5 ms·

> I'm unclear about the rationale for banning facial recognition here I don't think facial recognition needs to be banned. The two things that need to be banne

> I'm unclear about the rationale for banning facial recognition here I don't think facial recognition needs to be banned. The two things that need to be banned are denying people access to events after you already took their money for admission to them, and denying people access to events for what their co-workers did.

freejazz 4y ago
They can't buy the tickets directly from MSG, so they never gave money to MSG. So that can't be the reason either. Would it be fair to prohibit entry to the attys that did sue MSG? Even though attys just represent the interests of their clients?
- xp84 4y ago
  It really seems like the intent of that is to make it so that people who have been harmed by M.S.G. won't be able to find an attorney next time. Which is a very scumbag gangster type of behavior, so I'm completely happy to have it be smacked down violently by the law.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    I totally agree. Especially as a NYC-based attorney, that loves the Rangers, concerts at MSG, and is suing a close business partner of MSG.
kspacewalk2 4y ago
>denying people access to events after you already took their money for admission to them What if you discover fraud or criminality after the ticket is sold but before entry? Leave this lawyer tempest in a teapot aside for the moment, I'm talking unambiguous crime. >denying people access to events for what their co-workers did Say I'm known to be employed by the Lawyers for The Right to Throw Octopi at Hockey Players Coalition, but haven't yet thrown my first octopus. Why can you not act proactively to prevent nuisance? Employment at a particular organization is not protected status, like race or sexual orientation would be. Also, what constitutes an event? If there's a trade show or a product unveiling I don't want certain competitors to attend, why should I have to grant them access? Other than you being in rather narrowly specified groups, if I don't want your money, I should be allowed to refuse it.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > What if you discover fraud or criminality after the ticket is sold but before entry? Leave this lawyer tempest in a teapot aside for the moment, I'm talking unambiguous crime. Do you mean crime related to the ticket purchase or event, e.g., stealing a credit card that you then use to buy the tickets with, or do you mean if you just happened to have committed an unrelated crime in the past?
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Related to being in attendance at the event. The local KKK branch intending to smuggle tiki torches and presumably their charming incantations to the annual Diversity and Inclusion gala. (Presumably that would be criminal due to the contents of their slogans, though in America I'm not sure anything said or chanted qualifies as hate crime, like it would in my country). I mean, they purchased tickets, so let 'em in and let 'em have at it, no? Edit: Okay, I'll give a less ridiculous example, one that involves nuisance but not criminality. I come from Ukraine; Alex Ovechkin is a Putin fanboy who refuses to condemn the invasion and genocide of my erstwhile compatriots. If I form a group of people who attend hockey games to heckle and accuse Ovechkin of being a genocide supporter, can MSG kick out a new member of my organization after learning of their joining? They won't sell me a ticket, they know I cause trouble. But he just joined, bought a ticket, then their security team got the updated the Facebook group member list.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      If someone does something bad after buying the ticket, then banning them might indeed be okay (depending on the details, of course). My point is that once you hand over legitimately purchased tickets to people, you shouldn't be able to deny them entry because of anything that happened prior to the purchase.
      - kspacewalk2 4y ago
        >once you hand over legitimately purchased tickets to people, you shouldn't be able to deny them entry because of anything that happened prior to the purchase. Even if something happened prior to the purchase and I learn about it after the purchase? That seems oddly arbitrary.
xp84 4y ago
I don't know if I'm even comfortable, in the consolidated corporate world we live in today, with the idea of large corporations issuing bans as retaliation for pursuing legal rights. Or for really anything besides bad behavior in there. Under the narrow "right to refuse service to anyone for every reason (except based on a protected class)" reading, there's nothing to stop, say, Live Nation, to refuse entry to any concert for life if they decided they didn't like you, for instance if they found out you bought or resold a ticket through other than their own scalping service. Or if you sent a mean tweet about Ticketmaster fees. LiveNation controls a giant proportion of venues so they would have the power to do that and if you don't like it, they don't need your money. It's not even about feeling bad for those who end up banned. It's about knowing that when this power, and the available data for them, becomes 10x easier and better in a few years and people realize it, it will have "a chilling effect" as they say, on how comfortable people are about participating in any speech or activity that corporations may not like. Like "Well, I support Starbucks employees to unionize, but I'm not going to admit it openly because I don't want to be banned from Starbucks for life." Starbucks is a silly example, but there are so many real near-monopolies or duopolies that I'm very nervous about giving them carte blanche to use what will no doubt be dramatically improving tech to be able to literally query a DB, select all, "Ban" - or what about "Warn" - next time you enter a venue you're pulled aside and handed a brochure stating that "while you've been admitted this time, your access privileges to our venues will be revoked the next time you engage in any further behavior that damages our reputation or interferes with our ability to conduct business."

freejazz 4y ago

They can't buy the tickets directly from MSG, so they never gave money to MSG. So that can't be the reason either. Would it be fair to prohibit entry to the attys that did sue MSG? Even though attys just represent the interests of their clients?

xp84 4y ago
It really seems like the intent of that is to make it so that people who have been harmed by M.S.G. won't be able to find an attorney next time. Which is a very scumbag gangster type of behavior, so I'm completely happy to have it be smacked down violently by the law.
- freejazz 4y ago
  I totally agree. Especially as a NYC-based attorney, that loves the Rangers, concerts at MSG, and is suing a close business partner of MSG.

kspacewalk2 4y ago

>denying people access to events after you already took their money for admission to them What if you discover fraud or criminality after the ticket is sold but before entry? Leave this lawyer tempest in a teapot aside for the moment, I'm talking unambiguous crime. >denying people access to events for what their co-workers did Say I'm known to be employed by the Lawyers for The Right to Throw Octopi at Hockey Players Coalition, but haven't yet thrown my first octopus. Why can you not act proactively to prevent nuisance? Employment at a particular organization is not protected status, like race or sexual orientation would be. Also, what constitutes an event? If there's a trade show or a product unveiling I don't want certain competitors to attend, why should I have to grant them access? Other than you being in rather narrowly specified groups, if I don't want your money, I should be allowed to refuse it.

josephcsible 4y ago
> What if you discover fraud or criminality after the ticket is sold but before entry? Leave this lawyer tempest in a teapot aside for the moment, I'm talking unambiguous crime. Do you mean crime related to the ticket purchase or event, e.g., stealing a credit card that you then use to buy the tickets with, or do you mean if you just happened to have committed an unrelated crime in the past?
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Related to being in attendance at the event. The local KKK branch intending to smuggle tiki torches and presumably their charming incantations to the annual Diversity and Inclusion gala. (Presumably that would be criminal due to the contents of their slogans, though in America I'm not sure anything said or chanted qualifies as hate crime, like it would in my country). I mean, they purchased tickets, so let 'em in and let 'em have at it, no? Edit: Okay, I'll give a less ridiculous example, one that involves nuisance but not criminality. I come from Ukraine; Alex Ovechkin is a Putin fanboy who refuses to condemn the invasion and genocide of my erstwhile compatriots. If I form a group of people who attend hockey games to heckle and accuse Ovechkin of being a genocide supporter, can MSG kick out a new member of my organization after learning of their joining? They won't sell me a ticket, they know I cause trouble. But he just joined, bought a ticket, then their security team got the updated the Facebook group member list.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    If someone does something bad after buying the ticket, then banning them might indeed be okay (depending on the details, of course). My point is that once you hand over legitimately purchased tickets to people, you shouldn't be able to deny them entry because of anything that happened prior to the purchase.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      >once you hand over legitimately purchased tickets to people, you shouldn't be able to deny them entry because of anything that happened prior to the purchase. Even if something happened prior to the purchase and I learn about it after the purchase? That seems oddly arbitrary.

xp84 4y ago

I don't know if I'm even comfortable, in the consolidated corporate world we live in today, with the idea of large corporations issuing bans as retaliation for pursuing legal rights. Or for really anything besides bad behavior in there. Under the narrow "right to refuse service to anyone for every reason (except based on a protected class)" reading, there's nothing to stop, say, Live Nation, to refuse entry to any concert for life if they decided they didn't like you, for instance if they found out you bought or resold a ticket through other than their own scalping service. Or if you sent a mean tweet about Ticketmaster fees. LiveNation controls a giant proportion of venues so they would have the power to do that and if you don't like it, they don't need your money. It's not even about feeling bad for those who end up banned. It's about knowing that when this power, and the available data for them, becomes 10x easier and better in a few years and people realize it, it will have "a chilling effect" as they say, on how comfortable people are about participating in any speech or activity that corporations may not like. Like "Well, I support Starbucks employees to unionize, but I'm not going to admit it openly because I don't want to be banned from Starbucks for life." Starbucks is a silly example, but there are so many real near-monopolies or duopolies that I'm very nervous about giving them carte blanche to use what will no doubt be dramatically improving tech to be able to literally query a DB, select all, "Ban" - or what about "Warn" - next time you enter a venue you're pulled aside and handed a brochure stating that "while you've been admitted this time, your access privileges to our venues will be revoked the next time you engage in any further behavior that damages our reputation or interferes with our ability to conduct business."