←back to thread

Madison Square Garden's surveillance banned this fan over his T-shirt design

(www.theverge.com)
219 points helloworld | 4 comments | 29 Mar 25 00:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.924s | source
Show context
gorgoiler ◴[29 Mar 25 05:53 UTC] No.43513110[source]▶
If they pulled Miller out of the line and only then checked his photo ID, and the allegation is they used facial recognition to trigger this, then that implies they already had his biometrics in their database.

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.

replies(2): >>43514184 #>>43517455 #
conradfr ◴[29 Mar 25 09:58 UTC] No.43514184[source]▶
They scrap adversarial law firms websites for photos of employees to ban them so yeah.
replies(1): >>43516450 #
t0mas88 ◴[29 Mar 25 15:53 UTC] No.43516450[source]▶
Is that legal? This would be a clear GDPR violation in Europe.

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.

replies(2): >>43517265 #>>43517896 #
1. Henchman21 ◴[29 Mar 25 19:26 UTC] No.43517896[source]▶
Laws are no longer enforced in the US.
replies(2): >>43518223 #>>43519460 #
2. collingreen ◴[29 Mar 25 20:01 UTC] No.43518223[source]▶
I'd amend this to Laws against corporations abusing privacy or consumer wellbeing.
replies(1): >>43519402 #
3. Henchman21 ◴[29 Mar 25 22:45 UTC] No.43519402[source]▶
That is entirely too narrow. Laws that constrain the government are being ignored. Thats a LOT more than just privacy. Or “consumer wellbeing”, which as a term reviles me — We the People are more than mere consumers — but I take your meaning generally.

Much too narrow. They’re ignoring due process. Just ask anyone not white detained by ICE. (Is that everyone detained by ICE?)

replies(1): >>43520065 #
4. collingreen ◴[30 Mar 25 00:39 UTC] No.43520065{3}[source]▶
That's fair - plenty of checks and balances are gone, even the ones that relied mostly on decorum and shame. My expectations were already quite low but I've been surprised just how openly and directly the fundamental rights are being attacked and equally surprised by how many people are happily cheering as it happens.

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).