MSG probed over use of facial recognition to eject lawyers from show venues
The operator of Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall is being probed by New York's attorney general over the company's use of facial recognition technology to identify and exclude lawyers from events. AG Letitia James' office said the policy may violate civil rights laws.
[...]
In December, attorney Kelly Conlon was denied entry into Radio City Music Hall in New York when she accompanied her daughter's Girl Scout troop to a Rockettes show. Conlon wasn't personally involved in any lawsuits against MSG but is a lawyer for a firm that "has been involved in personal injury litigation against a restaurant venue now under the umbrella of MSG Entertainment," NBC New York reported.
Madison Square Garden's Facial Recognition Mess: Everything We Know
Madison Square Garden's Facial Recognition Mess: Everything We Know:
MSG Entertainment is using facial recognition to identify, accost, and remove attorneys involved in lawsuits against it. It's doubling down on doing it.
[...] Over the past three months, multiple lawyers in the New York area have come forward with dramatic accounts of being denied entry into Madison Square Garden and other venues also owned by MSG Entertainment. The common factor in their stories? Each of them were spotted by the company's facial recognition system. That system was looking for lawyers from an estimated 90 law firms with active litigation against Madison Square Garden or MSG who were placed on a list denying them entry into the venues. The venue justifies banning the attorneys, many of whom aren't personally involved in the lawsuits, because their presence somehow "creates an inherently adverse environment." New York's Attorney General, on the other hand, says that practice may violate state civil rights laws. Madison Square Garden first rolled out facial recognition systems to its venues in 2018 with the stated goal of increasing security.
"This is bad, and it's just one example of how facial recognition could be used to infringe on peoples' rights," Fight for the Future Director Evan Greer said in a statement. "This technology puts music fans, sports fans, and others at risk of being unjustly detained, harassed, judged, or even deported."
Previously:
MSG Allegedly Used Facial Recognition to Remove Rival Attorney From Rockettes Show
Related Stories
https://gizmodo.com/mgs-facial-recognition-msg-rockettes-show-1849919528
An attorney working for a law firm taking legal action against MSG Entertainment claims she was spotted by the company's facial recognition security system while attending a Rockettes show with her daughter and was ultimately denied entry. The case, one of the first of its kind according to a privacy expert speaking with Gizmodo, sheds light on an underreported practice of private companies using biometric identification systems to carry out retaliatory policy prescriptions amid a wildly under-regulated biometrics environment.
The lawyer, a mother named Kelly Conlon, reportedly traveled to New York City with her daughter as part of a Girl Scouts field trip to see "The Christmas Spectacular." Conlon claims she was apprehended by the venue's security staff immediately after walking through metal detectors and asked to say her name and provide an ID. One of the guards, Conlon said in an interview with NBC New York, allegedly told her she was "picked up" by their recognition system.
Conlon told NBC New York she saw signs on the wall alerting guests facial recognition was in use. For context, MSG Entertainment, which runs Radio City Music Hall, reportedly started introducing facial recognition to venues in 2018 in an effort to "bolster security." Since then, the technology's grown increasingly popular at live events and large sports stadiums.
"They knew my name before I told them," Conlon told NBC New York." They knew the firm I was associated with before I told them. And they told me I was not allowed to be there."
[...] "It was embarrassing, it was mortifying," Conlon said. "I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show."
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:31PM (30 children)
First they came for the lawyers...
And I did not speak up because I was too busy ROFLing...
Seriously though, I don't think lawyers are a protected group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group [wikipedia.org]
So which laws and specific clauses are they breaking?
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:06PM
We reserve the right to refuse service.....
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @06:31PM (27 children)
Notice it doesn't say "government searches and seizures". I think using face recognition tools merely to be rude to lawyers counts as an unreasonable search.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 31 2023, @06:44PM
This seems a case of discrimination, not unreasonable search. The 4th doesn't apply. In a public place, privacy is limited. For instance, cops can't arrest people for videoing them in public at work. This is now so firmly established that not only can't cops stop that, they have to wear body cams.
Can't discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, and quite a few other things. Is career choice included in that list? I should think, yes, it is.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday January 31 2023, @07:15PM (21 children)
If they're on private property and approaching their cameras I don't think that constitutes a 'search'.
Also... and I'm not really replying to you khallow, I'm just making a general statement about the topic: "...the company's use of facial recognition technology to identify and exclude lawyers from events..." -- English is a funny language. That phrasing reads like AI is looking at video of people and going "That dude's a lawyer! SOUND THE ALARM!!", rather they have a blacklist of specific people who are lawyers they're searching for. You know, like how some places have signs up saying "don't let this person in" in the ticketing booth. I don't see how 'discrimination' is a factor in this context.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday January 31 2023, @08:30PM (2 children)
But it doesn't matter, you can exclude anyone you want from your property; there ARE such things as property rights. You don't like my rules, you can't get in. Note that it's illegal for my rules to exclude protected classes, which lawyers aren't.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday February 01 2023, @06:57AM (1 child)
You don't get to exclude paying customers without cause though. She's being banned from the venue for being an attorney for a law firm that's doing l suing the owner. This isn't like trying to get into a private club and not being cool enough to get passed the bouncer.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 01 2023, @05:31PM
You don't get to exclude paying customers without cause though.
Nonsense, "coat and tie required", "No soliciting"... What you argue has yet to be shown in court. You two are saying a bar can't exclude salesmen?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @09:48PM (12 children)
Why? It would if the police were doing it. And given that it's being used to ban people who work for a particular business indicates that they've grabbed a lot of pictures of peoples' faces which is another search. Two searches and they've grabbed a bunch of peoples' images and used them for a dubious purpose. What about that sounds reasonable to you?
Seems to me that there are numerous avenues to go here. First, where did the data used for the facial recognition come from? Are those images copyrighted, say by the law firm itself? Who made the decision to put that information in to facial screening? What other actions did they take on whose authorization per this law firm? Who else is in this list of banned people and why?
My take is we would find this is the tip of a nasty iceberg of institutional espionage and intimidation. The law firm might not be the only victim either.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @10:08PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday January 31 2023, @10:09PM (10 children)
Umm... okay.
I didn't say they sounded reasonable. I said it wasn't a search. A Google search to find photos of these people is not a 'search' in this context, either. (Oh and they probably just used their own surveillance cameras ... fewer false-positives that way.) If they downloaded their phones or hacked the social media passwords or something you might have a point.
You're right, the article even mentions a couple... but admittedly doesn't go into specific detail. NYC has privacy laws, it's a question of if MSG is violating them specifically. There's the first step of your path. You're wasting your time with copyrights and use of publicly available images.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @03:07AM (9 children)
Finding photos for the purpose of putting them into a security system for later identification. It's a search.
How did law firm employee images get on those surveillance cameras then?
Still doubt it. Just because a photo is on the web doesn't mean that putting it into a security system is fair use of that image.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 01 2023, @03:27AM (8 children)
Nope. Not in this context.
You seriously can't think of a way a law firm employee would end up on a surveillance camera? Heh. Do you believe they don't cast reflections or something?
"Nuh uh" is an insufficient argument. I suggest your avail yourself of Google or DuckDuckGo's services.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @03:56AM (7 children)
Yes. How did that happen? How did they know it was law firm employee?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 01 2023, @04:13AM (6 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @02:15PM (5 children)
How did they get the right people? If they want to block Elmer Fudd from the property and an Elmer Fudd shows up, how do they know they have the right Elmer Fudd before they stick him in the facial database? My take is that they misused copyrighted images or were conducting some sort of surveillance of the firms in question in the first place in order to know who to ban from the property. There's a chicken and egg problem that doesn't go away even if every banned lawyer in question has been to the property before.
And it opens a new can of worms. Because now they're using surveillance video of people for a purpose other than the necessary. I think they're in trouble no matter what happens.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 01 2023, @06:15PM (4 children)
They could simply pore over all the info he gave them when he purchased a ticket.
Lol, nope. They might have violated privacy laws, but copyright is not a factor. And, no, I'm not entertaining the possibility that it is. Maybe we can revisit if MSG ever decides to sell their image database or make it public.
I'm not disputing they possibly broke the law in collecting the data they need, it's just not called 'piracy' or 'search'.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @06:35PM (3 children)
Like? "Employer" seems like one of those categories that would be missing.
Or is required by a court or regulator order to reveal where they received those images from.
Except, of course, when it is such.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 01 2023, @06:47PM (2 children)
"Preferred Star Trek Series" is probably not one of those categories, either. Yet data mining still happens. Gee.
Not related to copyright.
In that case they might have jaywalked the images into their database. MSG would be relieved, that's just a fine... if NYC even enforces it.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @07:16PM (1 child)
This is starting to sound like another one of those searches you say aren't searches.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 01 2023, @07:27PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @10:06PM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday January 31 2023, @10:28PM (3 children)
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1893 [law.com]
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @03:25AM (2 children)
I think that counts here. Remember what MSG Entertainment's rationalization was again? "creates an inherently adverse environment." A private entity won't have a concept of criminal activity with respect to the entity (but government authorities still do). But they will have a concept of detrimental or harmful activity - such as disruptive behavior or committing actual crimes (as per government authorities) on the premises.
Here, it is not reasonable to assemble data (the first search) on people that don't cause such problems. And now, they're mass scanning their audience for these lawyers? That's the other unreasonable search since there was no expectation that lawyers would be such a problem.
Keep in mind that we already have laws related to these sorts of searches such as doxxing and slander/libel. If I'm butthurt on the internet, I don't get to legally reveal your personal information. Nor do I get to put your scowling face beside a crime report for filler because that gives the false impression you committed that crime. Obviously, it depends on jurisdiction and such (them foreigners can laugh this off for the most part), but if you're in the jurisdiction like MSG Entertainment is, you're subject to those laws.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 01 2023, @03:30AM (1 child)
It might violate NYC privacy laws but your choice of terms is incorrect.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @02:16PM
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday January 31 2023, @08:25PM (2 children)
Notice it doesn't say "government searches and seizures".
Not right there it doesn't. Context is king, read the whole document.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @09:16PM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2023, @02:03AM
I'll do that after I'm convinced SCOTUS has as well.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday January 31 2023, @10:11PM
Question- Can warrants (in the context of that amendment) be issued by non-government entities?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday January 31 2023, @09:44PM
IIUC (IANAL, YMMV etc.), New York State law requires that in order to maintain a liquor license (MSG venues sell beer and other alcoholic beverages) the venue *must* admit members of the public.
I get the whole "no shirt, no shoes, no service" bit. And I get the "we need to make sure that disruptive [espn.com] attendees who have previously been ejected are barred from a venue" angle as well.
However, banning (and enforcing that ban through facial recognition) all employees of firms that have legal cases pending against a business, even if those employees aren't involved in the litigation is pretty nasty, especially since they'll happily sell you tickets to those venues, then deny you entry without recourse or compensation is wrong IMHO.
MSG's behavior is even more egregious since, they apparently trolled the websites of law firms involved in litigation against them, grabbed employee photos and added them to the facial recognition "ban" list for all their venues.
I'd note that these locations aren't factories or offices where such "adversaries" could obtain privileged information or spy on the organization, they are theaters (e.g., Radio City Music Hall [wikipedia.org]), Arenas (e.g., Madison Square Garden [wikipedia.org]) and other entertainment venues.
It's just petty nastiness to feed the ego of James Dolan [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday January 31 2023, @07:08PM
They should get someone to read the fine print: a lawyer, maybe.
OH, WAIT! BAHAHAHAHAHA!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by mcgrew on Tuesday January 31 2023, @08:13PM (1 child)
MSG is monosodium glutamate, a food additive. Damned lazy kids and your stupid acronyms!
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Funny) by tizan on Tuesday January 31 2023, @09:33PM
Exactly ...my first glance was "Oh damn ... MSG intake by lawyers can identify them !"
what lawyers eat of a lot of Ajinomoto ?!