comment: >
context: TIL Entertainment venues are routinely scanning audiences with facial recognition and comparing attendees to massive databases of collected photo images. >
  
  I think the real question is where do they get the facial profiles? AFAIK the only holder of this data is LEOs, in which case Radio City would have partnered with a contractor that is allowed to query the database .... which means the relationship between RC and LE would need to be disclosed.
  But still in this case, where did they obtain the lawyer's pattern?
  This is a bridge too far. >
  
  Facebook, Insta, Google, ect >
  
  An attorney from a law firm suing the parent company of Radio City Music Hall was kicked out of the venue after facial recognition technology identified her when she tried to see a Rockettes performance with her daughter and a pack of Girl Scouts.
  Kelly Conlon, a senior associate with the New Jersey personal injury firm Davis, Saperstein and Salomon — which is representing a client suing a restaurant owned by the parent company, MSG Entertainment — told NBC New York that security guards approached her and asked for identification as soon as she arrived on the weekend after Thanksgiving. The guards ultimately turned her away from the show even though she is not involved in her firm's litigation against the company. Conlon’s daughter and the rest of the Girl Scouts were able to attend the performance, she told the station.
  “I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show,” she told NBC New York. “I did wait outside. ... It was embarrassing. It was mortifying.”
  A partner in the firm, Sam Davis, told NBC New York that Conlon’s experience highlights the potential impacts of the widespread use of facial recognition technology, which has come under fire for contributing to wrongful arrests as a policing tool and surveillance of people of color and other more vulnerable populations without their consent.
  “Taking a mother, separating a mother from her daughter and Girl Scouts she was watching over — and to do it under the pretext of protecting any disclosure of litigation information — is absolutely absurd,” Davis told NBC New York. “The fact they’re using facial recognition to do this is frightening. It’s un-American to do this.”
  MSG Entertainment, which also operates Madison Square Garden and several other major venues, introduced a policy in June barring lawyers from firms suing it from setting foot in its venues while litigation is ongoing.
  About two weeks before Conlon was barred, her firm filed a complaint against the company's policy with the New York State Liquor Authority, alleging that MSG Entertainment’s liquor license requires it to admit members of the public to its venues, other than people who may be disruptive and cause security threats, they told NBC New York.
  A spokesperson for the liquor authority confirmed to NBC News that the agency opened the investigation, “as we do whenever we receive credible complaints,” adding that state law mandates that “all retail licensees allow the general public access into their premises.”
  Davis, Saperstein and Salomon did not respond to questions from NBC News, including whether Conlon and other lawyers at the firm were made aware of MSG Entertainment’s policy. A spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said it notified the firm of the rule twice in recent months — including on the day the firm filed the complaint with state liquor regulators.
  MSG Entertainment told NBC News in a statement that facial recognition is just one of the methods it uses to ensure safety, adding that officials are confident their policy complies with all applicable laws.
  The spokesperson declined to share how the company obtains data used in its facial recognition technology; Davis, Saperstein and Salomon includes photos of its attorneys on its website. The spokesperson added that a sign outside Radio City Music Hall informs visitors that facial recognition technology is among the security measures it has in place.
  The spokesperson called the policy “straightforward” and said attorneys at firms pursuing litigation against it are welcome at its venues once the litigation is resolved.
  “While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adversarial environment,” MSG Entertainment’s statement continued. “All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, which was notified twice. In this particular situation, only the one attorney who chose to attend despite being notified in advance that she would be denied entry, was not permitted to enter, and the rest of her group — including the Girl Scouts — were all able to attend and enjoy the show.”
  The spokesperson added that the policy applies to all attorneys at affected firms because the company doesn’t know which one are working on litigation against it and because it prevents the policy from targeting individual attorneys.
  The policy has come under fire from several firms involved in lawsuits against it, some of whom have unsuccessfully challenged the ban in court; at a hearing last month, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of Delaware Chancery Court called the policy “the stupidest thing I’ve ever read,” Reuters reported.
  New York court records show that more than 20 active lawsuits are pending against MSG Entertainment and its properties in the state. >
  
  Unless I’m mistaken the venue did not separate mother from her child. The mother made the independent decision to let her child go inside without her. >
  
  From the article:  
  
  Dec. 21, 2022, 2:08 PM EST  
  New York - An attorney from a law firm suing the parent company of Radio City Music Hall was kicked out of the venue after facial recognition technology identified her when she tried to see a Rockettes performance with her daughter and a pack of Girl Scouts.  
  MSG Entertainment, which also operates Madison Square Garden and several other major venues, introduced a policy in June barring lawyers from firms suing it from setting foot in its venues while litigation is ongoing.  
  “I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show,” she told NBC New York. “I did wait outside. ... It was embarrassing. It was mortifying.”  
  
  TL;DR: the woman that was removed from the location was not suing the location or the company that owns it personally, she was merely a lawyer that represented persons that brought a suit against the company owning the facility.  
  However when she went to attend the Christmas show with her daughter, which has nothing to do with the lawsuit that she is merely representing, the facial recognition software that the building possesses instantly recognized her, causing her to be removed from the building. >
  
  The comments are going to be a bunch of Doomer bs too, I hate it already. >
  
  Well hopefully you never make it onto a list that could get you banned for nothing you actually did…. Pretty anti-freedom BS right here. 
  Would you like to sign up for the free social credit system? >
  
  As I said, Doomer BS, lots and lots of Doomer BS. >
  
  You know how you loose stuff like this?
  Tiny steps. You are far less likely to have a problem with it if it’s a slow transition versus just creating a massive surveillance system that does this kind of stuff.
  You lose freedoms in small steps >
  
  So people have been saying for decades, without the slippery slope every materializing. >
  
  Hmm… patriot act! 
  Massive state surveillance we learned about from Snowden.
  Due process, illegal search and seizure, civil asset forfeiture, etc etc etc 
  Clearly face recognition is being used more places than we realized 
  You literally have no clue what you are talking about!!! >
  
  You’re mixing up a looooot of things no particular order to make it seem like a steady progression. I’m not impressed. >
  
  Or you just have to keep moving your goal posts so you stay correct in your own head….
  You would be one of the people to say “when they came for me, there was no one left to stand for me” >
  
  Jim Dolan is everything wrong with America. Having dined with him backstage before one of his "shows," and having someone very close to me date his son, dude is a jerk front to back, only a name due to America's insistence on allowing wealth to trickle up. >
  
  Their lawyers keep saying it's reasonable, and everyone else calls it bullshit. >
  
  Well, if nobody decides to toss out reason and successfully rob jim dolan blind, then it is reasonable >
  
  Have you ever seen the Radio City Christmas show? Girl Scout mom came out ahead on the deal. >
  
  Dystopia, here we come! >
  
  It’s already a dystopia, just not a cool one. Cyberpunk with all the misery and none of the aesthetic upside. The least they could do is give us some blimps shilling for the offworld colonies. >
  
  Elon has entered the chat, banging furiously on his keyboard >
  
  You sure he didn't put the keyboard banging to the impanted monkeys? >
  
  It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times?! You stupid monkey! >
  
  Just wait until venues start banning people because you know someone on the ban list, or you know someone who knows someone. >
  
  I have no idea who all of our clients are. This is highly sensitive information. >
  
  
  Girl Scout mom kicked out of Radio City and barred from seeing Rockettes 
  An attorney from a law firm suing the parent company of Radio City Music Hall was kicked out of the venue
  
  Which statement is more biased and emotive. While both are accurate and truthful, one is more likely to draw your attention and click thus Click Bait. I personally feel manipulated by these type of headlines. >
  
  In this case she had nothing to do with the suit, so I'd go with Entertainment conglomerate uses facial recognition analysis on all customers to identify and ban people tangentially associated with lawyers involved in legitimate cases. >
  
  There's no way to know which attorneys are working on a case within a firm, nor do those attorneys have to disclose whether they are when asked by the press. The blanket policy is to prevent an associate not listed as one of the principles from going into the property >
  
  Are we a dystopia yet? >
  
  That's so unfair! It's not like she could have known this would happen, it would have taken a lawyer - oh, wait... >
  
  I mean, if you’re in the process of suing me I would bar you from events at my venue as well. Seems pretty obvious she should have expected this. >
  
  Found the person who only read the title and not the actual article.
  Edit: They also failed to read the top comment with the tldr..... >
  
  Lmao. How could I have known about the details without reading the article? >
  
  Ummm… the venue has no idea which attorneys are working on what case. The burden to figure that out shouldn’t fall to the venue. 
  I find the whole facial recognition angle pretty creepy and disturbing. But I don’t really find keeping lawyers suing you out of your establishment that creepy. The law firm knew about the ban. They should have notified their employees. >
  
  So, according to the article I read, all the attorneys at her firm were notified of the ban. So she knew she couldn't go, and tried to go anyway? Then feigns outrage?
  Nah. >
  
  They emailed the firm. She's not part of the suit. Read more. >
  
  Exactly, they notified the entire firm. So she knew. >
  
  Notifying one person or a generic email at the firm does not mean that the whole firm knew. I wouldn't take MSG's word that all impacted attorneys were notified, unless they sent it certified mail. >
  
  It's not really on msg to personally notify all of the firms employees... >
  
  So facial recognition tech, or a security guard with a knack for remembering faces…not really seeing a difference here.
  Is the problem the tech being used to identify the person? Or the policy the person is in breach of?? >
  
  Private property, they can ban whoever they want with or without formal notice for any reason or no reason. >
  
  Sounds like, at least in the State of New York, they may be at risk of losing their liquor license for banning individuals other than those that are disruptive at the venue.
  So technically yes they can still ban a group of people as they have done but they are breaking the requirements of their liquor license and can have it revoked. That’s something they certainly are not going to be willing to risk imo. >
  
  The threat of the liquor license relies on some really Shakey bullshit about things being open to the public and only serving specific classes of people (eg a private club)
  What the lawyers allege: by refusing to serve their firm they are not open to the public and are thus illegally operating as a private club.
  MSG Will respond: we are open to the public as a whole but maintain specific lists of individual persons non-grada. We aren't a private club. We have just chosen not to serve those individuals. [And lawyers are not a protected class]
  It's not a ton different from your local bar banning you. It's legal for them to do.
  The lawyers know they don't have a case.. they are just being petty in response to what they consider the petty banning of their firm. >
  
  I do like the idea of lawyers getting fucked over once in a while. But the tech at the center is a bit creepy. >
  
  Dystopia is bad even when it's people you don't like that are getting hosed by it.  You're next! >
  
  I agree that it's highly likely that I will be affected by it in the near future. >
  
  Imagine suing your landlord over a valid claim. And he uses facial recognition technology to ban your lawyer from visiting you at your apartment. 
  Imagine suing your bank pro se for misappropriating your funds…and they ban you from entering any branches to conduct any business on your account.
  How is this different? >
  
  They are nothing alike, so what is the point in imagining these other scenarios? 
  They don't want people from the firm coming after them walking around their properties so they don't gather evidence for the lawsuit. >
  
  What? Gather evidence? How is a random woman, who doesn’t represent any party in any underlying lawsuit (“The guards ultimately turned her away from the show even though she is not involved in her firm's litigation against the company.”) being banned via facial recognition under some suspicion she’s “collecting evidence”?
  And what evidence are you claiming she’d be collecting that someone wouldn’t be already be entitled to in regular course discovery?
  She’s attending a goddamn theatrical production. She’s only going to see what tens of thousands of other folks have already seen and nothing more. >
  
  
  She’s attending a goddamn theatrical production.
  
  And that's exactly what I would expect someone to say if they were there to gather evidence in secret. >
  
  Wonder where they got her facial pattern from? >
  
  I love how she's now challenging their liquor license. It's illegal for them to have a liquor license and barr people from entry. >
  
  Corporations are expanding and buying others every day with barely any oversight. Next we’re going to hear about people being denied emergency medical services because the parent company didn’t like someone. >
  
  If your trying to make me feel sorry for a lawyer it ain't happening.