[nla]

In NYC, you can trespass anyone from a private business at any time and for no reason at all.

NY Penal Law § 140.00 says a person in premises open to the public is there with license/privilege unless they defy a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated by the owner or another authorized person.

So, in plain English:

“You have to leave. You are not allowed back.”

The owner does not need to say: “You have to leave because…”

There was a ton of hoopla around this when Radio City and MSG trespassed lawyers that were suing the company and venues.

Everyone was up in arms and nothing happened.

[cdrnsf]

Ownership's behavior is entirely too extreme and frequently crosses the line.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/knicks-owner-extreme-measu...

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/msg-facial-reco...

[petsfed]

As I recall, the main issue with that was that because it used facial recognition, the labor burden of enforcing that was significantly lower. If its just human beings looking at every visitor and trying to decide if they match a description, the venue has to decide "has this person done anything so egregious that all this extra effort is worth it?" which makes the tactic self-limiting.

With facial recognition, enforcing a trespass order becomes nearly zero cost, so it can be applied for basically any reason. I can sort of get to understanding the tactic for "this lawyer is actively suing us", but if its "this person said something mean about us online, and we can get a facial recognition match from their profile picture", it seems like a wild abuse.

Which is why that whole Radio City Music Hall situation was such a good illustration of the actual harm of facial recognition systems. If a potentially bad action is only kept "good" because the high cost (in labor or lucre) causes discernment in its application, then removing the cost will necessarily remove the discernment, almost guaranteeing bad actions.

Business owners should have the right to bar someone from the premises, and legal recourses to enforce that right. But enforcing that right should be sufficiently cost prohibitive that enforcing that right does not grant the business outsized power to limit the public's rights to e.g. express negative opinions of that business.

[monksy]

> With facial recognition, enforcing a trespass order becomes nearly zero cost, so it can be applied for basically any reason. I can sort of get to understanding the tactic for "this lawyer is actively suing us", but if its "this person said something mean about us online, and we can get a facial recognition match from their profile picture", it seems like a wild abuse.

Also the ban was not communicated. So probably counts as theft as well.

[dec0dedab0de]

i don’t think anyone is claiming it is illegal

[Spooky23]

It’s billionaire people pushing the bounds of their enclosure, Jurassic Park style. The similar behavior in the west coast are the people who create various hoops to deny the public access to the shore.

NYC grants significant concessions to developers in exchange for public access. It’s important to overreact and push back to every incursion into the public sphere as every incremental pushback of public benefit is cumulative over time.

Manhattan in particular is a precious resource that is already largely a playground for the rich. Normal people used to live there.