Lawyers barred by Madison Square Garden found a way back in
First just a disclaimer that I am not a proponent of facial recognition technology (I think it has a number of significant faults).<p>That being said, it does not seem like facial recognition technology is the issue here, at all.<p>The crux of the matter appears to be this:<p>&gt; Businesses generally have the right to decide whom they want to do business with, as long as they are not discriminating by ethnicity, sex, religion, disability or another protected class.<p>This seems to be the issue that people are fundamentally disagreeing with. Facial recognition technology is one way of achieving that. If the venue just had all security guards carry a list of the lawyers&#x27; photographs, instead of using automated technology, would people be fine with the venue barring access?<p>Essentially it seems to me like people are disagreeing with the fact that businesses can choose to not to business with unprotected classes. If so, that&#x27;s fine, but I don&#x27;t understand why people are just couching this as an attack on facial recognition technology, which seems like in this instance is actually doing its job well.<p>The article ends with:<p>&gt; Lawyers may not be the most sympathetic victims and their need to be entertained may not be the most compelling of causes. But their plight, Mr. Greenberg said, should raise alarms about how the use of this technology could spread. Businesses, for instance, might turn people away based on their political ideology, comments they’d made online or whom they work for.<p>But again....&quot;Businesses, for instance, might turn people away based on their political ideology, comments they’d made online or whom they work for&quot; with or without the use of facial recognition technology, so the fundamental issue appears to be that businesses _shouldn&#x27;t_ be allowed to turn away unprotected classes?