Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design
theverge.com
theverge.com
The legal disclaimer shown at the venue implies that the biometrics are collected (and “retained, stored, and converted”) at the venue. That’s clearly only half of the story. They must also be collecting (and retaining, storing, and converting) information about anyone using sources outside the venue.
The implication from chronology of the story is that MSG must have done something like googled Miller, found his LinkedIn bio-pic, and put that in their “safety and security” database?
I think we can conclude therefore that the disclaimer sign is not a quasi-legal disclaimer to let the venue record your face, but in fact a canard to divert your attention from the fact that they have already created records linking your face to your name — records created without your consent and without letting you know they did it.
You could probably argue a legitimate interest if you're collecting face recognition data on proven hooligans, but scraping pictures of people that have not been to your venue off a website clearly isn't a legitimate interest for such privacy invasion.
What if the law firm has thousands of employees and you don't know exactly which ones might be working on your case at any given time? What if your entrance has a high volume of visitors and it's not practical for your security team to stop each of those people for minutes, whilst they check them against a set of thousands of photos?
Much too narrow. They’re ignoring due process. Just ask anyone not white detained by ICE. (Is that everyone detained by ICE?)
I like the perspective that we are more than mere consumers. I think that's a valid thing to be clear about although consumer protection as a concept doesn't feel belittling to me as a human (nor would I want it to extend to my entire life anyway).
If he made threats, what were the threats?
If he didn't make threats, does this written statement, from a communications executive, to a journalist, intended for news publication, constitute libel?
But realistically, how worth it would it be for this graphic designer to battle a narcissistic, petty billionaire in court?
US civil court is truly fucked. Criminal as well, for that matter. Ok, the entire judicial branch really. And the executive branch, and legislative, law enforcement, public health, education....
As an aside, what's the easiest country in the EU for immigration?
Since the Mediterranean crisis and the Ukraine crisis: none. Although Ireland won't impose a language requirement so you might start there.
The one(s) whose language(s) you already speak, unless you're rich enough for an investor visa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_investor_programs#In...
(While Germany may be tempting especially with all the English used in tourist areas, be aware it's not for nothing that native German speakers use in real life a phrase which translates as "The German language is difficult").
Most of the EU, but not Denmark or Ireland, also theoretically have the Blue Card scheme; but I say "theoretically" because that's a bureaucratic streamlining, the actual granting is still done at national level and from what I've heard different countries grant them at different rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Card_(European_Union)
I've seen another American Village project near Moscow a few days ago, they do most of the hard work for you and help with the formalities. Houses are nice too. Not my cup of tea personally — I'm more of a city dweller — but the people there looked happy.
Certainly not the first time a vague and imposing "code of conduct" has caused trouble.
The fact that the “security” team is going through online images to feed into there facial recognition banning software is kind of weird and creepy.
I look forward to continuing to not going to MSG and company, as they are far far away from me.
Why would any team go through anything? I'm sure can just ask AI to maintain a list of offenders, fully automated. So much more efficient.
I assume that embedded Instagram post is a pic of the shirt, but I don't have Instagram so it's a big blank box with a link to "View this post on Instagram".
It's ironic that on this post about a large corporation abusing its power, they are requiring the user to use Instagram to get the full context..
On the other hand, if the private property was constructed with public monies, which MSG probably was, that’s an interesting debate. Should the involvement of public money confer first amendment protections of some sort? I think it should.
Edit: You can’t use “my” money to build something and then ban me from it because I said something (non-protected) about the CEO of the company that owns it.
The guy's name was known from social media, and his name was on his ticket, presumably. He was then asked for his ID to verify his identity (confirm he was the person on the list), and then kicked out.
I don't see where in that any kind of facial recognition was necessary?
Most venues require a name on the ticket, and many will validate that the person holding the ticket is the person who is named on the ticket.
This is a very common anti-scalping measure.
Maybe for Taylor swift tickets or something they have stronger rules but it’s definitely not true as a matter of course in American major professional sports that each ticket holder needs to have their identity on file
source: literally seen quite a few hundreds of concerts.
1: https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/portland-passes-the-tough...
This is a late stage capitalism issue where too much power has been consolidated into the hands of too few, and so much as a single comment made publicly can blacklist you from participating in any cultural event for the rest of your life.
Think of how many radio stations, venues, internet channels etc have been bought up by megacorp.
We have all the bad parts of a Gibson cyberpunk dystopia and none of the flying cars or bio-enhancements.
It absolutely is. Freedom of speech means free speakers. If you're going to face petty punishments for the rest of your days because your criticized the "wrong" people then you are not a free speaker.
If you're serious about a free society that means you have to cop criticism, disrespect, and even mockery, most especially and particularly if you're in a position of power.
Madison Square Garden and its investors have the freedom to bar anyone they see fit on their own property. Their portfolios are only getting larger.
That’s late stage capitalism.
The intent of 1A is to protect the freedom of speech from those in power. The fact that non-government entities now wield the power to suppress speech doesn't change the fact that this is an infringement of free speech.
The entire First Amendment is one sentence:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere in there does it say anything about "those in power" in a way that it could possibly apply to a private party.
In fact, the opposite is true: The government forcing private individuals or companies to tolerate speech on their premises or carry it in their media is considered compelled speech and as such a First Amendment violation itself.
Whether that’s still the best way of doing things is a different question, but that’s what the First Amendment is/does.
A person was distributing fliers in a 'company town.' Company towns were essentially privately owned 'towns' on privately owned property. They were told to stop and leave, they refused, and were arrested for trespass. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where it was thrown out. Wiki has a pretty nice synopsis of the critical point:
---
The state had attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention by noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion". The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
---
That's unlikely to matter here but it's an important nuance to the 1st Amendment. It's also important for the future because it will, sooner or later, likely end up applying to social media companies who are doing everything they can frame themselves as a digital 'public square' for speech.
> In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it.
A company towns per-se don’t exist anymore in US? There are developer owned neighborhoods though. Mixed zoned areas with everything owned by a corporate entity, so could apply there perhaps?
The reasonable democratic thing to do here would be to propose new legislation explicitly covering the protection of speech "on private property", pass it if deemed desirable, and just be done with it.
Of course, the problem with that is that such a law might be seen to actually contradict the First Amendment (compelled speech and all), so it would possibly have to be a constitutional amendment, and that's obviously not happening. I really have no idea on how to get out of this mess, yet doing so seems extremely important.
That's why I said that such protections will likely end up applying, sooner or later. The precedent for moving stuff from the private to public domain (in terms of protections of users) is quite clear and there's a willingness among the court to act on such, so this applying to things that provide free open access to far more people than any government can reach, and then try to act as their untouchable and unconstrained overlord by appealing to 'private property', is probably inevitable. Of course "inevitable" has no meaning. It could be 5 years from now, or 50.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Cor...
It can and perhaps should, I agree. But whether it actually does, I am not sure.
But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.
Government does, but other entities don’t.
I am not saying I agree or like it, just that 1st amendment doesn’t specifically apply here.
The general idea of freedom of speech applies and there may be state, local laws or other federal laws in play. But that’s more “in spirit” and wouldn’t hold up in court.
It’s like people being censored on Facebook or YouTube - “Don’t like it? Build your own Facebook or YouTube, pal”. Here it’s “build your own MSG, pal” I guess.
Democracy doesn't just mean you get to vote on some things.
in the sense in which the entire constitutional apparatus is falling appart
because citizen-president Trump is a power bully
but this was bound to happen. as we transition from orality to literacy to digital-literacy and beyond
consider why the laws are written down. consider the way language became computer languages. and then realize that what was written down must now grapple with the new technological paradigm of digital paper that writes on itself
it's like we have (re-)discovered paper and the very idea of writing down the law is a techno-social innovation sweeping the land
If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.
It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state.
The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.
The judiciary is a branch of government.
You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.
You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments.
Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.
> It only says that government won't make laws restricting it.
These are the same thing. Further, private corporations have editorial control over what they allow in their publications or on their platforms which is also free speech. Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is required by The First Amendment to publish every letter it receives? That a website is required to leave scam comments or spam up? The no corporate owned platform can moderate in any way?
If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.
Of course that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing to happen, or that there should not be any laws preventing it.
Really we're going backwards here
Digital literacy in the younger generations is dropping, and even language literacy is not where it used to be
It's kind of shocking to see these stats regress in my lifetime but they are
Democracy isn't just a form of government, it is also a type of society. Part of being a democratic society is that people are generally able to respectfully express themselves without fear of being punished for unpopular opinions.
Well, yes, but I'd say the more important part is that students are having their visas revoked and being pulled off the street into immigration detention because of social media posts.