over it. With megacorps owning bigger and bigger chunks of everything, these sorts of bans will start having deep effects on peoples lives. Imagine being banned from all grocery chains within 200 miles because the parent corp that owns all grocery stores in the area decided that it doesn't like you.
- bcherny 4y ago
  Wouldn’t every other grocery chain in the area be incentivized to let you in? (If your answer is “yes but many areas have just one store”, then maybe the real problem is uncompetitive markets?)
  - JohnPrine 4y ago
    that's a much harder problem to solve tho
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like. I'm usually in favor of companies deciding what they want to do and how they want to price things - but anything related to general discrimination or suppressing free speech seems like a VERY slippery slope that companies shouldn't be allowed to do. There's already a lot of companies sueing people for leaving bad reviews. This seems completely dystopian. Imagine if you say anything bad about Apple and you can't message iPhone users anymore. If you say anything bad about Google, you can't use any website with Analytics. If you say anything bad about Comcast, you have to sell your house and move to get Internet, etc. This isn't a world I want to live in.
  - 4y ago
nibbleshifter 4y ago
Imagine being arrogant and stupid enough to target lawyers. For the first time in basically ever, I'm rooting for the lawyers lol.
Febra33 4y ago
While sucky I don't see how any of this is illegal. To me it looks constitutionally correct and I don't want the government legislating this. If the company can refuse to bake a cake, it should be able to refuse any kind of service. Pretty sure this should be covered by the 1st amendment.
- boppo1 4y ago
  But we decided companies must bake cakes, didn't we?
  - philipkglass 4y ago
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, assuming you're referring to this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Majority_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- geoduck14 4y ago
  >If the company can refuse to bake a cake, If you are referring to the Masterpiece Cake suit from Colorado, I'm pretty sure that the cake maker won on a technicality: table single member of Colorado's ruling authority said something religiously discriminatory against the cake maker which made their ruling discriminatory. The general question of "can a private cake maker restrict who he makes cakes for" is still unresolved (legally, in the US)
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    Admittedly the current website-maker might be more accurate
- agotterer 4y ago
  If that’s the case, how far should they be allowed to go with a ban? What happens if they decide that fans of an opposing team shouldn’t be allowed to attend games? Or people who have been oppositional towards ownership or management, like the press. What about banning everyone who works for a vendor or partner because they are sour about a deal going bad or relationship ending? What about politicians or people with opposing views (I don’t believe that’s a protected class?). Edit: updated to use examples that aren’t part of protected classes.
AstixAndBelix 4y ago
Let's say I have a video door bell and there's a pesky company making door-to-door sales and all the salespeople wear a uniform. Would it be fine for me to train a ML model to recognize when people who are wearing that uniform are ringing me so the button press gets ignored and I don't get startled during the day? If someone is not wanted in a privately owned place then I don't see why using a model to automatically alert security or deny access is a bad thing.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Comparing private residences to public venues makes sense in a particular and limited sort of "technically correct" way, but is rarely the basis of a persuasive argument.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    The venue is privately owned, how is it public?
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      Because it's generally open to the public. Different rules apply to your home and your grocery store even though they're both "privately owned". The law, and most people, recognize numerous differences between the two even if you do not.
      - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        If the owner of the venue personally stood in front of the entrance and recognized and denied entry to those lawyers, would that be illegal? What's the part you have an issue with, the automation or the banning?
        kthejoker2 4y ago
        Por que no los dos? First, we're not talking about simply legal vs illegal, there's also ethics and civics involved. These venues are often publicly funded, supported by public services, are generally open to the public. So all such actions around banning members of the public for their identity (versus their behavior or conduct at the venue) should be given heightened scrutiny. To your point, I do not agree that the venue should be able to ban someone simply for who they work for. But the technology is what enabled the venue to identify and ban this lawyer, so it is a simply augmenting the scale of abuse by increasing the "hit rate" of recognition that the owner standing outside the venue wpuld. It is a force multiplier of discrimination. And it reduces the cost of such discrimination significantly.
Reason077 4y ago
The Madison Square Garden group is currently trying to get permission to build a new entertainment venue in London (MSG Sphere London [1]). A history of poor corporate ethics/behaviour like this could be considered a strike against them. [1] https://london.msg.com/our-plans/ https://london.msg.com/our-plans/
- kmlx 4y ago
  isn’t denying service actually quite common? is the use of face recognition the ethics issue?
  - Reason077 4y ago
    Nothing wrong with face recognition itself, when used responsibly. People who commit crimes, for example, at MSG's venues should be banned! The problem here is that they're denying service to people who have done nothing wrong. In some cases just for being associated with a law firm which is representing clients against MSG. Suppose Google decided to ban you from using all Google services, just because you work (or once worked) for a law firm that is representing someone in a suit against Google. Would that be fair?
    - kmlx 4y ago
      there’s active litigation involved. and businesses have a right to refuse service. so, yes, that would be fair game. would i be happy about it? no. but the company that i work for is suing google, so it’s assumed there would be retribution of some sorts.
      - chii 4y ago
        it would depend on what the suit is about. Imagine if you had to sue a company for a wrong doing, but still would require the services of said company. They could pressure you to drop the suit, by using this tech to deny you access to their services. So even if the suit had merit, the company escaped being sued. So this would produce unfair outcomes. In other words, a company discriminating against customers should be illegal, except in specific circumstances allowed by the law.
gregors 4y ago
some previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965
blinding-streak 4y ago
https://archive.ph/NPTPO https://archive.ph/NPTPO
susanasj 4y ago
I'm sorry but ban this technology now. The nefarious uses are easy to see and are already happening apparently. If we find good uses later for the public good (I really do struggle to think of these), we can figure out how to use it responsibly. This seems way more threatening to me than AI at the moment.
durnygbur 4y ago
I'm wondering if banks are doing this. Few times I got visibly nervous because e.g. the clerk was upselling "investment funds" instead of listening, or they didn't deal with cash deposits and withdrawals (the bank branch is basically showroom for selling credit deals). Next time... a clerk approaches me straight away when I enter the branch asking "how they can help".
xwdv 4y ago
People cry foul, and yet I’m sure they wouldn’t hesitate to scan a guest’s entire social media history for any unacceptable statements (i.e. racism, sexism, *phobias, neo-nazi, etc) and ban them from the venue.
unangst 4y ago
“identify… …via profile photos on their firms’ own websites” - Time to obsfucate our profile pics.

184 points by mgbmtl 4y ago

If someone has declared themself to be your enemy by suing you, and seeks to do you harm, it seems reasonable that you might decline to offer them your hospitality.

defrost 4y ago

previously: Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer (nbcnewyork.com) 703 points | 2 days ago | 660 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965

Lio 4y ago
Does this count as a dupe if the reporting sites and articles are different? At the very least the reporting styles will be different.
- notRobot 4y ago
  Agreed. I'd say it's related, but not a dupe.
- dang 4y ago
  The test from an HN point of view is whether the submissions are different enough to (likely) lead to a substantially different discussion.

criddell 4y ago

I thought it was interesting that the law firm complained to the NY liquor licensing board that their employee was banned from entry to MSG. I thought that was pretty clever. The liquor license says that have to serve all members of the public unless there’s safety concern. The licensing board agreed: > In November, after a complaint about the ban from a law firm, the New York State Liquor Authority sent the Garden a letter advising it that such a policy could violate liquor laws.

jsiepkes 4y ago
Clever as it may be it doesn't address the actual problem. They might win the battle but lose the war. You can still ban people to venues that don't have a liquor license. You can probably also find some creative ways around it. Like: Move the bar before the checkpoint, move the face check after the bar but before the main entrance, etc.
- dtgriscom 4y ago
  Crowd control is pretty demanding; I don't think you could throw a bar into the process without trashing your throughput.
  - williamscales 4y ago
    Honestly, I think they could just move the facial recognition check. It's something that happens in a computer using video feeds. There would be no physical difference in the setup, the security would just come for you after you get your beer. That's what makes this so insidious in my opinion.
robg 4y ago
Great point, any way to know if MSG makes more in beer sales than they do in ticket sales? And it must really threaten Dolan if lawyers can show the venue is overselling to already drunk and rowdy attendees.
- ascagnel_ 4y ago
  Ticket prices at MSG are notoriously high. For comparison, average ticket price for a regular-season NHL game for NYC-area teams during the 2021-2022 season: - New York Rangers (MSG): $273 - New York Islanders: $213[1] - New Jersey Devils: $104[2] [1]: The Islanders played in a brand-new arena last year, so ticket prices were higher than expected. [2]: The Devils were one of the worst teams in the league last year, so ticket prices were lower than expected. And the area NBA teams for that same time period: - New York Knicks (MSG): $394 - Brooklyn Nets: $339 These numbers, as far as I can tell, do not include luxury boxes, which average an eye-watering $16,000 for a regular season NBA or NHL game.

anothernewdude 4y ago

> The company says “litigation creates an inherently adversarial environment” Yeah, I think it's just about to.

superchroma 4y ago

"It’s a dystopian, shocking act of repression" oh no won't someone think of all those poor little helpless lawyers.

sarchertech 4y ago
It’s the lawyers right now. Next up it’s anyone who works for any company involved in litigation with them. Then it’s anyone who leaves a bad yelp review.
- superchroma 4y ago
  I already am afraid of leaving people who have wronged me bad reviews on Google and other services when they know my address. That aside, to use the classic stick reserved for complaining conservatives, it's a private company and venue and they have a right to choose who they want in there.
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    They may or may not be free to choose that depending on what the liquor authority says. They certainly aren’t free to deny someone they’ve already sold a ticket to without cause. A ticket is a contract. But beyond those points, we already make distinctions between private spaces and spaces open to the public that happen to be privately owned. When you invite in the public you waive some of your rights to free association. I see no reason why we can’t add further restrictions beyond the currently protected classes. If you want to build a completely privately funded members only stadium, have at it.
    - superchroma 4y ago
      Well, the smart thing to do would be to preclude ticket sales to those individuals, but as it's contracted out I guess this is the next best way.
      - sarchertech 4y ago

asah 4y ago

I'm boycotting MSG over this, and it's an easy call: I didn't bust my ass for 30 years creating tech to have companies pull nonsense like this. Among the issues, this is a violation of their own written policy, stated that this is for "safety" when this clearly about retribution. MSG, you want retribution, you got it. I'm really hoping the CEO faces personal penalties over this, causing other companies to take notice and setting de facto limits on acceptable use of this tech. Normally, I'm not one to take reactionary stances, but the CEO absolutely knew about and approved this policy and exercised __extraordinarily__ bad judgment unbecoming of a public company CEO. A fifth grader would understand that this policy doesn't work at any scale.

paul7986 4y ago
The CEO is a billionaire (Dolan) who owns it and many other properties.
voisin 4y ago
Let’s take a step back for a second: is it the use of technology to ban certain people from the venue, or the way people are being chosen for exclusion? If the former, and banning people you consider to be your enemies is not an issue here, then I guess I struggle with why using technology to exclude people efficiently is a concern. If the latter, then I struggle as it should be within the rights of any property owner to exclude their antagonizers (or really anyone on any basis not covered by anti-discrimination laws) from their property. I feel strongly about inalienable property rights, and who is anyone else who hasn’t put money up to own the land to tell them what to do with it? Are we all just a giant HOA? Or is the issue that it’s a public company and as such is expected to have separate standards? I don’t mean to be pedantic - I am honestly trying to understand. As a landowner myself (of publicly accessible spaces), if I were to be sued by someone I certainly wouldn’t want to be forced to extend hospitality to those suing me by allowing them onto my land for their own enjoyment. If technology allowed me to do this more efficiently, I’d utilize it if I felt that strongly about the merits of the case against me. But I am not a public company, so perhaps that’s where the issue is? To be clear, if they were excluding people based on things out of a person’s control or otherwise protected by civil rights, I’d understand that society restricts this - it isn’t a society we collectively want to live in. But I am not sure I want to live in a society where someone can antagonize someone else and we force that party to host the antagonizer for the antagonizer’s enjoyment. That seems somewhat dystopian to me as well.

kstenerud 4y ago

I'm glad this is happening this early in the tech's advances so that we have time to legislate over it. With megacorps owning bigger and bigger chunks of everything, these sorts of bans will start having deep effects on peoples lives. Imagine being banned from all grocery chains within 200 miles because the parent corp that owns all grocery stores in the area decided that it doesn't like you.

bcherny 4y ago
Wouldn’t every other grocery chain in the area be incentivized to let you in? (If your answer is “yes but many areas have just one store”, then maybe the real problem is uncompetitive markets?)
- JohnPrine 4y ago
  that's a much harder problem to solve tho
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like. I'm usually in favor of companies deciding what they want to do and how they want to price things - but anything related to general discrimination or suppressing free speech seems like a VERY slippery slope that companies shouldn't be allowed to do. There's already a lot of companies sueing people for leaving bad reviews. This seems completely dystopian. Imagine if you say anything bad about Apple and you can't message iPhone users anymore. If you say anything bad about Google, you can't use any website with Analytics. If you say anything bad about Comcast, you have to sell your house and move to get Internet, etc. This isn't a world I want to live in.
- 4y ago

nibbleshifter 4y ago

Imagine being arrogant and stupid enough to target lawyers. For the first time in basically ever, I'm rooting for the lawyers lol.

Febra33 4y ago

While sucky I don't see how any of this is illegal. To me it looks constitutionally correct and I don't want the government legislating this. If the company can refuse to bake a cake, it should be able to refuse any kind of service. Pretty sure this should be covered by the 1st amendment.

boppo1 4y ago
But we decided companies must bake cakes, didn't we?
- philipkglass 4y ago
  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, assuming you're referring to this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Majority_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
geoduck14 4y ago
>If the company can refuse to bake a cake, If you are referring to the Masterpiece Cake suit from Colorado, I'm pretty sure that the cake maker won on a technicality: table single member of Colorado's ruling authority said something religiously discriminatory against the cake maker which made their ruling discriminatory. The general question of "can a private cake maker restrict who he makes cakes for" is still unresolved (legally, in the US)
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Admittedly the current website-maker might be more accurate
agotterer 4y ago
If that’s the case, how far should they be allowed to go with a ban? What happens if they decide that fans of an opposing team shouldn’t be allowed to attend games? Or people who have been oppositional towards ownership or management, like the press. What about banning everyone who works for a vendor or partner because they are sour about a deal going bad or relationship ending? What about politicians or people with opposing views (I don’t believe that’s a protected class?). Edit: updated to use examples that aren’t part of protected classes.

AstixAndBelix 4y ago

Let's say I have a video door bell and there's a pesky company making door-to-door sales and all the salespeople wear a uniform. Would it be fine for me to train a ML model to recognize when people who are wearing that uniform are ringing me so the button press gets ignored and I don't get startled during the day? If someone is not wanted in a privately owned place then I don't see why using a model to automatically alert security or deny access is a bad thing.

LarryMullins 4y ago
Comparing private residences to public venues makes sense in a particular and limited sort of "technically correct" way, but is rarely the basis of a persuasive argument.
- AstixAndBelix 4y ago
  The venue is privately owned, how is it public?
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Because it's generally open to the public. Different rules apply to your home and your grocery store even though they're both "privately owned". The law, and most people, recognize numerous differences between the two even if you do not.
    - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
      If the owner of the venue personally stood in front of the entrance and recognized and denied entry to those lawyers, would that be illegal? What's the part you have an issue with, the automation or the banning?
      - kthejoker2 4y ago
        Por que no los dos? First, we're not talking about simply legal vs illegal, there's also ethics and civics involved. These venues are often publicly funded, supported by public services, are generally open to the public. So all such actions around banning members of the public for their identity (versus their behavior or conduct at the venue) should be given heightened scrutiny. To your point, I do not agree that the venue should be able to ban someone simply for who they work for. But the technology is what enabled the venue to identify and ban this lawyer, so it is a simply augmenting the scale of abuse by increasing the "hit rate" of recognition that the owner standing outside the venue wpuld. It is a force multiplier of discrimination. And it reduces the cost of such discrimination significantly.

Reason077 4y ago

The Madison Square Garden group is currently trying to get permission to build a new entertainment venue in London (MSG Sphere London [1]). A history of poor corporate ethics/behaviour like this could be considered a strike against them. [1] https://london.msg.com/our-plans/ https://london.msg.com/our-plans/

kmlx 4y ago
isn’t denying service actually quite common? is the use of face recognition the ethics issue?
- Reason077 4y ago
  Nothing wrong with face recognition itself, when used responsibly. People who commit crimes, for example, at MSG's venues should be banned! The problem here is that they're denying service to people who have done nothing wrong. In some cases just for being associated with a law firm which is representing clients against MSG. Suppose Google decided to ban you from using all Google services, just because you work (or once worked) for a law firm that is representing someone in a suit against Google. Would that be fair?
  - kmlx 4y ago
    there’s active litigation involved. and businesses have a right to refuse service. so, yes, that would be fair game. would i be happy about it? no. but the company that i work for is suing google, so it’s assumed there would be retribution of some sorts.
    - chii 4y ago
      it would depend on what the suit is about. Imagine if you had to sue a company for a wrong doing, but still would require the services of said company. They could pressure you to drop the suit, by using this tech to deny you access to their services. So even if the suit had merit, the company escaped being sued. So this would produce unfair outcomes. In other words, a company discriminating against customers should be illegal, except in specific circumstances allowed by the law.

gregors 4y ago

some previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34066965

blinding-streak 4y ago

https://archive.ph/NPTPO https://archive.ph/NPTPO

susanasj 4y ago

I'm sorry but ban this technology now. The nefarious uses are easy to see and are already happening apparently. If we find good uses later for the public good (I really do struggle to think of these), we can figure out how to use it responsibly. This seems way more threatening to me than AI at the moment.

durnygbur 4y ago

I'm wondering if banks are doing this. Few times I got visibly nervous because e.g. the clerk was upselling "investment funds" instead of listening, or they didn't deal with cash deposits and withdrawals (the bank branch is basically showroom for selling credit deals). Next time... a clerk approaches me straight away when I enter the branch asking "how they can help".

xwdv 4y ago

People cry foul, and yet I’m sure they wouldn’t hesitate to scan a guest’s entire social media history for any unacceptable statements (i.e. racism, sexism, *phobias, neo-nazi, etc) and ban them from the venue.

unangst 4y ago

“identify… …via profile photos on their firms’ own websites” - Time to obsfucate our profile pics.