What do you think of facial recognition being used to ban a lawyer from the Rockettes Christmas Show?

[AviatorTom]

A mother and her daughter came to New York City the weekend after Thanksgiving as part of a Girl Scout field trip to Radio City Music Hall to see the Christmas Spectacular show. Her daughter, other members of the Girl Scout troop and their mothers got to enjoy the show, but she wasn't allowed to do so. Why? Facial recognition identified her as a lawyer who works at a firm involved in litigation with Madison Square Garden Entertainment, who operates Radio City Music Hall and Madison Square Garden.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/face-recognition-tech-gets-girl-scout-mom-booted-from-rockettes-show-due-to-her-employer/4004677/

YouTube lawyer Steve Lehto also discusses this in this video...

What do you think about this?

Updates

1 y

I have three issues with this:
1. Facial recognition to track when and where a person goes is a violation of privacy, unless the person knowingly submits to it, like you do now in the US when passing through customs at airports.
2. More importantly, they didn't ban her because she's a safety or security risk, just because the owners don't like lawyers that litigate against them.
3. She purchased a valid ticket for the show, which gives her the right to attend it.

[SaoirseS]

Based on a similar situation I had a few months ago, I can see where the business is coming from since I'm a business owner. I'm not a lawyer, but from prior discussions with my business attorney this is not at all an uncommon practice. The firm was given written notice about them denying access to their lawyers, without exception from what little I saw, until the litigation was resolved. It doesn't matter how they identified her, whether it was through use of technology or just recognition on sight, she was in defiance which is all that really mattered. Saoirse's way of thinking: if I sold her a ticket and took her money, she gets to attend unless there some significant reason besides a pissing contest between lawyers to deny her access. If she was some kind of public safety threat I'd think otherwise. When it comes to private property with public access, it can get pretty weird. I know there's some controversy about facial recognition technology, and some think it's pretty Orwellian, but I'm not in favor of giving criminals and those who pose a potential threat to public safety "a sporting chance" to go undetected. I'm sure there'll be a few false positives, but I think those could be easily resolved on the scene (s).

[SaoirseS]

Thanks for MHO!

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Putting an establishment or venue in this case "off limits" to a law firm's attorneys for the duration of litigation is standard practice. I think @OlderAndWiser explained pretty well the procedures they should follow if they need to visit the premises.

I note the law firm's plans to retaliate by going after MSE's liquor license. It's behavior like this that makes me glad I never practiced litigation law.

I have no opinion on facial recognition technology other than it's a useful tool that would probably benefit by better regulation.

[SnowedIn]

Tom, thanks as always for posting thought provoking questions.

I read several articles on this. Focusing just on this business/establishment, I'm okay with it. That business has the right, within the law, to do what they want how they want. My point is that a business can't murder people as an example, but they can choose who they want to be their facilities. Business don't want barefoot people in their stores, this is somewhat similar. And businesses are using cameras and recording all the time anyway. This really is just an application of another layer of technology on top of that. I don't find this any more intrusive than the multiple layers of checks at an airport.

With regard to the YouTube video, this wasn't an "enemy". As you said, Tom, she was an attorney with one of the firms in the litigation.

I think all of this is much ado about nothing although it probably speaks to the nation needing regulation on application of facial recognition technology.

[OlderAndWiser]

My response depends on whether the litigation involves a subject for which the plaintiff's lawyer might gain an advantage by inspecting the premises or observing the methods of operation. There are procedures in litigation by which a lawyer can gain temporary access to the premises, but the opposing attorney is notified in advance and it is scheduled when the opposing attorney can also be present.

[Anonymous]

This is some dystopian crap. It's a public venue and the mom was not being disruptive at all. We need some hefty punishments for companies doing this sort of thing because of where it could lead. Imagine gas stations banning you because you liked Greta Thunburg on Facebook or being banned from the grocery stores in your area because you supported raising the minimum wage or a local ordinance they didn't like. Companies really need to be taught that when they behave unethically, they are going to lose lying customers. Seriously… separating a mother from her child?

[CrazyGirl2]

I think it’s creepy as hell! The thought of people being able to check the identities of everyone walking in public is horrific!

[purplepoppy]

I can understand someone being banned if they've caused trouble in the past but I think this sets a dangerous precedent.

[exitseven]

It identified somebody who worked for a law firm that had Republican clients. What do you expect?

[Snakeyes7]

That's creepy shit. This is stuff China does all the time and it heavily disturbs me, but at the same time not surprising that New York of all places is using it, that it is happening in the US now.

[AimeeKyle]

Totally understandable. It’s their business and can do whatever. This tech has pluses and minuses though. Where do we draw the line as a society / businesses / personal…?

[genericname85]

i guess it's only a horrible 1984 Orwell thing if china does it huh? xD

[kespethdude]

If that lawyer is a sex offender (and if so, how has he not been disbarred?), then I'm all for it.

[Blue-love1]

I got a red light ticket with my name on it and it wasn’t even me. It was someone completely different and A MAN.

[Andres77]

Two-edged sword.

[Andres77]

They should have signs posted and they should have done this at the ticket booth before she went in. She probably bought the tickets online so she should be given a refund for her ticket.