Hi, this is Wayne again with a topic “Banned by Face Recognition?”.
All right, we’re gon na do our third, maybe written by AI topic. Facial recognition was used to Bar a lawyer, pun, intended from entering a venue, and this maybe doesn’t sound like that big of a deal. But it’s a big deal. A mother accompanying her daughter’s Girl Scout Troop to a Rockettes show at Radio City Music Hall in Manhattan over the Thanksgiving weekend was denied entry after facial recognition, software allegedly identified her, so this is before submitting any kind of identification or ticket or anything Kelly. Conlon. Imagine doing this to a lawyer on purpose anyway, Kelly conlon, the woman in question, works as a lawyer for a firm that is involved in a personal injury claim against um MSG entertainment, the group that owns the venue. She does not, however, practice in New York and is not involved in the particular case, so Conlin claims she was approached by security and asked to produce identification after passing through the metal detectors into the main lobby. A sign in the lobby does state that facial recognition technology is in use for the safety of guests and employees. Interesting MSG entertainment claims.
They have a policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the company from attending events at our venues. Until that litigation has been resolved, brutal, absolutely brutal, the heck timeline are we on Luke imagine going into uh. I don’t even know if these exist imagine going into an anchor one random person who’s. Never even heard of this story that works at uh, one of the companies here walking into an anchor store and being told to leave, because they know that they’re employed by the parent company of this company that has some kind of ongoing dispute. Yeah like this. Can it doesn’t even have to be a dispute right? This can of worms is open wild. Imagine any uh. Sonos employee was to try to use a Google service if they bought a Google home and went to set it up and it used AI voice, recognition to say hey.
We couldn’t help noticing that you’re such and such from Google’s Hardware division uh. Why don’t you go f yourself and uh yeah? That’S pretty much! It see you later absolutely Wild. That’S crazy! Absolutely crazy, discussion question: what are your feelings about? Facial recognition being used to Bar people from events based on uh scraped data sets like this um? When is it appropriate? When is it not Where’s? The Line? This is wow bad uh. I don’t know, I’m I’m hot spotted, okay uh.
I I can check, though I’ll check Jinx. You owe me a ride home. I I mean that was the plan um. I I I’m taking him for a ride in my new car yeah. Have you told anyone yet I haven’t really talked about it.
Yet I think that’s the first time. That’S the look announcement. That’S the first public acknowledgment. I don’t know about appropriate, but one thing I’m gon na throw out there is. I think this might become a big thing for political events. Yeah, oh wow, because if you can keep protesters out by knowing what their affiliations are based on facial recognition, pairing that with public information like Twitter accounts or whatever else, yeah, um and figuring out. If you want to let people in uh, I I think that’s absolutely going to be a thing, I’m not going to take a stance on what how I feel about the appropriateness of that. I just see that happening. I see this.
I see this coming down to like a supreme court tier like like free, like First Amendment kind of thing in the U.S and then I suspect, uh Canada is gon na pull their usual thing, where we basically just copy with the US yeah do whatever the U.S Does yeah we’re a super cool, independent country and we advance uh directly in step with the U.S. Sometimes we ignore what they do, which is good um other times we ignore what they do and it’s not as good yeah anywho. The point is that this is, I think this is headed for the Supreme Court, because I think, ultimately, there there’s going to be like um, like like a personal rights argument from both sides, on the one hand, discriminating against someone based on their profession or their place Of work seems like pretty open shut, but, on the other hand, to tell a venue that they are that they do not have the right to refuse service to an individual customer on their own. Bloody property is also seems pretty open and shut right.
It’S weird there’s a strong argument, both ways: strong argument, there’s a lot of technological stuff coming out right now that the law is so far behind yes and it doesn’t help that half of the legislators in the western world are set to generians. As far as I can tell no idea, what’s going on no idea, what’s going on yeah and even the younger ones, quite frankly, could stand to be a little more tech savvy based on a lot of the C-SPAN that I’ve seen yep .