3 ms·

In your gun analogy, there's some rationale about the end goal of owning the weapon. A handgun can plausibly be owned for personal self defence, a howitzer cann

In your gun analogy, there's some rationale about the end goal of owning the weapon. A handgun can plausibly be owned for personal self defence, a howitzer cannot. What is the analogous argument with facial recognition? Only that it works better than the non-automated method (more accurate, but especially more cost effective). It is either okay to pick undesirable customers out of a crowd after (or perhaps in the process) of granting them entry, and kicking them out. Or it's not okay. Whether I use a room full of employees, a bigger room full of underpaid "interns", or a computer algorithm in a small box to do the matching is a detail of implementation.

woodruffw 4y ago
The argument would be either (1) that automated facial recognition goes above and beyond the reasonable requirements of the facility, representing an unnecessary intrusion into a person’s private life, (2) that the same does unacceptable harm in the public sphere, or (3) that its particular application is capricious and clearly represents an attempt to stifle the right to seek legal recourse. Any of these would be sufficient, and may or may not be convincing to a judge.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  I still fail to see the uniqueness, as it were, of automated facial recognition. In 1 and 3, what changes if a human being either looks at your face on a screen or looks into your face attentively at the turnstile, and then matches it using a big old binder with photos? Just the effectiveness of the method? If you're arguing 3, surely the argument has nothing to do with the technology used to identify you and kick you out to stifle your methodology of obtaining evidence outside the court-approved methods of discovery, it is the act of kicking you out that is in itself an issue. If you're arguing 1, I'd say your private life is not being intruded upon in any fashion that's new. You chose to go to a public place, so it is unreasonable to expect that no one might try to identify you based on your facial characteristics. Not sure what to make of 2 without further elaboration. I can sort of steel-man a coherent argument to this effect when it comes to government surveillance, but I don't think it'll apply to a private entertainment venue.
freejazz 4y ago
Weird how you act as if it was always possible, yet it has not begun to occur until recently, with the application of facial recognition. Must be some sort of weird coincidence, right? What reason do you propose?
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  >Weird how you act as if it was always possible, yet it has not begun to occur until recently, with the application of facial recognition. While I can't claim to know for certain about the goings on in casino security rooms, I've seen films from pre-facial-recognition era featuring attentive personnel browsing through dozens of CCTV cams, with binders full of photos of undesirables within arms reach.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    We aren't talking about Casino rooms though? We are talking about MSG and you are proposing that it's been a trivial thing for MSG to do since, I guess photographs have existed? So, it's on you, not me to establish that. I think it's a pretty ridiculous proposition that you've offered. I think the fact that it hasn't been a problem yet, until facial recognition was used, demonstrates that your pushback is baseless.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      We're talking about venues with a massive number of customers and a blacklist, so I fail to see why a casino is special for the purposes of this discussion. If you go back and re-read the article a bit more attentively, I think you'll find examples from the early 20th century onward of this having been a problem. Without agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that such venues (whether casinos or concert halls, the distinction being irrelevant at least to me) ought to be summarily disallowed to ban customers - nothing changed with facial recognition other than their ability to do this a bit better. At least I can still grow a beard or put on one of those funky anti-recognition glasses from Hong Kong, though I think I won't try that at a casino.

woodruffw 4y ago

The argument would be either (1) that automated facial recognition goes above and beyond the reasonable requirements of the facility, representing an unnecessary intrusion into a person’s private life, (2) that the same does unacceptable harm in the public sphere, or (3) that its particular application is capricious and clearly represents an attempt to stifle the right to seek legal recourse. Any of these would be sufficient, and may or may not be convincing to a judge.

kspacewalk2 4y ago
I still fail to see the uniqueness, as it were, of automated facial recognition. In 1 and 3, what changes if a human being either looks at your face on a screen or looks into your face attentively at the turnstile, and then matches it using a big old binder with photos? Just the effectiveness of the method? If you're arguing 3, surely the argument has nothing to do with the technology used to identify you and kick you out to stifle your methodology of obtaining evidence outside the court-approved methods of discovery, it is the act of kicking you out that is in itself an issue. If you're arguing 1, I'd say your private life is not being intruded upon in any fashion that's new. You chose to go to a public place, so it is unreasonable to expect that no one might try to identify you based on your facial characteristics. Not sure what to make of 2 without further elaboration. I can sort of steel-man a coherent argument to this effect when it comes to government surveillance, but I don't think it'll apply to a private entertainment venue.

freejazz 4y ago

Weird how you act as if it was always possible, yet it has not begun to occur until recently, with the application of facial recognition. Must be some sort of weird coincidence, right? What reason do you propose?

kspacewalk2 4y ago
>Weird how you act as if it was always possible, yet it has not begun to occur until recently, with the application of facial recognition. While I can't claim to know for certain about the goings on in casino security rooms, I've seen films from pre-facial-recognition era featuring attentive personnel browsing through dozens of CCTV cams, with binders full of photos of undesirables within arms reach.
- freejazz 4y ago
  We aren't talking about Casino rooms though? We are talking about MSG and you are proposing that it's been a trivial thing for MSG to do since, I guess photographs have existed? So, it's on you, not me to establish that. I think it's a pretty ridiculous proposition that you've offered. I think the fact that it hasn't been a problem yet, until facial recognition was used, demonstrates that your pushback is baseless.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    We're talking about venues with a massive number of customers and a blacklist, so I fail to see why a casino is special for the purposes of this discussion. If you go back and re-read the article a bit more attentively, I think you'll find examples from the early 20th century onward of this having been a problem. Without agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that such venues (whether casinos or concert halls, the distinction being irrelevant at least to me) ought to be summarily disallowed to ban customers - nothing changed with facial recognition other than their ability to do this a bit better. At least I can still grow a beard or put on one of those funky anti-recognition glasses from Hong Kong, though I think I won't try that at a casino.