Madison Square Garden Uses Facial Recognition to Ban Its Owner’s Enemies
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Facial recognition tech gets woman booted from Rockettes show due to employer
(nbcnewyork.com)
703 points | 2 days ago | 660 comments
At the very least the reporting styles will be different.
> In November, after a complaint about the ban from a law firm, the New York State Liquor Authority sent the Garden a letter advising it that such a policy could violate liquor laws.
You can still ban people to venues that don't have a liquor license. You can probably also find some creative ways around it. Like: Move the bar before the checkpoint, move the face check after the bar but before the main entrance, etc.
For comparison, average ticket price for a regular-season NHL game for NYC-area teams during the 2021-2022 season:
- New York Rangers (MSG): $273
- New York Islanders: $213[1]
- New Jersey Devils: $104[2]
[1]: The Islanders played in a brand-new arena last year, so ticket prices were higher than expected.
[2]: The Devils were one of the worst teams in the league last year, so ticket prices were lower than expected.
And the area NBA teams for that same time period:
- New York Knicks (MSG): $394
- Brooklyn Nets: $339
These numbers, as far as I can tell, do not include luxury boxes, which average an eye-watering $16,000 for a regular season NBA or NHL game.
Nicks were 37-45 that year. Insanity.
The various articles and discussions about this issue have carefully avoided mentioning what precisely the "personal injury" lawsuits have been about that started the whole issue.
The law firm in question won a $20 million judgment because a club in NYC owned by MSG served alcohol to a person who later drove drunk. Here is their own advertisement of this case: https://www.dsslaw.com/case-results/20400000-million-drunk-d...
In general, they often sue restaurants and bars for serving alcohol (to impaired individuals): https://www.dsslaw.com/car-accident-attorney/drunk-driving-a...
With megacorps owning bigger and bigger chunks of everything, these sorts of bans will start having deep effects on peoples lives.
Imagine being banned from all grocery chains within 200 miles because the parent corp that owns all grocery stores in the area decided that it doesn't like you.
I'm usually in favor of companies deciding what they want to do and how they want to price things - but anything related to general discrimination or suppressing free speech seems like a VERY slippery slope that companies shouldn't be allowed to do.
There's already a lot of companies sueing people for leaving bad reviews. This seems completely dystopian. Imagine if you say anything bad about Apple and you can't message iPhone users anymore. If you say anything bad about Google, you can't use any website with Analytics. If you say anything bad about Comcast, you have to sell your house and move to get Internet, etc.
This isn't a world I want to live in.
If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.
if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped...
>there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.
Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you.
> If you don't think that's suppression of free speech
Whose speech is being suppressed? The Rockettes are free to sing, the lawyer is free to complain about missing the show, and the venue is free to explain their point of view. Everybody involved appears to be speaking freely.
Specifically, the lawyer being denied service is a personal injury lawyer, who works for the law firm who is representing people suing the company.
So they work in an entirely different branch of the law firm, but are being denied service because their firm is representing someone who is suing the company.
I mean do you prefer the world where you are punished for the actions of 3rd parties who are semantically or logically connected to you?
Irrespective of the fundamental issues of this case, this seems a bit of an overreach.
The customer banned from MSG is not involved in the lawsuit, but even if they were, we shouldn't allow corporations to retaliate against people by banning them from public venues.
How do you expect an attorney to be able to perform her professional responsibilities if she can be punished for doing so?
What happens when her firm is involved in litigation with Cushman & Wakefield and she can’t meet clients with offices in Rockefeller Center due to a ban?
One things that’s being missed is the compartmentalization of the individual in their professional capacity and as a private citizen. The person was attending the venue as the latter.
The only time this partition is disregarded is in vindication.
It’s really smaller website that can kick people off without consequences.
As far as I know, that was legal. But the clerk did lose his job when his boss found out.
Pre January 6th, you'd get about the response someone wearing a BLM shirt in red country would. Heckling and adversarialism, but generally civil interactions. Post January 6th, yes, someone wearing a MAGA hat is showing specific stripes.
If you’re still on the red hat train in 2023, my associating with you makes me look a bit dim myself. It’s kinda like naming your kid Adolf… you’re projecting something gross.
https://www.toyota.com/audio-multimedia/support/3g-faq/
https://www.subaru.com/support/3g-network-retirement.html
Etc.
I'm sure we'll figure out the regulation sooner or later, but for now it looks like things will get worse before they get better.
This sounds very similar to concerns around social media platforms banning users arbitrarily (usually ideologically).
I, myself, am quick to point out that the first amendment only applies to the government, but I'm starting to think it might be better if those kinds of protections are broadened.
(If your answer is “yes but many areas have just one store”, then maybe the real problem is uncompetitive markets?)
I'm not sure it is possible to write a good law that says you can't act against people for some set of reasons, without impacting the ability of venues to deny service in more reasonable cases. (Current trespassing law pretty much relies on notification, if you are told you aren't welcome in a private place and then refuse to leave or later re-enter it, you are trespassing).
Like say an attendant observes that someone is visibly intoxicated, sees them vomit in a spot that isn't part of the venue, and then tries to deny them service. In that case, an escape hatch that lets them add people to a list if they are ejected wouldn't work, but it's perfectly reasonable to deny that person entry.
The better mechanism to deal with things like this would be social pressure. Arbitrary denial of service is outrageous and people should punish them by not doing any business with them (don't book events there, don't attend events there). But no way is anyone going to inconvenience themselves over a few lawyers getting a bad deal. Maybe we'll get a more charismatic scenario sometime in the future.
Maybe in the US, but in Canada and elsewhere, anti-competitive behaviour is basically seen as a national policy objective.
“Strong & powerful industry is good for you” (as they no longer even need to collude to raise prices and reduce competition for labour).
And it wouldn't even need to be this nefarious. Like all paths to hell, it could start with a "bad people" list that becomes homogenized across the companies because one of them has special skill in this area and it's cheaper that way. Then the list starts to expand, and since all of this group of companies are linked, they all follow the same ban, use the same facial recognition etc.
(Walmart won't be allowed to control companies they compete with, and no one will control them)
MSG, you want retribution, you got it.
I'm really hoping the CEO faces personal penalties over this, causing other companies to take notice and setting de facto limits on acceptable use of this tech. Normally, I'm not one to take reactionary stances, but the CEO absolutely knew about and approved this policy and exercised __extraordinarily__ bad judgment unbecoming of a public company CEO. A fifth grader would understand that this policy doesn't work at any scale.
If the former, and banning people you consider to be your enemies is not an issue here, then I guess I struggle with why using technology to exclude people efficiently is a concern.
If the latter, then I struggle as it should be within the rights of any property owner to exclude their antagonizers (or really anyone on any basis not covered by anti-discrimination laws) from their property. I feel strongly about inalienable property rights, and who is anyone else who hasn’t put money up to own the land to tell them what to do with it? Are we all just a giant HOA?
Or is the issue that it’s a public company and as such is expected to have separate standards?
I don’t mean to be pedantic - I am honestly trying to understand. As a landowner myself (of publicly accessible spaces), if I were to be sued by someone I certainly wouldn’t want to be forced to extend hospitality to those suing me by allowing them onto my land for their own enjoyment. If technology allowed me to do this more efficiently, I’d utilize it if I felt that strongly about the merits of the case against me. But I am not a public company, so perhaps that’s where the issue is?
To be clear, if they were excluding people based on things out of a person’s control or otherwise protected by civil rights, I’d understand that society restricts this - it isn’t a society we collectively want to live in. But I am not sure I want to live in a society where someone can antagonize someone else and we force that party to host the antagonizer for the antagonizer’s enjoyment. That seems somewhat dystopian to me as well.
In essence, it's fair enough to ban the legal team suing you, and in the past you would have to restrict it like that, because who's going to check against 1000 photos on the wall, right? But when it's automated, it's probably just easier to ban the whole firm. Is it fair to ban some paralegal who works in probate law from seeing their favourite artist or attending a show with their kids because someone in a different state in a different division is suing a different division of the giant conglomerate that owns the venue? I think that crosses a line for most people.
I bet companies would stop suing each other really fast
Thank you
depends on many things, from pettiness all the way to financial harm. i’ve seen places ban whole families.
On the technical side of this issue, I am curious how MSG as to how acquired the reference images, and I wonder if they would try to pass it off as fair use.
In fact, I am slightly skeptical that the identification was done via face recognition, as opposed to through the ticket sales chain, with face recognition being claimed as a cover. If using ticket sales information this way would present legal problems for MSG, I hope this possibility is investigated. (Nevertheless, face recognition clearly could be used this way, so that issue would still be on the table regardless of what MSG did here.)
Certainly this is more of a grey area than the guilt by association scaling you mention, but I think there is a point at which it becomes scary. People grow over time, people behave differently in different environments with different peers, etc. People also just make impulsive mistakes from time to time, especially when under stress. To what extent should that information be usable at scale for years of a person's life?
I'm for sure not legally qualified to know how or where to draw the line. But it's a problem we haven't grappled with much yet, because in the past there was no realistic infrastructure for it as you say. A ban list had to stay at reasonable length and further only had a more restricted set of info available to it.
Now ban criteria can include not only a longer list of "offenses" which may be much more minor, but also can cover offenses that occured at more possible places over a longer duration. Hopefully business interests will prevent much of this from being realized, but there needs to be a regulatory discussion to get in front of this too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U...
This isn’t a matter of private property rights. The owner of Madison Square Garden is free to sit inside it by himself and keep the world at bay.
But once he creates a business open to the public there are rules. There are rules about what hours he can be open and closed, rules about the number of fire exits, rules about the labels that have to be on any food that’s sold, rules about how loud sounds can be and how bright lights can be. If he sells someone real estate the contract must be in writing. If he sells someone a toaster there is a legally enforced warranty that it will be able to make toast.
This hypothetical idea that businesses have the right to sort of do whatever they want comes up a lot in arguments like this, but it has no real basis in law or tradition.
Businesses don’t now, and have never, had the right to do whatever they want. Their ability to even operate at all is a privilege that requires advance permission and registration.
The state regulates commerce that’s literally what it’s for. It enforces principals of fairness, honesty, enforcement of promises, and all sorts of other stuff.
If the state believes, correctly, that this kind of behavior is incompatible with the state granted privilege to operate as a business then it should prohibit it without hesitation.
> Summary: A business owner has the right to refuse service as long as he or she does not infringe upon federal or state discrimination laws.
In a case like this, private property rights are probably more important. It is an entertainment venue, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and entertainment is not necessary for society.
Contrast that to something like grocery stores. I don't know what it is like in your neck of the woods, but almost everything in my area is controlled by three companies. Food is a necessity of life and there are not many alternatives. The grocery stores are large enough that banning someone will have very little consequence to the business, but it can have disproportionate consequences to the individual.
Even if you do accept banning people, where do you draw the line? A grocery store should have the right to ban shoplifters, but should it be a narrow ban (e.g. it affected a particular location) or should it be a broad ban (e.g. based upon some externally acquired list)? Should the ban be limited in duration, or can a person reasonably be banned for their actions ten years prior? It may seem reasonable to dismiss such people because the ban would be a consequence of their actions, but there comes a point where the consequences are excessive.
Then there is the question of who is being banned. The company stated their list extends to people working for the law firm, not just the people involved in litigation. If I recall correctly from another article, Conlon stated she wasn't involved in the particular case. In other words, there are instances of guilt and punishment by association. While it can be stated that one controls who they work for, is it reasonable to expect someone to quit their jobs because of legal (and possibly even moral) actions of their employer?
Treating inalienable property rights as a default is probably a good default position, but I am deeply concerned about it being used as an excuse to control others.
Sadly, I know a surprising number of people lamenting that we don't have it in the US - the thought is that collective punishment works to force a group to self-regulate, so why not apply it to groups of friends, family, etc and punish all of them as soon as one person steps out of line.
In principle I see where you're coming from. Nevertheless I disagree in this case.
While a property owner should have the right to say who can or cannot use his property I think this becomes a lot more fuzzy when you own a venue, which runs performances open to the public.
You can absolutely stipulate conditions upon ticket sales like accepted behavior or actions that a ticket buyer is prohibited from doing (no recordings or no smuggling of your own booze come to mind).
I think it's a hell of a lot more sticky if you exclude visitors based on totally arbitrary factors, which I think happened here.
If you provide a service, which is generally open to the public, this should come with the obligations not to exclude patrons for capricious or even frivolous reasons.
Even if they are well within their rights, this is not acceptable behavior, and they should be boycotted for it.
It's not force to choose not to associate with a business you don't like.
If the business has premises in a city then it is subject to various planning laws. Planning permission could probably be made conditional on serving all members of the public without discrimination. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but that's one way to resolve the issue you quite reasonably raise of compatibility with property rights.
The nature and extent of this "private land" is at least part of the problem. This isn't some guy's living room or a small theater he built himself. MSG Entertainment Group owns venues all over the place. In New York, at least Madison Square Garden, the Beacon Theatre on Broadway, and this venue, Radio City Music Hall. Three of the largest and most historic venues in the city. Radio City Music Hall has been open since 1932, is an official New York City Landmark, and hosts the NFL Draft, Emmys, Grammys, Tonys, and VMAs, all globally-televised events. The Rockettes themselves are a national institution that has been around even longer than Radio City Music Hall.
You're effectively saying that the rights of James Dolan, a spoiled, petulant drug addict and alcoholic with a famously volatile temper, who happened to be lucky enough to be born to the founder of Cablevision and HBO, a daddy who could buy him things like Radio City Music Hall, is more important than the rights of the people of New York to take part in century-old community events that are part of the history and fabric of where they live.
One person is more important than millions because he happens to be richer.
Legally, you're right in most cases (maybe not this one because of the liquor license) that the rights of the owner are absolute. But should they be? What are the limits on what types of places a single person should be allowed to control? Imagine places that are currently public, like the Alamo, Central Park, Mt. Rushmore. If Texas, New York City, or the United States ever got so strapped for cash that they decided to sell those places to private owners, is it seriously now okay that some bratty rich kid whose daddy bought him a historical landmark can exclude anyone he wants for any reason?
What if one of the dancer's family members worked for this law firm? Now they can't come see their sister, mother, daughter perform because their employer's parent company is involved in a lawsuit against the Rockette's venue's parent company? The founders of our country went out of their way to enshrine and protect property rights because they were concerned about the past tendency of kings to just decide arbitrarily that your land was now under their control and you owed them more money than before or needed to send people to fight wars for them. It wasn't for shit like this. James Dolan is the shitty tyrant in this scenario. The Rockettes should get to say who gets to see them perform, not a global entertainment conglomerate that bought the venue they currently perform in.
Hate to break it to you, but this is exactly what you busted your ass for.
For the first time in basically ever, I'm rooting for the lawyers lol.
Suppose Google decided to ban you from using all Google services, just because you work (or once worked) for a law firm that is representing someone in a suit against Google. Would that be fair?
would i be happy about it? no. but the company that i work for is suing google, so it’s assumed there would be retribution of some sorts.
Imagine if you had to sue a company for a wrong doing, but still would require the services of said company. They could pressure you to drop the suit, by using this tech to deny you access to their services.
So even if the suit had merit, the company escaped being sued. So this would produce unfair outcomes.
In other words, a company discriminating against customers should be illegal, except in specific circumstances allowed by the law.
Yeah, I think it's just about to.
oh no
won't someone think of all those poor little helpless lawyers.
That aside, to use the classic stick reserved for complaining conservatives, it's a private company and venue and they have a right to choose who they want in there.
But beyond those points, we already make distinctions between private spaces and spaces open to the public that happen to be privately owned. When you invite in the public you waive some of your rights to free association. I see no reason why we can’t add further restrictions beyond the currently protected classes.
If you want to build a completely privately funded members only stadium, have at it.
And it depends on whether the ticket holder can prove they suffered damages beyond the cost of the ticket. Or whether a group of people in a class action lawsuit can do so.
At least one law firm has already successfully sued to overturn their ban.
Yes you do, that's why you're posting here. As you note, it is completely of a piece with social media bans. It is obviously newsworthy because it now extends that sort of "ideological ban" to a physical space.
Presumably the rights God inconveniently forgot to give us were enhanced by our rights as private citizens and taxpayers?
MSG is not a members only club, there are laws about venues which are generally open to the public, and we also have civil court for contracts like buying tickets to concerts.
We will see what a jury of our peers will say. But I don't think progressive snark or bad jokes about lawyers will be in the court arguments.
What does any of this have to do with ideology (conservatives vs. progressives)?
She purchased a ticket to an event and was denied entrance. That is contract and the courts may agree with her.
(Obviously they didn’t come for the lawyers first - the lawyers were the first who were strong enough to pick a fight over it or know how to respond - it’s shrapnel holes in returned bombers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
If you are referring to the Masterpiece Cake suit from Colorado, I'm pretty sure that the cake maker won on a technicality: table single member of Colorado's ruling authority said something religiously discriminatory against the cake maker which made their ruling discriminatory.
The general question of "can a private cake maker restrict who he makes cakes for" is still unresolved (legally, in the US)
Edit: updated to use examples that aren’t part of protected classes.
Regardless, I don't think there's any state in which affiliation with an employer is a protected class. You can't compare this to race or sex, which are protected classes on the federal level, in every state.
The MSG thing is a completely different issue.
If someone is not wanted in a privately owned place then I don't see why using a model to automatically alert security or deny access is a bad thing.
First, we're not talking about simply legal vs illegal, there's also ethics and civics involved.
These venues are often publicly funded, supported by public services, are generally open to the public. So all such actions around banning members of the public for their identity (versus their behavior or conduct at the venue) should be given heightened scrutiny.
To your point, I do not agree that the venue should be able to ban someone simply for who they work for.
But the technology is what enabled the venue to identify and ban this lawyer, so it is a simply augmenting the scale of abuse by increasing the "hit rate" of recognition that the owner standing outside the venue wpuld.
It is a force multiplier of discrimination. And it reduces the cost of such discrimination significantly.