[larkost]

Personally I think that these conversations are focused on the wrong thing. Facial recognition stands to be a great tool in spotting "the bad guys" so that appropriate measures can be taken. For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums.

The problem that is not being missed in the conversation about the technology is: who gets to decide who is excluded, how transparent to the need to be about this decision making process, and what is the course of appeals. Obviously the instance where MSG silently black-listed the lawyers representing their opponents in a court case is an obvious abuse that needs to be curbed.

I would propose that there be tiers: smaller venues only get dinged when their behavior is obviously bad (no need for formal systems, let people sue if it becomes a problem), mid tier need to post their rules, and large companies are subject to audits and formal rules about when they are allowed to blacklist people.

[salawat]

Nah. I don't buy it. If we don't trust our own Government with it, I don't think we can trust private corporations which are definitely facto extensions of the state by virtue of being legal fictions with it.

Vigilance is the price of liberty, and I don't believe that that there is any reason to make that vigilance "easy" for those already more than capable of doing a reasonable job of it with means that don't create a giant liability of biometric data leaks for everyone else.

[nulld3v]

> For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums.

You should't need face recognition to do this (as it seems stadiums are already successful in banning people who haven't paid from entering the venue).

[codedokode]

No. Processing biometric data like facial features must require person's consent. Individual's rights are more important than interests of capitalists. If someone is a hooligan they should be put in jail not denied entry.

[browsingonly]

Your consent is given when you choose to pay for a ticket and attend an event there.

For publicly-funded venues, you may have a point. But if Bimbo's or the Warfield in San Francisco wants to ban someone and it's not for a reason prohibited by law, more power to them. Casinos have been doing this for many years, and generally speaking businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone. Make them post signs if that makes you feel better, but they should be able to ban, say, a person who attacked a patron or staff at the venue (and then was swiftly let out of jail by an activist judge).

[arjie]

Funny you mention San Francisco since 1015 Folsom and other places now use facial recognition to bar entry to (what I suspect are) bad actors. I suppose it was inevitable that as we allow more bad behavior through diminished societal enforcement that this would move into the private sphere. It's interesting to observe that places like San Francisco have moved into this kind of multiple-parallel-government structure.

[monksy]

Bad actors?

Oh no.

There was a fight one time in the place? Do you mean bataclan bad actors?

The claim of a few bad apples is a ridiculous claim to require facial recognition. Prior to facial recognition, situations were dealt with. It's not a new problem, nor did a hard ban policy solve the problem. After, facial recognition this seems to be a fear mongering technique that just allows for customer profiling even more than it did before.

[silexia]

Why shouldn't they be able to blacklist lawyers? If I owned a restaurant and was being sued by opposing attorneys, I think it would be perfectly normal and acceptable to bar those attorneys from my restaurant.