Posted by helloworld 3/29/2025
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.
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).
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?
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?
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.
Since the Mediterranean crisis and the Ukraine crisis: none. Although Ireland won't impose a language requirement so you might start there.
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.