3 ms·

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

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.

freejazz 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. A casino has totally different security needs than MSG, and is subject to significantly different types of laws. And if your point was true, then it's something that MSG would have done. They didn't. Full stop. >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 Your rudeness aside, I did read the article. Those examples aren't comparable because they did not happen on the scale we are discussing here (paralegals from the firm that aren't even on the case? that wouldn't be identifiable were it not for a firm's website, and linkedIn?). Sorry but you are demonstrating a lack of credible judgment and reasoning by the means of your arguments, which are specious and lacking in reasonable judgment. Your counterexamples are purposefully obtuse as to remove the meaningful distinctions between the things we are comparing. I have no reason to believe this has occurred for any reason aside from your own purpose.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  I haven't really seen you argue anything new (We're specifically targeting MSG, other concert venues from decades ago won't do? Okay. We're again talking not about the substance but the scale? Great, back to square one). But I will note the supreme irony of accusing me of rudeness, having introduced "ridiculous propositions" and "baseless pushbacks" into a discussion that, outside of your involvement in it, is fairly courteous and adult among the other half dozen participants.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. It wasn't. That's clear because MSG has wanted to do this, but couldn't, until facial recognition was available. Everything else you are saying completely detracts from the reality of this situation. I'll point out a further irony, that once it is your own ego that is being challenged, suddenly you can make an astute observation and a reasonable deduction thereof. But when it was your hypothetical that you are pushing, which defies obvious reality, you were unable to make sense of anything.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      >I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. This is unambiguously false. Examples in article from early 1900s, casinos, etc. Just going in circles here.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        MSG isn’t a casino. They have completely different business models and security needs. Casinos already have video surveillance on every single table as well as people monitoring them, on top of the on-floor security staff, which exist in much greater numbers than at MSG. This is a completely unreasonable comparison. There are no circles here, just your head in the sand ignoring these key fundamental differences that explain exactly why you are wrong. They are facially obvious and it's no coincidence that MSG didn't begin this conduct until facial recognition enabled them to.

freejazz 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. A casino has totally different security needs than MSG, and is subject to significantly different types of laws. And if your point was true, then it's something that MSG would have done. They didn't. Full stop. >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 Your rudeness aside, I did read the article. Those examples aren't comparable because they did not happen on the scale we are discussing here (paralegals from the firm that aren't even on the case? that wouldn't be identifiable were it not for a firm's website, and linkedIn?). Sorry but you are demonstrating a lack of credible judgment and reasoning by the means of your arguments, which are specious and lacking in reasonable judgment. Your counterexamples are purposefully obtuse as to remove the meaningful distinctions between the things we are comparing. I have no reason to believe this has occurred for any reason aside from your own purpose.

kspacewalk2 4y ago
I haven't really seen you argue anything new (We're specifically targeting MSG, other concert venues from decades ago won't do? Okay. We're again talking not about the substance but the scale? Great, back to square one). But I will note the supreme irony of accusing me of rudeness, having introduced "ridiculous propositions" and "baseless pushbacks" into a discussion that, outside of your involvement in it, is fairly courteous and adult among the other half dozen participants.
- freejazz 4y ago
  I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. It wasn't. That's clear because MSG has wanted to do this, but couldn't, until facial recognition was available. Everything else you are saying completely detracts from the reality of this situation. I'll point out a further irony, that once it is your own ego that is being challenged, suddenly you can make an astute observation and a reasonable deduction thereof. But when it was your hypothetical that you are pushing, which defies obvious reality, you were unable to make sense of anything.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    >I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. This is unambiguously false. Examples in article from early 1900s, casinos, etc. Just going in circles here.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      MSG isn’t a casino. They have completely different business models and security needs. Casinos already have video surveillance on every single table as well as people monitoring them, on top of the on-floor security staff, which exist in much greater numbers than at MSG. This is a completely unreasonable comparison. There are no circles here, just your head in the sand ignoring these key fundamental differences that explain exactly why you are wrong. They are facially obvious and it's no coincidence that MSG didn't begin this conduct until facial recognition enabled them to.