3 ms·

> Landlords, under this bill, would be banned from collecting biometric data on anyone unless they have “expressly consented” in writing or through a mobile app

> Landlords, under this bill, would be banned from collecting biometric data on anyone unless they have “expressly consented” in writing or through a mobile app. So old fashioned writing is ok, a mobile app is ok, but the in-the-middle technology of a website on a PC is not ok? Why does the form factor of the computing device matter here? This also reads like landlords can still do it, they just have to require you to consent first to be able to enter the building.

jmclnx 3y ago
I think this should be completely banned. I can see cases where people will say "no" and then will no be allowed to rent or put on the top of the list for large rent increases.
- vegetablepotpie 3y ago
  Rental leases are contracts of adhesion. Consent to facial recognition will be added to the boiler plate text. If tenants want to negotiate, they’ll be told that the contract is just a standard form that can’t change.
  - ambicapter 3y ago
    And even if you don't consent in writing, they'll just do it anyways because they're too lazy to special-case your request, and they'll bank on you not figuring out that they're doing it anyways, and then not bothering to drag you into court even if they did do it.
    - Aardwolf 3y ago
      > and they'll bank on you not figuring out that they're doing it anyways I mean, if this is the kind of apartment that requires an app, and showing your face at the door, to enter, you'd figure it out
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      There's no conspiracy here. It's that they bought a particular iot hardware package from some company like Yardi or Realpage for half a million, installed that in every apartment, and since they're using the management software from those same companies they have little ability (or frankly, desire) to exempt the one jackass who demands that from that lease clause, when they don't even know how to turn off the facial recognition for the one customer. You talk as if it's part of some sinister plan, when it's really someone making $19/hr at the front office who is bad at the software that their business uses to manage said business. Besides, everyone complains when they have to dig their phone out of their pocket every time they want to open up a gate or door to the building, when it could just unlock itself when it sees them coming (it's not as if there are going to be many apartment buildings relying on brass keys here in 10 years). This is apathy, trends, and convenience. Nothing more.
      - ambicapter 3y ago
        Right, it's the "banality of evil" all over again.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        It's not even evil. It's just the plain fact that corporations choose a business model that means they do not care to negotiate with individual consumers on contract terms. Then you have several layers of products (software titles in this case) being stacked one on top of another, until the renter isn't even the consumer of the product. Virtually none of these places are using anything that allows them to one-off a lease for a grouchy asshole. But if renters really demanded that and wanted to pay for it, I guess there could be an onsite lawyer willing and able to vet those modifications and put the lease through. But in a day and age where every whiny Starbucks barista complains that they can't afford the 4000sqft studio apartment of their dreams, I doubt they want to pay the extra premium that would result from individualized lease contracts. It's the banality of "you're not important enough to spend the time on". No one's being loaded into cattle cars.
        3y ago
  - tristor 3y ago
    > they’ll be told that the contract is just a standard form that can’t change. One of the biggest problems with rental contracts is that the person who is counter-signing the contract on behalf of the property owner often doesn't have the authority within the organization to negotiate, only the owner does, but you have no opportunity as a tenant to speak to them. The manager of most apartment complexes is a low-mid paying role that basically exists to say "no" a whole lot and be a scapegoat for the choices/decisions of the owners. This is even /more true/ with corporate-owned apartments. When you combine this with the systems used to effectively illegally price fix via collusion with other landlords (although somehow this is never prosecuted), it becomes an untenable system for renters who have essentially no legal recourse. Ironically, the more expensive the apartment rent, the less likely you are to put up with these things because the owners know that their tenants can afford to sue them and are likely educated and know their rights. It's primarily lower rent locations where abuses occur en masse. In order for a contract to be enforceable it must allow for negotiation and must provide consideration for both parties. But there's a huge difference between a contract being legally enforceable and upheld by a court vs a contract you must follow because you have no means to legally challenge it. Contracts of adhesion are very rarely fully enforceable, because they often do not include consideration and may be unconscionable. As an example, you are not allowed to contractually sign away your civil rights in most jurisdictions, but many rental contracts include clauses that effectively have you do so.
contravariant 3y ago
Here I wa thinking that was just journalists jumping to hasty conclusions, but no that is the actual text: > [...] except where such user has expressly consented, in writing or through a mobile application [...] Not sure how they defined "mobile application" however.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pc86 3y ago
The mobile app thing is weird for sure. I think reasonable people can disagree on the use of facial recognition by law enforcement (in the "point a camera at the sidewalk and see what happens" sense) but I see absolutely no reason why a private entity should be able to use this type of technology. A landlord doesn't have the right to know the identity of every guest every one of their tenants has - they just don't. A commercial venue like the whole MSG thing is a little stickier but the scale of it and the wild potential for abuse (again, MSG) makes my gut reaction an outright ban. I'm not crazy about the government/LE doing this either but I'm really not crazy about private entities doing it.
- tzs 3y ago
  > A landlord doesn't have the right to know the identity of every guest every one of their tenants has - they just don't. I don't think it would give them that. My understanding is that these facial recognition systems for building access work by registering and storing the face data of the people who are supposed to be able to open the locked door.
  - runnerup 3y ago
    This was partially driven by this[0]: "Madison Square Garden Uses Facial Recognition to Ban Its Owner’s Enemies MSG Entertainment, the owner of the arena and Radio City Music Hall, has put lawyers who represent people suing it on an “exclusion list” to keep them out of concerts and sporting events." 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-g...
  - atkailash 3y ago
    [dead]
Spooky23 3y ago
Unless you’re “frozen caveman lawyer”, recently thawed and awoken from the glacial ice, it should be pretty obvious that scale changes things. It’s not creepy when the guy at the coffee shop knows your order because you come in every day. It is creepy if every Starbucks barista knows who you are and what you want. Technology has already put significant limits on free movement and privacy. It is impossible, for example, to enter or leave an urban area by vehicle without at minimum LPR footprints tracking that movement. Photos and video are increasingly common. The problem in a place like NYC is that the residents there will feel it first. Nobody can afford property, so private entities can record everyone in your home at any time, in public or private spaces. We’ve already seen abuses of this - an employee of a law firm was ejected from Radio City Music hall because her law firm was suing MSG, the venues parent company.

jmclnx 3y ago

I think this should be completely banned. I can see cases where people will say "no" and then will no be allowed to rent or put on the top of the list for large rent increases.

vegetablepotpie 3y ago
Rental leases are contracts of adhesion. Consent to facial recognition will be added to the boiler plate text. If tenants want to negotiate, they’ll be told that the contract is just a standard form that can’t change.
- ambicapter 3y ago
  And even if you don't consent in writing, they'll just do it anyways because they're too lazy to special-case your request, and they'll bank on you not figuring out that they're doing it anyways, and then not bothering to drag you into court even if they did do it.
  - Aardwolf 3y ago
    > and they'll bank on you not figuring out that they're doing it anyways I mean, if this is the kind of apartment that requires an app, and showing your face at the door, to enter, you'd figure it out
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    There's no conspiracy here. It's that they bought a particular iot hardware package from some company like Yardi or Realpage for half a million, installed that in every apartment, and since they're using the management software from those same companies they have little ability (or frankly, desire) to exempt the one jackass who demands that from that lease clause, when they don't even know how to turn off the facial recognition for the one customer. You talk as if it's part of some sinister plan, when it's really someone making $19/hr at the front office who is bad at the software that their business uses to manage said business. Besides, everyone complains when they have to dig their phone out of their pocket every time they want to open up a gate or door to the building, when it could just unlock itself when it sees them coming (it's not as if there are going to be many apartment buildings relying on brass keys here in 10 years). This is apathy, trends, and convenience. Nothing more.
    - ambicapter 3y ago
      Right, it's the "banality of evil" all over again.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        It's not even evil. It's just the plain fact that corporations choose a business model that means they do not care to negotiate with individual consumers on contract terms. Then you have several layers of products (software titles in this case) being stacked one on top of another, until the renter isn't even the consumer of the product. Virtually none of these places are using anything that allows them to one-off a lease for a grouchy asshole. But if renters really demanded that and wanted to pay for it, I guess there could be an onsite lawyer willing and able to vet those modifications and put the lease through. But in a day and age where every whiny Starbucks barista complains that they can't afford the 4000sqft studio apartment of their dreams, I doubt they want to pay the extra premium that would result from individualized lease contracts. It's the banality of "you're not important enough to spend the time on". No one's being loaded into cattle cars.
        3y ago
- tristor 3y ago
  > they’ll be told that the contract is just a standard form that can’t change. One of the biggest problems with rental contracts is that the person who is counter-signing the contract on behalf of the property owner often doesn't have the authority within the organization to negotiate, only the owner does, but you have no opportunity as a tenant to speak to them. The manager of most apartment complexes is a low-mid paying role that basically exists to say "no" a whole lot and be a scapegoat for the choices/decisions of the owners. This is even /more true/ with corporate-owned apartments. When you combine this with the systems used to effectively illegally price fix via collusion with other landlords (although somehow this is never prosecuted), it becomes an untenable system for renters who have essentially no legal recourse. Ironically, the more expensive the apartment rent, the less likely you are to put up with these things because the owners know that their tenants can afford to sue them and are likely educated and know their rights. It's primarily lower rent locations where abuses occur en masse. In order for a contract to be enforceable it must allow for negotiation and must provide consideration for both parties. But there's a huge difference between a contract being legally enforceable and upheld by a court vs a contract you must follow because you have no means to legally challenge it. Contracts of adhesion are very rarely fully enforceable, because they often do not include consideration and may be unconscionable. As an example, you are not allowed to contractually sign away your civil rights in most jurisdictions, but many rental contracts include clauses that effectively have you do so.

contravariant 3y ago

Here I wa thinking that was just journalists jumping to hasty conclusions, but no that is the actual text: > [...] except where such user has expressly consented, in writing or through a mobile application [...] Not sure how they defined "mobile application" however.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pc86 3y ago

The mobile app thing is weird for sure. I think reasonable people can disagree on the use of facial recognition by law enforcement (in the "point a camera at the sidewalk and see what happens" sense) but I see absolutely no reason why a private entity should be able to use this type of technology. A landlord doesn't have the right to know the identity of every guest every one of their tenants has - they just don't. A commercial venue like the whole MSG thing is a little stickier but the scale of it and the wild potential for abuse (again, MSG) makes my gut reaction an outright ban. I'm not crazy about the government/LE doing this either but I'm really not crazy about private entities doing it.

tzs 3y ago
> A landlord doesn't have the right to know the identity of every guest every one of their tenants has - they just don't. I don't think it would give them that. My understanding is that these facial recognition systems for building access work by registering and storing the face data of the people who are supposed to be able to open the locked door.
- runnerup 3y ago
  This was partially driven by this[0]: "Madison Square Garden Uses Facial Recognition to Ban Its Owner’s Enemies MSG Entertainment, the owner of the arena and Radio City Music Hall, has put lawyers who represent people suing it on an “exclusion list” to keep them out of concerts and sporting events." 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/nyregion/madison-square-g...
- atkailash 3y ago
  [dead]

Spooky23 3y ago

Unless you’re “frozen caveman lawyer”, recently thawed and awoken from the glacial ice, it should be pretty obvious that scale changes things. It’s not creepy when the guy at the coffee shop knows your order because you come in every day. It is creepy if every Starbucks barista knows who you are and what you want. Technology has already put significant limits on free movement and privacy. It is impossible, for example, to enter or leave an urban area by vehicle without at minimum LPR footprints tracking that movement. Photos and video are increasingly common. The problem in a place like NYC is that the residents there will feel it first. Nobody can afford property, so private entities can record everyone in your home at any time, in public or private spaces. We’ve already seen abuses of this - an employee of a law firm was ejected from Radio City Music hall because her law firm was suing MSG, the venues parent company.