[ryandrake]

Some people tend to change their minds about laws/rules when enforcement becomes automated and scalable. Speeding: Person A can say "Yea, speeding should be against the law" when one cop struggles to pull over one speeder out of 500 on the road every hour. Then, when you put up speeding cameras, Person A's chances of getting caught go from 1/500 to 1/1, and he suddenly changes his mind.

I agree with OP that this is the only reason we're even talking about facial recognition here. Most people are fine with a business kicking someone out that they don't want to do business with. Trust me, we would not want to live in a world where you can't kick someone out of your business. But when the kicking becomes scalable and automated, some people have second thoughts about being fine with this. It's interesting to see people double-check and backtrack their world views when the world becomes automated.

[vlovich123]

> Trust me, we would not want to live in a world where you can't kick someone out of your business

Can you elaborate on this please? It's not immediately obvious to me that's a bad thing (within reason). I'm not talking about removing all ability nor about all businesses. I'm specifically talking about a severely restricted ability - you can kick people out of a public venue if they're being disruptive, causing a public nuisance of some kind, or not following the publicly posted rules for the venue that you are clearly enforcing evenly. But other than that, you can't just evict people. You also obviously need to make it a crime to hire people to harass the people you dislike to provide cover under the pretense of kicking both parties out which is what will happen with such a policy.

[ryandrake]

If you narrow the criteria to things like "disruptive" and "nuisance" then you end up constantly defining and clarifying exactly what these things mean. Rules-lawyer-type people will come in and walk right up to wherever the line was established. The whole "nyaa nyaa, I'm not technically touching you!" type. You also might forget things. If you establish a list of attributes/behaviors you can ban over, then people will do the other things that you didn't list. "Your sign says no fighting, but I'm just yelling insanely." "Your sign says no being disruptive but I'm just quietly wearing my pointy white hood." Better to have a list of behaviors you can't ban over (the special, enumerated things in the law) and reserve the right to ban over anything else.

Then you have people who are not disruptive themselves, but you know their presence will invite others who are. The whole "How to not become a nazi bar" example[1].

EDIT: Rules-lawyer example: Do you really want this guy[2] in your store? "Ackshually, it's 8:59 and you close at 9:00!"

1: https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/128089153745134387...

2: https://www.tiktok.com/@ragnar_helsson/video/718540983685770...

[vlovich123]

> If you narrow the criteria to things like "disruptive" and "nuisance" then you end up constantly defining and clarifying exactly what these things mean. Rules-lawyer-type people will come in and walk right up to wherever the line was established. The whole "nyaa nyaa, I'm not technically touching you!" type

I feel like you're really strawmanning here. I wasn't trying to lay out the exact parameters of the law. See a sibling response to you:

> To the best of my knowledge - this is the case in big chunk Europe, with a "for no reason" added on the end. You can't kick out someone out of business unless they are actively malicious. And no, working for a company that is suing an owner is not considered malicious.

Believe it or not, but that's the whole point of the judge in the legal system. It's to act as the arbiter of are you acting with accordance of the spirit of the law or are you engaging strictly in trying to get as close to the line as possible. And if you show a pattern of acting in bad faith, you get slapped with extra penalties. The American legal system seems to generally prefer "nyaa nyaa, I'm not technically touching you!" interpretations of the law but in reality this kind of interpretation only makes sense in a ridiculously small (if any) set of circumstances - in most others it's better to just let the judge interpret the evidence, figure out who's acting in bad faith (whether through summary judgement or jury if it's really required), and judge accordingly.

As for the closing hours things, that's again a strawman. The business is free to close whenever as long as it's applying this uniformly (i.e. preventing all new public access, trying to get existing public to exit etc). That has nothing to do with ejecting specific individuals selectively.

[kilotaras]

> Trust me, we would not want to live in a world where you can't kick someone out of your business

To the best of my knowledge - this is the case in big chunk Europe, with a "for no reason" added on the end. You can't kick out someone out of business unless they are actively malicious. And no, working for a company that is suing an owner is not considered malicious.