5 ms·

Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue

by afavour 4mo ago

Debating this specific dossier ignores the larger issue, IMO: > MSG has deployed facial recognition technology since 2018 to identify people entering the venue. MSG’s facial recognition systems have been used to block entry to the stadium for all sorts of people. The list includes lawyers who work at law firms in litigation with MSG, even if they are not part of the litigation themselves; and potentially a man who once made a shirt that criticized Dolan. > The document was included in a 45GB cache of data hackers stole from MSG and posted online this month MSG management is not only misusing facial recognition data, they're also so inept as to store it insecurely in a way that violates their own customer's privacy. We need laws around this stuff. And in the meantime NYC should start playing hardball: if they're going to arbitrarily block people from entering MSG based on corporate vendetta then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) https://reinventalbany.org/2023/02/watchdog-supports-state-bill-repealing-msgs-43m-year-property-tax-exemption/ https://reinventalbany.org/2023/02/watchdog-supports-state-b...

gypsy_boots 4mo ago
> MSG management is not only misusing facial recognition data This is making a huge assumption that the goal was ever safety.
beepbopboopp 4mo ago
The stadium pays no property tax. Its a bummer some enterprising pro-bono lawyer hasnt bullied some clever points of leverage onto city subsidized projects that strip some of the god-like powers to deny access from these places. On a personal note, James Dolan seems universally disliked by staff, fans and regular people alike. It's almost impressive.
- citadel_melon 4mo ago
  Some lawyers MSG banned from the stadium tried to sue the venue. these lawyers argued that because MSG was not fully “open to the public” as their liquor licensed required, their liquor licensed should be revoked. The appellate court ultimately decided that a ticket is a “revocable license” and that while MSG needs to be “open to the public,” they don’t need to provide unrestricted access. Essentially, since night clubs can disallow/allow entrance based on arbitrary (non-protected) reasons — such as dress code, status, celebrity etc — yet night clubs have precedent of being allowed to keep their liquor licenses, using similar reasoning MSG’s bans are permissible. This decision seems reasonable to me; however, I hope the NYC political apparatus does political maneuvering to make MSG implement less Orwellian policies. I do not hold my breath but have residues of hope. Hard pivot and a hot take in the US of A, but since MSG is arguably a natural monopoly, it would be reasonable for NYC to “nationalize” MSG. NYC already has the expertise managing large and multifaceted infrastructure. The operation’s surplus value going back to NYC residents rather than unlikeable (and rent-seeking) James Dolan seems a politically defensible and attention-grabby position: the latter of which is increasingly important in our low-attention-span world. Lastly, James Dolan could be portrayed as a security threat to NYC constituents due to this facial recognition software: Americans and American economists tend to be more willing to nationalize things for the sake of national security. I look forward to seeing myself on MSG’s next leaked ministry of truth list (;
JackFr 4mo ago
[flagged]
- xp84 4mo ago
  As a private business, I don't see why he can't ban people because of their astrological sign, their bad taste in pizza, or any other thing other than membership in a protected class. The tax exemption shouldn't exist at all, and the states in the surrounding area should make an interstate compact to put an end to that nonsense by imposing minimum tax burdens for sports teams based on total revenue. The amount of tax avoidance (by some of the most profitable companies in the country) made possible by playing one place against another is crazy.
- smnrchrds 4mo ago
  The lawyer they banned was not engaging in litigation against MSG. She was part of a large firm (with more than 1000 lawyers) where another lawyer was working on litigation against MSG. Like imagine if Google sued Live Nation and then anyone working for Google was banned from Live Nation venues and Ticketmaster.
- freejazz 4mo ago
  >Banning lawyers who are currently engaging in litigation against MSG is prudent, not a vendetta. That's not what he did though
xp84 4mo ago
> then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) I'm 1000% in favor of not having a tax exemption for this business, it's idiotic to give them one in the first place, but I disagree that the exemption should be used to pressure them here. For one thing, that means if they comply with those demands, then they keep the exemption they shouldn't have. I fail to see how a ban on facial recognition altogether is something we need laws for. Any private entity deserves to keep out whoever they want. Who cares if it's by having a bouncer at each entrance with pictures of all the 'personae non gratae' or with a camera? "Going to a Knicks game" is not a protected constitutional right, and I fully support everyone's right to not give MSG or the Knicks or Rangers your money whether it's because you hate facial recognition or just hate this Dolan guy, or whatever. But when you go into a private home or business, I think they do have the right to (as long as it's disclosed) take your picture and also to throw you out. FAQ: Do I think Dolan is being petty or paranoid by banning every lawyer from the firm suing him? Sure, but that's his loss. I don't want to create a precedent that I have to invite you into my private property, and can't deny you entry for your past behavior, or because I don't like who you associate with. We created laws, that I agree with, saying you can't ban whole protected classes like races from 'public accommodations' (private businesses that are generally open to the public) This isn't that though. It's individuals who are not welcome.
- kay_o 4mo ago
  > Who cares if it's by having a bouncer at each entrance with pictures of all the 'personae non gratae' or with a camera It's a tad harder to remotely compromise the banned people database (again) with a few bouncers
  - xp84 4mo ago
    If you made a list of all the people you hate with their pictures, should government regulators be involved with where you keep it and how you safeguard it? I don't feel like I would care even if I was on the list.
    - wongarsu 4mo ago
wartywhoa23 4mo ago
> they need to lose their tax exemption Easy, easy! Are you proposing that venerable people should get less breads for the circuses they provide to plebs?
munksbeer 4mo ago
> We need laws around this stuff. The EU created laws around this (GDPR). Americans seem to hate them.

by afavour 4mo ago

gypsy_boots 4mo ago

> MSG management is not only misusing facial recognition data This is making a huge assumption that the goal was ever safety.

beepbopboopp 4mo ago

The stadium pays no property tax. Its a bummer some enterprising pro-bono lawyer hasnt bullied some clever points of leverage onto city subsidized projects that strip some of the god-like powers to deny access from these places. On a personal note, James Dolan seems universally disliked by staff, fans and regular people alike. It's almost impressive.

citadel_melon 4mo ago
Some lawyers MSG banned from the stadium tried to sue the venue. these lawyers argued that because MSG was not fully “open to the public” as their liquor licensed required, their liquor licensed should be revoked. The appellate court ultimately decided that a ticket is a “revocable license” and that while MSG needs to be “open to the public,” they don’t need to provide unrestricted access. Essentially, since night clubs can disallow/allow entrance based on arbitrary (non-protected) reasons — such as dress code, status, celebrity etc — yet night clubs have precedent of being allowed to keep their liquor licenses, using similar reasoning MSG’s bans are permissible. This decision seems reasonable to me; however, I hope the NYC political apparatus does political maneuvering to make MSG implement less Orwellian policies. I do not hold my breath but have residues of hope. Hard pivot and a hot take in the US of A, but since MSG is arguably a natural monopoly, it would be reasonable for NYC to “nationalize” MSG. NYC already has the expertise managing large and multifaceted infrastructure. The operation’s surplus value going back to NYC residents rather than unlikeable (and rent-seeking) James Dolan seems a politically defensible and attention-grabby position: the latter of which is increasingly important in our low-attention-span world. Lastly, James Dolan could be portrayed as a security threat to NYC constituents due to this facial recognition software: Americans and American economists tend to be more willing to nationalize things for the sake of national security. I look forward to seeing myself on MSG’s next leaked ministry of truth list (;

JackFr 4mo ago

[flagged]

xp84 4mo ago
As a private business, I don't see why he can't ban people because of their astrological sign, their bad taste in pizza, or any other thing other than membership in a protected class. The tax exemption shouldn't exist at all, and the states in the surrounding area should make an interstate compact to put an end to that nonsense by imposing minimum tax burdens for sports teams based on total revenue. The amount of tax avoidance (by some of the most profitable companies in the country) made possible by playing one place against another is crazy.
smnrchrds 4mo ago
The lawyer they banned was not engaging in litigation against MSG. She was part of a large firm (with more than 1000 lawyers) where another lawyer was working on litigation against MSG. Like imagine if Google sued Live Nation and then anyone working for Google was banned from Live Nation venues and Ticketmaster.
freejazz 4mo ago
>Banning lawyers who are currently engaging in litigation against MSG is prudent, not a vendetta. That's not what he did though

xp84 4mo ago

> then they need to lose their tax exemption (well, they should anyway...) I'm 1000% in favor of not having a tax exemption for this business, it's idiotic to give them one in the first place, but I disagree that the exemption should be used to pressure them here. For one thing, that means if they comply with those demands, then they keep the exemption they shouldn't have. I fail to see how a ban on facial recognition altogether is something we need laws for. Any private entity deserves to keep out whoever they want. Who cares if it's by having a bouncer at each entrance with pictures of all the 'personae non gratae' or with a camera? "Going to a Knicks game" is not a protected constitutional right, and I fully support everyone's right to not give MSG or the Knicks or Rangers your money whether it's because you hate facial recognition or just hate this Dolan guy, or whatever. But when you go into a private home or business, I think they do have the right to (as long as it's disclosed) take your picture and also to throw you out. FAQ: Do I think Dolan is being petty or paranoid by banning every lawyer from the firm suing him? Sure, but that's his loss. I don't want to create a precedent that I have to invite you into my private property, and can't deny you entry for your past behavior, or because I don't like who you associate with. We created laws, that I agree with, saying you can't ban whole protected classes like races from 'public accommodations' (private businesses that are generally open to the public) This isn't that though. It's individuals who are not welcome.

kay_o 4mo ago
> Who cares if it's by having a bouncer at each entrance with pictures of all the 'personae non gratae' or with a camera It's a tad harder to remotely compromise the banned people database (again) with a few bouncers
- xp84 4mo ago
  If you made a list of all the people you hate with their pictures, should government regulators be involved with where you keep it and how you safeguard it? I don't feel like I would care even if I was on the list.
  - wongarsu 4mo ago

wartywhoa23 4mo ago

> they need to lose their tax exemption Easy, easy! Are you proposing that venerable people should get less breads for the circuses they provide to plebs?

munksbeer 4mo ago

> We need laws around this stuff. The EU created laws around this (GDPR). Americans seem to hate them.