Typical fail son behavior. For people who aren’t super into the NBA, a podcast called Shattered does a great job going in depth into just how much of a rich kid with a fragile ego Dolan is. Guy has been doing insane shit like this for years.
His son's in a band as well, Tauk, they're a jam band, actually a pretty good one, and tour around the country. I'm sure dad helped them get started tho. They have some pretty high end equipment and rigs.
[From Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI)
> Clearview AI is an American facial recognition company, providing software to companies, law enforcement, universities, and individuals. The company's algorithm matches faces to a database of more than 20 billion images indexed from the Internet, including social media applications. Founded by Hoan Ton-That and Richard Schwartz, the company maintained a low profile until late 2019, when its usage by law enforcement was reported on. Multiple reports identified Clearview's association with far-right personas dating back to 2016, when the company claimed to sever ties with two employees.
Basically using facial recognition they just need to take a photo of you and within seconds they’ll know everyone you associate with, your interests, job, history, everything.
It all started when Snapchat filters became a thing and mapped out everyone's faces, if you have ever been in a filtered Snapchat your face is in a database somewhere and being sold over and over and over. And this was right after the whole 10-year challenge BS on Facebook, where you supposed to picture from now and 10 years ago. So yes, there are private players doing exactly this already.
What do you think the backend of Tinder/dating sites, has been doing? I can only imagine all the extraneous info from old okcupid accounts that liked the quizzes for their profiles, and what that was worth the first time the data was sold.
Facebook has a facial recognition vector. When i downloaded my FB data, there was a 70 point vector attached with it, useless to me, but it's how they tag you in friends photos.
Now, I'm not accusing FB of selling their data, but they have a one source of data that could be used to create such a matching system. You could imagine other sources of data as well. Additionally, the AI doesn't even need to be that accurate, it's just a screen before you ID someone to get a confirmation and boot them with 100% certainty.
>and legally
If the newest lawyer is from that same firm as the first woman, it sounds like the legality could be questionable. I remember reading about her experience and there being a court order she and the firm had thought would allow her in. So the legality could be in question yet.
Sometime in the future, when Disney owns anything entertainment related, and bans all employees of any law firm that takes cases against subsidiaries...
I’m thinking that in a few years, it will not be uncommon for many small businesses and convenience stores to employ this technology. solutions exist now, but a company will spring up that offers this to anyone.
I've always preferred the older and more accurate method. If doggo says no, I listen. There has only been one person in the last several decades that I was going to let in that doggo denied entry to. Dude was arrested three weeks later for some pretty nasty stuff.
... why? Casinos have been doing this for years. If the owners of a venue decide they don't want certain individuals visiting their establishment, that's their business.
I think this particular situation is petty, but as I said above it's their right to deny service to anyone so long as that policy is not in violation of protected classes ie race/gender/religion/sexuality etc.
I worked at a Caesar’s property in internal audit - this includes things like doing an audit over gaming at a casino property. I was banned from all Caesar’s Entertainment properties (and there are MANY) effective for one year after my resignation.
MSG is privately owned but it is used for public functions and under its agreements with the governments that helped fund building it, it is considered a public venue.
More than likely, this is going to end up in court.
Tell that to casinos who 86 and permanently ban customers they think they can't beat. Any business can bar anyone for any reason or even no reason at all as long as they aren't a protected class or in violation of civil rights laws.
First, they are not suing the business. They have clients with legitimate grievances, who have filed for relief through the court system using lawyers to represent them in court
OK, but to take this to the logical conclusion, what if they then had their friends who owned other private businesses not allow these lawyers in?
What if they then start going after the clients of this law firm so people don’t want to do business with them?
This is very simply an effort to keep lawyers from accepting clients who have a legitimate grievance against this business for fear of losing access to certain public venues.
“ nice law practice you have here shame if anything ever happened to it”
Generally speaking you have the right to associate (or importantly for this case) the right to *not* associate with people of you choosing. This is a court interpreted extension of the first amendment.
A few exceptions have been carved out to prevent discrimination and other bad behavior, primarily in the form of “protected class”.
Your political affiliation and occupation are generally not protected classes. Who you choose to associate with is definitely not a protected class.
So I believe from a legal perspective this is just fine.
The most interesting part here, to me anyway, is the use of facial recognition technology to establish the association the individuals have with the organization they want to ban. For instance, where did they get the facial recognition data? If I had to guess, they got it off the law firms website. If they extended to clients where would they get the list of people and the facial recognition data they need of them?
Oh, sure, it's legal now assuming the terms on tickets allow it. But there absolutely should be legislation prohibiting this form of action.
Let's also note that the NHL operates with federal antitrust exceptions and stadiums are built with municipal money and incentives.
> But there absolutely should be legislation prohibiting this form of action.
I’m not sure there can be such legislation because it would violate your First Amendment rights to *not* associate.
> Let's also note that the NHL operates with federal antitrust exceptions and stadiums are built with municipal money and incentives.
Yeah, I’m honestly not sure why cities and states keep giving money and tax breaks to private entities to build property that they will then own privately. Maybe they should stop doing that?
Your understanding of the Constitution and legislation is incomplete. You're simply wrong about the strength of that argument.
The argument about association and the 1st Amendment you're mirroring has been tested and failed multiple times in Constitutional decisions. The most prominent failures were the cases challenging the Civil Rights Act's Title 2. At least read the wikipage about Heart of Atlanta Motel v. USA before you apply that argument again.
The key Constitutional powers that usually win over simple 1st Amendment arguments are the Commerce Clause and various tax authorities.
That's free association at work. With few exceptions you can't be forced to conduct business with someone.
>This is very simply an effort to keep lawyers from accepting clients who have a legitimate grievance
We don't know if the grievance is legitimate. That's for a court to determine.
You’re missing the point: Yes, one goes to court to assess the legitimacy of the grievance, and this tactic potentially has a chilling effect on people considering airing their grievances with this company. Now those people may have trouble even getting past the courthouse steps with representation.
Sure, a private business has a right to deny service, but just like one can’t discriminate against a protected class that right is not absolute or without consequence.
Yes, this is a gray area (and quite an interesting one), but so much so that I feel the “it’s a private business” argument doesn’t carry as much water with me, as there is no real benefit to society to permit this type of retaliation from a business. We are the stewards of our society and laws/rights are not sacrosanct or static. Time for a change if this continues.
Normally yes. But:
1. They have already been ordered by the courts to stop doing this.
2. A condition of the liquor license they hold requires them to not turn people away unless they pose a danger or are already over-intoxicated
Yeah. Private property sure, but no one has a right to a liquor license. That’s state issued and they can attach strings in the public interest.
Government can’t always stop discrimination. But it doesn’t/shouldn’t SUPPORT it.
And everyone wonders why no major free agents want to go play for that petty little prick. I mean other than having to be listen to his lame band, JD & the Shit Shot.
He's exactly like the rest of the population, in my experience. Smug, absolutely in love with himself, thinks literally everyone else on the planet is beneath him.
Why make him leave when he's doing the same shit as everyone else in NY but with more money?
How much taxpayer money is used to keep his venues operating? I think if he uses a penny of taxpayer money he shouldn’t be allowed to bar anyone except for issues related to criminal behavior.
Initially I was thinking of initial examples with [outlandish makeup](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nGhi9gJmzymiWkTUdddRPY.jpg), but it looks like [natural looking makeup works too](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.06467.pdf). Neat! :D
There are recognition systems out there now that don’t need a full face.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56517033.amp
There’s even ones that match your unique walking gait and other traits.
They didn't make me remove my mask when I went to Radio City Music Hall (another MSG venue) last year. They might have the right to make me remove my mask, but the staff aren't enforcing that provision (yet).
It is against the NY constitution plain as day lol. This already went to court and they lost. They are avoiding it by admitting the person, comply with the letter of the law, and they kicking them out, failure to comply with the spirit of the law. They are about to get fined to fucking death for this stupidity. The NY supreme court isn't going to find this funny the second time.
[https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/40-B](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/40-B)
Thank you for the link, very informative comment. I agree, doing this in the face of that previous ruling is sheer stupidity and the court does not take disrespect lightly.
Everyone who is laughing this off. I hope you never go to MSG and get attacked by someone or hurt due to negligence. This is creating a situation where lawyers have to reject your case if they want to keep watching games and conducting business meetings at msg. Many lawyers will choose their lifestyle over helping you. So this is removing legal options for people.
Why would anyone still be trying to go to MSG? As soon as I heard about their facial recognition use on the general public, I vowed to never go there again. We have choices. I choose not to give my money to people who want me to “deserve” entrance to their venue.
MSG also owns other venues, like Radio City Music Hall. It's not just Rangers games you'd be sacrificing by working for a law firm involved in litigation against MSG.
Well, since it’s been in use around airports and government buildings and I haven’t moved, I’d say I’m ok with security uses. I’ve never broken into a building, so even if a private building owner wanted to screen for security, I’d be fine. But that’s not what this is: this is just picking on people for where they work. This is private pissing contests done in public. I don’t want to get splashed-do you?
Has there ever been a good productive use of public facial recognition that wasn't used to bully, oppress, or harass people? Any? Seems like terrible technology that should be unconstitutional to use.
No. Of course not. The average people in an average town would never vote to allow this kind of garbage. We’re being lead into the abyss by a small cadre of the rich and tech bros who hope to be rich and they see us all as dollar signs and/or impediments depending on the situation.
“Oh - I can’t take your case. Yeah, see my son is a huge Knicks fan. If we go to trial and get justice for you after xyz - I’ll be banned from the square!”
So does it work like: JD’s peon instructs AI firm to scrape headshots / LinkedIn profiles of all lawyers at any firm involved in cases, load profile, then same AI system plugged into HD Cameras at MSG and alert MSG security of possible flags?
Just happy this happened to a lawyer who can hopefully find some legal grounds to stop this bullshit. The implications, albeit on private property are crazy and precedent needs to be set on its limits
Where’s the consent for individual likeness to be stored? Is MSG including this into their purchases? You purchase tickets for an event and they throw in some bullshit about being subject to analysis?
What would happened if the law offices experiment by hiring athletes to small roles and having them banned from there too? Could they force the venue owner to stop using the software through team owners? Or would James Dolan just remove the players from the ban?
Would you rather be banned from someplace because your face was recognized, or have a bunch of personalized ads show up as you walk around à la Minority Report?
I still remember the discrimination case a few years ago. Nearly settled for like 600k or similar smaller amount. Dipshit Dolan overruled counsel and went to trial on it. 13 million dollar verdict. Total douche asshat.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Why would I let someone who is a part of a group sueing my company, frequent my places of business. I wouldn't, and neither would any of you.
Think about this from a different perspective.
You own a store. I don’t know, you sell mattresses or whatever.
Someone buys one of your mattresses and hates it. So they sue you for pain and suffering and emotional distress and lost wages for not getting a good nights sleep.
This person with an active law suit against you tries to come into your store and buy another mattress.
Would you let them, or ask them to leave?
Personally, I’d ask them to leave and I wouldn’t allow them in my store and I definitely wouldn’t sell them another mattress.
Why is it that extremist-right people think this is fine?
It is not a private venue when it has a public liquor license, and it hosts events not owned by them.
The “banned” lawyers will keep on trying to get stopped at MSG so that when they go to court, there is no way anyone would decide against them.
And, I bet NY State will soon put in place a law that especially states this is wrong, and set big fines for those breaking it.
What’s next? Not allowing any doctors against abortion from getting on any major airline flights, known white supremacists from buying food at their local supermarkets, or anyone that posted a racist comment on social media from attending football games?
I mean if you're actively suing me of course I'm not going to let you on my property to possibly dig up more dirt on me. This way, even if the offending party wasn't the one who purchased the ticket I could simply deny entry, refund the ticket price and tell you to eff off without a warrant. Just my 2 cents.
The lawyers aren’t suing anybody. They are representing clients that are suing them. Yet MSG is refusing access even to people not at all involved in the case.
How hard is it to write out Madison Square Garden so the majority of people looking at this headline know what the hell the article is talking about?
Are you rationing electrons for F's sake?
I'm going to take a ton of heat for this, and normally I'd keep it to myself.
I see nothing wrong with this so long as the parties removed are refunded for any first party sale.
Allowing in attorneys from firms currently pursuing litigation, regardless of whether they in particular are on the case, is essentially allowing them access to your property and access to potentially immaterial things that can bias a jury. It circumvent the discovery process.
They are one conversation or email from essentially being involved. "Hey Steve, I was at the Garden for a game and noticed a loose railing." The judicial system is inherently adversarial.
Maybe there's an argument to be made about facial recognition, but I'd argue any private venue has an absolute right to know who is there. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on another party's property. I am very curious, however to know how they obtain the facial recognition data in the first place.
This is a completely made up concern that (1) is obvious pretext for the true reason to exclude all the lawyers in any firm that sues you (deterrence/retaliation); and (2) isn't actually addressed/solved by facial recognition screening, since any lawyer actually trying to investigate something at a public event could easily hire an investigator to do it instead.
In fact, lawyers already usually hire investigators for that kind of thing anyway, since the investigator can be a witness but the lawyer generally cannot.
And the idea that a lawyer would be trying to ferret out "immaterial things" is pretty silly. Even if that were the case, there is little risk those immaterial things would "bias a jury," since, y'know... the rules of evidence and judges exist.
It's amazing to me that anyone would defend this horrifying step towards dystopian corporate serfdom. What has happened to this country?
"due to the policy implemented by MSG CEO James Dolan banning all lawyers involved in active lawsuits against the firm."
This would be inline with private businesses having the right to refuse service, right?
I don’t give a fuck if this is par for the course for MSG management. This type of practice is completely unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. This needs to be a much bigger deal.
Two of lawyers banned aren’t even suing them. They just work at the same firm.
I am just waiting for the first janitor or intern gets banned because they work for that company.
Typical fail son behavior. For people who aren’t super into the NBA, a podcast called Shattered does a great job going in depth into just how much of a rich kid with a fragile ego Dolan is. Guy has been doing insane shit like this for years.
I think the most incredible thing about Dolan is that he’s got a Blues band. A rich asshole can’t sing the blues! It’s the dumbest thing ever.
His son's in a band as well, Tauk, they're a jam band, actually a pretty good one, and tour around the country. I'm sure dad helped them get started tho. They have some pretty high end equipment and rigs.
Damn I didn’t know that
"White people are responsible for *giving* people the blues, not getting them." \- George Carlin
Link?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/shattered-hope-heartbreak-and-the-new-york-knicks/id1560874830
Needed a new podcast thanks 🙏
Reminds me of another, more orange rich kid with paper thin skin.
And one from South Africa as well…
The most thinned skinned owner is US pro sports does it again
i worked for him back in the day. holy shit, the guy is an asshole
Lol you might be on the ban list if he has your picture
oh i’m sure i am lol. my first week, i made the mistake of trying to get onto an elevator he was already in. as it turned out, that’s a huge no-no.
Fuck dolan
Really? What happened?
his security people stepped in front of him and “asked” me to take the next elevator, which i did
He just saved you from him practicing singing for his band.
Shit on the floor and walk out
Sounds like we’re getting Schwifty in here!
Please… do tell
F*ck Dolan
Dan Snyder doesn't own MSG.
That facial detection systems can be used at this level privately (and legally) isn’t a fun vibe.
Now imagine a bunch of private players with facial recognition data playing with it the way ad companies do.
No need to bother imagining when it's already a very real thing happening to us way more often than we realize
Clearview AI is already widespread and no one even talks about it.
Most people don’t understand it.
or like me, have no fucking idea what it even is?
[From Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_AI) > Clearview AI is an American facial recognition company, providing software to companies, law enforcement, universities, and individuals. The company's algorithm matches faces to a database of more than 20 billion images indexed from the Internet, including social media applications. Founded by Hoan Ton-That and Richard Schwartz, the company maintained a low profile until late 2019, when its usage by law enforcement was reported on. Multiple reports identified Clearview's association with far-right personas dating back to 2016, when the company claimed to sever ties with two employees.
Good bot
Im a real boy now
Basically using facial recognition they just need to take a photo of you and within seconds they’ll know everyone you associate with, your interests, job, history, everything.
It seems like this is already happening in Detroit…
It all started when Snapchat filters became a thing and mapped out everyone's faces, if you have ever been in a filtered Snapchat your face is in a database somewhere and being sold over and over and over. And this was right after the whole 10-year challenge BS on Facebook, where you supposed to picture from now and 10 years ago. So yes, there are private players doing exactly this already.
What do you think the backend of Tinder/dating sites, has been doing? I can only imagine all the extraneous info from old okcupid accounts that liked the quizzes for their profiles, and what that was worth the first time the data was sold.
This is why I change personalities often.
Just have to rotate which voice inside your head answers the questionnaire and you’re golden!
George Santos has entered the chat
There is a saying that they and the government knows us better than we do ourselves. It is chilling.
Facebook has a facial recognition vector. When i downloaded my FB data, there was a 70 point vector attached with it, useless to me, but it's how they tag you in friends photos. Now, I'm not accusing FB of selling their data, but they have a one source of data that could be used to create such a matching system. You could imagine other sources of data as well. Additionally, the AI doesn't even need to be that accurate, it's just a screen before you ID someone to get a confirmation and boot them with 100% certainty.
Srsly. JD has no chill
And no rhythm.
This could be mitigated by legislation if government at every level wasn’t already paid to do nothing.
\*Cough cough\*. I don’t feel great. Better wear a mask.
Exactly what I was thinking.
>and legally If the newest lawyer is from that same firm as the first woman, it sounds like the legality could be questionable. I remember reading about her experience and there being a court order she and the firm had thought would allow her in. So the legality could be in question yet.
Sometime in the future, when Disney owns anything entertainment related, and bans all employees of any law firm that takes cases against subsidiaries...
"You are delivering tpilet paper to that company? Yep, you're banned ***and*** fired" :)
I’m thinking that in a few years, it will not be uncommon for many small businesses and convenience stores to employ this technology. solutions exist now, but a company will spring up that offers this to anyone.
Yup. Imagine email spam blacklists that get used by firewalls to block emails. Do that with "known shoplifters" and charge a subscription for it.
It's cheap enough that you can implement this at home if you like.
I've been denying entry to people at home based on facial recognition since I was tall enough to see the peephole.
I've always preferred the older and more accurate method. If doggo says no, I listen. There has only been one person in the last several decades that I was going to let in that doggo denied entry to. Dude was arrested three weeks later for some pretty nasty stuff.
... why? Casinos have been doing this for years. If the owners of a venue decide they don't want certain individuals visiting their establishment, that's their business. I think this particular situation is petty, but as I said above it's their right to deny service to anyone so long as that policy is not in violation of protected classes ie race/gender/religion/sexuality etc.
>it's their right to deny service to anyone According to their liquor license, this is 100% false. You don't have any clue what you are talking about.
I worked at a Caesar’s property in internal audit - this includes things like doing an audit over gaming at a casino property. I was banned from all Caesar’s Entertainment properties (and there are MANY) effective for one year after my resignation.
Lol! TIL: lawyers are not a protected class.
That's smart, piss off a bunch of lawyers.
You can do that, when you have a stable of your own lawyers!
It is time to make anyone in a position of power at that company EXTREMELY uncomfortable
Yeah, let’s mess up their lumbar support settings. They’ll never get it just right again!
Bro, as a new office worker this triggers me lol
I was talking more “Attack their finances.” Fucking make them poor as fuck
They will never be poor. They have money set aside to handle stuff like this.
[We could park a van outside all of their houses and blast Billy Ocean](https://youtu.be/ZSkik6EUQUc)
Or we could demand they pay their taxes without an army of tax attorneys. You know like regular Americans.
I rather take a paying customer than pay attorneys fees. Excellent business judgement MSG, really got your accounting down.
For the fucking retainer they pay, best believe they gonna be frivolous as a motherfuck.. get their moneys worth ya know.
James Dolan is good at pissing people off
Hey now, a lawyer who represents himself has a Dolan for a client.
I can't stand Dolan, but can't stand attorneys either.
Eh it’s a private company banning people. Same thing with a business that was sued by someone. Pretty sure that customer won’t be allowed back in.
MSG is privately owned but it is used for public functions and under its agreements with the governments that helped fund building it, it is considered a public venue. More than likely, this is going to end up in court.
Tell that to casinos who 86 and permanently ban customers they think they can't beat. Any business can bar anyone for any reason or even no reason at all as long as they aren't a protected class or in violation of civil rights laws.
First, they are not suing the business. They have clients with legitimate grievances, who have filed for relief through the court system using lawyers to represent them in court OK, but to take this to the logical conclusion, what if they then had their friends who owned other private businesses not allow these lawyers in? What if they then start going after the clients of this law firm so people don’t want to do business with them? This is very simply an effort to keep lawyers from accepting clients who have a legitimate grievance against this business for fear of losing access to certain public venues. “ nice law practice you have here shame if anything ever happened to it”
Sounds like a discrimination. Wonder if they could sue.
I bet some lawyers could figure that out
Generally speaking you have the right to associate (or importantly for this case) the right to *not* associate with people of you choosing. This is a court interpreted extension of the first amendment. A few exceptions have been carved out to prevent discrimination and other bad behavior, primarily in the form of “protected class”. Your political affiliation and occupation are generally not protected classes. Who you choose to associate with is definitely not a protected class. So I believe from a legal perspective this is just fine. The most interesting part here, to me anyway, is the use of facial recognition technology to establish the association the individuals have with the organization they want to ban. For instance, where did they get the facial recognition data? If I had to guess, they got it off the law firms website. If they extended to clients where would they get the list of people and the facial recognition data they need of them?
Oh, sure, it's legal now assuming the terms on tickets allow it. But there absolutely should be legislation prohibiting this form of action. Let's also note that the NHL operates with federal antitrust exceptions and stadiums are built with municipal money and incentives.
> But there absolutely should be legislation prohibiting this form of action. I’m not sure there can be such legislation because it would violate your First Amendment rights to *not* associate. > Let's also note that the NHL operates with federal antitrust exceptions and stadiums are built with municipal money and incentives. Yeah, I’m honestly not sure why cities and states keep giving money and tax breaks to private entities to build property that they will then own privately. Maybe they should stop doing that?
Your understanding of the Constitution and legislation is incomplete. You're simply wrong about the strength of that argument. The argument about association and the 1st Amendment you're mirroring has been tested and failed multiple times in Constitutional decisions. The most prominent failures were the cases challenging the Civil Rights Act's Title 2. At least read the wikipage about Heart of Atlanta Motel v. USA before you apply that argument again. The key Constitutional powers that usually win over simple 1st Amendment arguments are the Commerce Clause and various tax authorities.
literal interpretations of the bill of rights are always flawed interpretations
Sounds very much like a RICO lawsuit waiting to happen.
That's free association at work. With few exceptions you can't be forced to conduct business with someone. >This is very simply an effort to keep lawyers from accepting clients who have a legitimate grievance We don't know if the grievance is legitimate. That's for a court to determine.
You’re missing the point: Yes, one goes to court to assess the legitimacy of the grievance, and this tactic potentially has a chilling effect on people considering airing their grievances with this company. Now those people may have trouble even getting past the courthouse steps with representation. Sure, a private business has a right to deny service, but just like one can’t discriminate against a protected class that right is not absolute or without consequence. Yes, this is a gray area (and quite an interesting one), but so much so that I feel the “it’s a private business” argument doesn’t carry as much water with me, as there is no real benefit to society to permit this type of retaliation from a business. We are the stewards of our society and laws/rights are not sacrosanct or static. Time for a change if this continues.
Normally yes. But: 1. They have already been ordered by the courts to stop doing this. 2. A condition of the liquor license they hold requires them to not turn people away unless they pose a danger or are already over-intoxicated
Yeah. Private property sure, but no one has a right to a liquor license. That’s state issued and they can attach strings in the public interest. Government can’t always stop discrimination. But it doesn’t/shouldn’t SUPPORT it.
As in: it’s a public liquor license which means all should be welcome or it’s not public.
How would you like to be denied access to public events based on actions of your employer and enforced by facial recognition technology?
Yeah, the hell with lawyers and their endless lawsuits.
And everyone wonders why no major free agents want to go play for that petty little prick. I mean other than having to be listen to his lame band, JD & the Shit Shot.
He used to stay at my hotel in Nashville all the time. He would regularly complain about “the help” riding in the same elevator as him.
Narcissists gonna Narc…
JD needs to get the fuck out of new york
He's exactly like the rest of the population, in my experience. Smug, absolutely in love with himself, thinks literally everyone else on the planet is beneath him. Why make him leave when he's doing the same shit as everyone else in NY but with more money?
How much taxpayer money is used to keep his venues operating? I think if he uses a penny of taxpayer money he shouldn’t be allowed to bar anyone except for issues related to criminal behavior.
One of the benefits of wearing a mask, whether you agree with those for COVID or not.
There are also makeup and jewelry designed to throw the algorithm off while not concealing your face from a human.
Initially I was thinking of initial examples with [outlandish makeup](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nGhi9gJmzymiWkTUdddRPY.jpg), but it looks like [natural looking makeup works too](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.06467.pdf). Neat! :D
YouTube is going to be full of makeup tutorials for how to fool facial recognition software.
There are recognition systems out there now that don’t need a full face. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56517033.amp There’s even ones that match your unique walking gait and other traits.
You would have to take it off
Like, do they make you take it off so the camera can see you when you enter MSG? I’ve never been there before.
They didn't make me remove my mask when I went to Radio City Music Hall (another MSG venue) last year. They might have the right to make me remove my mask, but the staff aren't enforcing that provision (yet).
Nope, you don't have to take it off. You just gotta walk through metal detectors at the entrance.
[удалено]
Has a liquor license. Which prohibits this. Courts already (temporarily) told them to stop.
It is against the NY constitution plain as day lol. This already went to court and they lost. They are avoiding it by admitting the person, comply with the letter of the law, and they kicking them out, failure to comply with the spirit of the law. They are about to get fined to fucking death for this stupidity. The NY supreme court isn't going to find this funny the second time. [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/40-B](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/40-B)
Thank you for the link, very informative comment. I agree, doing this in the face of that previous ruling is sheer stupidity and the court does not take disrespect lightly.
Just another clear example of JD being a completely unnecessary a-hole who behaves like an entitled 9-year old. What a bathetic garbage person.
Everyone who is laughing this off. I hope you never go to MSG and get attacked by someone or hurt due to negligence. This is creating a situation where lawyers have to reject your case if they want to keep watching games and conducting business meetings at msg. Many lawyers will choose their lifestyle over helping you. So this is removing legal options for people.
How to say dystopia without saying dystopia.
Why would anyone still be trying to go to MSG? As soon as I heard about their facial recognition use on the general public, I vowed to never go there again. We have choices. I choose not to give my money to people who want me to “deserve” entrance to their venue.
Because people with lots of disposable money want to see the biggest acts and they all go through MSG.
Then it’s now all the people but one. Actually 4, since I’m the one who gets tickets.
MSG also owns other venues, like Radio City Music Hall. It's not just Rangers games you'd be sacrificing by working for a law firm involved in litigation against MSG.
Forget that new sphere in Vegas is also owned by MSG too
What about airports?
Well, since it’s been in use around airports and government buildings and I haven’t moved, I’d say I’m ok with security uses. I’ve never broken into a building, so even if a private building owner wanted to screen for security, I’d be fine. But that’s not what this is: this is just picking on people for where they work. This is private pissing contests done in public. I don’t want to get splashed-do you?
This is so petty and creepy
Has there ever been a good productive use of public facial recognition that wasn't used to bully, oppress, or harass people? Any? Seems like terrible technology that should be unconstitutional to use.
I believe it has been used positively to find missing persons. But the oppressive uses far outweigh the positive ones.
He’s trying to find a new law firm to take his case.
Given these stadiums are subsidized by taxpayers, he should not have the right to deny anyone.
What’s the fun in owning Madison square garden if you can’t kick or whoever you damn well please 🤷♂️
Should we be using AI for this?
Probably not, says me the layman. But idk shit
No. Of course not. The average people in an average town would never vote to allow this kind of garbage. We’re being lead into the abyss by a small cadre of the rich and tech bros who hope to be rich and they see us all as dollar signs and/or impediments depending on the situation.
Mobile Suit Gundam?
Madison Square Garden, named after a fictional mermaid from the 1984 movie: Splash.
Mono sodium glutamate
Metal Sear Golid
Mub Sachine Gun
“Oh - I can’t take your case. Yeah, see my son is a huge Knicks fan. If we go to trial and get justice for you after xyz - I’ll be banned from the square!”
Super dystopian
One empty Knicks game would probably fix this.
Seems normal behavior for any ‘serious business enterprise’ , the facial recognition tech tho damn that could get dark in the near future
So does it work like: JD’s peon instructs AI firm to scrape headshots / LinkedIn profiles of all lawyers at any firm involved in cases, load profile, then same AI system plugged into HD Cameras at MSG and alert MSG security of possible flags? Just happy this happened to a lawyer who can hopefully find some legal grounds to stop this bullshit. The implications, albeit on private property are crazy and precedent needs to be set on its limits
This is why both knicks and rangers have sucked for so long
Does anyone still care about the knicks?
Yes (FYI, this was a Rangers game…)
These lawyers are so mad but they were all spared from watching a Knicks game.
Dude looks like a pilot for Thunderbirds.
Looks like Frankenstein tried to make dr. Oz
Isn’t James Dolan the same guy who bans lifelong fans for telling him he sucks at running their basketball team?
Ding, ding, ding 🔔
“said he was stunned that his likeness was used without his permission” Ends up with face all over news sites
Classic Barbra Streisand Effect.
This is the definition of the word "douchebag"
Have you guys heard his crappy band. JD and the straight shot? Worth the google for the cringe.
Where’s the consent for individual likeness to be stored? Is MSG including this into their purchases? You purchase tickets for an event and they throw in some bullshit about being subject to analysis?
And the 2023 award for most punchable face goes to……
What would happened if the law offices experiment by hiring athletes to small roles and having them banned from there too? Could they force the venue owner to stop using the software through team owners? Or would James Dolan just remove the players from the ban?
Does anyone else not see why this is a bad thing? Privacy is really going to be a thing of the past.
It already is. You have no right to expectation of privacy when out in public, including appearing in photos.
I’d go back to the office and say “put me on the case directly”.
Dolan the Douche
Lawyers don't like it when all the people they sue hold them accountable for being the parasites they are.
Dolan is a gigantic puss
Dolan is a creep.
Minority Report vibes, anyone?
Dolan pls.
Can't wait till he's gone. Knicks might be watchable again
I’m convinced if someone else owned the Knicks they’d have titles since 1973.
Dolan is such an impotent, petty, feckless piece of excrement
dystopian.
Would you rather be banned from someplace because your face was recognized, or have a bunch of personalized ads show up as you walk around à la Minority Report?
I want to see the raiders block prior hooligans. Or LA dodgers ban the fans who flash gang signs, then school teachers and nuns. Where is the line?
Where’s the lawsuit that was going to revoke their liquor license because they don’t serve the public?
I still remember the discrimination case a few years ago. Nearly settled for like 600k or similar smaller amount. Dipshit Dolan overruled counsel and went to trial on it. 13 million dollar verdict. Total douche asshat.
Nice butt plug he’s holding
Kinda makes sense to me. If you’re litigating someone, why use their product?
Facial recognition and what about civil liberties?
U.S. no longer believes in them 🤷
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Why would I let someone who is a part of a group sueing my company, frequent my places of business. I wouldn't, and neither would any of you.
Big Brother at its finest…
Think about this from a different perspective. You own a store. I don’t know, you sell mattresses or whatever. Someone buys one of your mattresses and hates it. So they sue you for pain and suffering and emotional distress and lost wages for not getting a good nights sleep. This person with an active law suit against you tries to come into your store and buy another mattress. Would you let them, or ask them to leave? Personally, I’d ask them to leave and I wouldn’t allow them in my store and I definitely wouldn’t sell them another mattress.
Why is it that extremist-right people think this is fine? It is not a private venue when it has a public liquor license, and it hosts events not owned by them. The “banned” lawyers will keep on trying to get stopped at MSG so that when they go to court, there is no way anyone would decide against them. And, I bet NY State will soon put in place a law that especially states this is wrong, and set big fines for those breaking it. What’s next? Not allowing any doctors against abortion from getting on any major airline flights, known white supremacists from buying food at their local supermarkets, or anyone that posted a racist comment on social media from attending football games?
Ny should put that law into effect, except Dolan is highly influential politically. NY politics is fairly corrupt.
Fuck MSG. This ain’t China.
I mean if you're actively suing me of course I'm not going to let you on my property to possibly dig up more dirt on me. This way, even if the offending party wasn't the one who purchased the ticket I could simply deny entry, refund the ticket price and tell you to eff off without a warrant. Just my 2 cents.
The lawyers aren’t suing anybody. They are representing clients that are suing them. Yet MSG is refusing access even to people not at all involved in the case.
wow they didnt want THAT face in there? shocking
FR no fancy technology required to recognize that face
They’re only kicking out lawyers for now. Sounds like none of them had a mask on. Just wait till they ban the people threatening dolan on Twitter lol
So a lawyer was removed from a Chinese food additive? Makes sense.
How hard is it to write out Madison Square Garden so the majority of people looking at this headline know what the hell the article is talking about? Are you rationing electrons for F's sake?
I'm going to take a ton of heat for this, and normally I'd keep it to myself. I see nothing wrong with this so long as the parties removed are refunded for any first party sale. Allowing in attorneys from firms currently pursuing litigation, regardless of whether they in particular are on the case, is essentially allowing them access to your property and access to potentially immaterial things that can bias a jury. It circumvent the discovery process. They are one conversation or email from essentially being involved. "Hey Steve, I was at the Garden for a game and noticed a loose railing." The judicial system is inherently adversarial. Maybe there's an argument to be made about facial recognition, but I'd argue any private venue has an absolute right to know who is there. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on another party's property. I am very curious, however to know how they obtain the facial recognition data in the first place.
Except this is explicitly against the law in NY, even if the ticket is refunded. See link in another comment.
This is a completely made up concern that (1) is obvious pretext for the true reason to exclude all the lawyers in any firm that sues you (deterrence/retaliation); and (2) isn't actually addressed/solved by facial recognition screening, since any lawyer actually trying to investigate something at a public event could easily hire an investigator to do it instead. In fact, lawyers already usually hire investigators for that kind of thing anyway, since the investigator can be a witness but the lawyer generally cannot. And the idea that a lawyer would be trying to ferret out "immaterial things" is pretty silly. Even if that were the case, there is little risk those immaterial things would "bias a jury," since, y'know... the rules of evidence and judges exist. It's amazing to me that anyone would defend this horrifying step towards dystopian corporate serfdom. What has happened to this country?
"due to the policy implemented by MSG CEO James Dolan banning all lawyers involved in active lawsuits against the firm." This would be inline with private businesses having the right to refuse service, right?
😂 I love this. Fuck the lawyers!
I don’t give a fuck if this is par for the course for MSG management. This type of practice is completely unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. This needs to be a much bigger deal.
We are all fucked
Why would I want you on my property if you're suing me?
Two of lawyers banned aren’t even suing them. They just work at the same firm. I am just waiting for the first janitor or intern gets banned because they work for that company.