Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 11 2019, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the bands-watching-out-for-the-people-who-watch-the-people-who-watch-a-concert dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Former Rage Against the Machine member Tom Morello and band Speedy Ortiz have joined a campaign by digital rights group Fight for the Future.

[...] In a tweet, Tom Morello said: "I don't want Big Brother at my shows targeting fans for harassment, deportation or arrest."

Fight for the Future added: "Music fans should feel safe and respected at festivals and shows, not subjected to invasive biometric surveillance."

[...] Ticketmaster's parent company Live Nation announced in May 2018 that to stop fans having to use tickets, it was teaming up with Blink Identity, which uses technology to scan people's faces as they enter concert venues.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 12 2019, @04:56AM (3 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Thursday September 12 2019, @04:56AM (#893059) Journal
    "If the people that might be harassed, deported or detained is because they have already been found guilty in a court of law and the courts have ruled that they should face legal sanction, then it has nothing to do with your presumption of innocence."

    It's not about one or two people in a crowd that *might* fit your description - it's about everyone else. Facial recognition databases make fishing expeditions very attractive - but fishing expeditions are not allowed in our system of law, you need a specific credible suspicion before you can examine someone like that.

    "Are you suggesting that music concerts are a place that the law and police have no jurisdiction or role to play?"

    Not at all. What I'm saying is you don't get to search everyone there on a hunch. You don't get to search everyone there at all, you have to have probable cause on a specific suspect before you can do that.

    A concert is about the worst spot you could pick to make an arrest as well.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday September 12 2019, @06:40AM (2 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @06:40AM (#893070) Journal

    Your argument is about the use of video as a method of replacing tickets. I agree with this point of view and I would not wish it to be implemented. But, the problem is resolved by refusing to employ the companies that use video surveillance. However, that is not what the musicians asked for:

    UK Musicians Call for Facial Recognition Ban at Gigs

    nor is it what you said:

    The presumption of innocence is a foundation of civil society.

    You continued with:

    Facial recognition databases make fishing expeditions very attractive - but fishing expeditions are not allowed in our system of law, you need a specific credible suspicion before you can examine someone like that.

    So implement laws that make such things illegal. There is no evidence that the ticket vendors will turn over their video to the police, nor that the police have stated that they would demand to see it. It is your government's role to ensure that laws are passed to prevent such abuses from taking place. Your sound bite is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 19 2019, @05:50AM (1 child)

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday September 19 2019, @05:50AM (#895997) Journal
      "Your argument is about the use of video as a method of replacing tickets."

      But it isn't.

      Not exactly.

      If they did this in an isolated system and it was really unthinkable that anyone else would get their data; they deleted it after the concert; then no one would care.

      But that never happens. They're openly talking about searching for warrants. Ok, that's the low-hanging fruit, who can argue with that?

      Well I will, and not just because I know that once they get away with searching for warrants, they'll start searching for bad credit scores, and we've got the 'social' credit score already we just don't admit it.

      In practice this isn't some crazy theory this is just how it works out over and over again and you'd be a fool to expect anything else. They take the videos and then no matter what they said up to this point they suddenly perceive the data as something of value. An asset. A businessman never gives up an asset willingly unless you pay him what he or she thinks it's worth. They hold onto it, they resell it.

      You're right on one thing, there should be a law against it. That's a rare thing for me to say. But if it isn't flat out illegal to keep this data and sell it to anyone that wants it for any reason; from the benevolent to the most viciously malevolent, then it's going to be kept and sold for fractions of a penny in perpetuity.

      Which is in no one's interest.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday September 19 2019, @06:52AM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 19 2019, @06:52AM (#896004) Journal

        They argue it could be used to target music fans.

        In a tweet, Tom Morello said: "I don't want Big Brother at my shows targeting fans for harassment, deportation or arrest."

        While I can agree with the general thrust of your comment, I need to point out that the data 'could' be used for such purposes according to TFS. It could also be used for a myriad of other things and, for this particular company, there is no record or history of them abusing video data. Why are we concentrating on one specific abuse while ignoring all of the others? Two examples were quoted in the article. A Taylor Swift concert in the USA where a stalker of Swift was detained by police, and an incident in China where "Mr Ao was identified by cameras at the concert's ticket entrance, and apprehended by police after he had sat down with other concert goers.". The latter arrest was initiated by police who were at the entrances and were using security videos which are routinely fitted at stadiums and venues around the world. If such measures were not implemented there would be, at some time, another outcry asking why the public were not being kept safe at such events. At the Swift concert the police were actively searching for known stalkers - this was not a random event but a targetted action.

        I remain convinced that the most effective measure is for the bands to refuse to play at venues where video surveillance is used in preference to ticket sales. But to ban all video surveillance inside venues reduces public safety rather than provides protection of a few. After the bomb attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, the perpetrators were identified from video surveillance footage from both inside and outside the concert venue. Likewise attacks on the London tube network, the Westminster bridge attack, and the murders of several policemen in the London area have all required the result of video surveillance to enable the killers to be apprehended and brought to justice.

        In my opinion, the correct action now would be for a law to be passed ensuring that video recordings of the public are treated like any other personal data and only permitted to be sold, exchanged or exploited to fulfil a genuine and official need to protect the public, not for commercial benefits. Video footage should be afforded at least the same level of protection as that afforded in Europe to any other personal data and, preferably, significantly more protection.