Previous post
Jordan Peterson recently warned of how Red China’s social credit system is close to inevitable in the ostensibly democrat West. Radio City Music Hall just provided a real-life example how that works.
Lawyer Kelly Conlon was denied entry to a performance of the “Christmas Spectacular” show with the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall in New York City after facial recognition technology spotted her in the lobby.
Conlon spoke to NBC New York about being booted from the venue due to the law firm where she works, which she said was “mortifying.” (snip)
(S)hortly after walking into the theater Conlon said was flagged by security and told to leave because of her place of employment.
Ms. Colon was accompanying her daughter and her daughter’s Girl Scout troop to a Christmas performance. She was called out and confronted right after she entered the theater due to AI face-recognition software. The law firm she works for in New Jersey has been involved in litigation with MSG Entertainment, a large entertainment holding company that controls live events at a number of venues including Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Beacon Theater and the Hulu Theater at MSG. And it appears that it’s CEO James Dolan has a habit of banning all attorneys at any law firm who dares take a case against MSG from any of MSG’s venues.
One of those laywers, Nicolette Landi, was on her way to Carey’s “Merry Christmas To All Show” at Madison Square Garden last week, when she was denied entry and asked to leave the premises, according to a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court. (snip)
Landi — and all the members of her law firm — received a letter dated Nov. 14 banning them from events at all of Dolan’s properties, including Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Beacon Theater and the Hulu Theater at MSG.
MSG has issued similar bans to attorneys at other firms, including lawyer Larry Hutcher, a Knicks season ticket holder for nearly 50 years.
In Ms. Colon’s case she does not even practice law in New York, nor is she participating in any ligation against MSG. She’s just on the staff at the firm.
There are several issues here, but not the least of which is the use of face-recognition technology that is totally outside of the scope of basic security. Ms. Colon had not been convicted of any criminal conduct aimed at MSG, let alone at Radio City Music Hall. She was neither engaged in any possible criminal behavior outside or inside the venue. The AI in this instance is being used as a tool for collective … and public … punishment of people whose employer has annoyed James Dolan.
And it makes you wonder at the extent of the research that went into satisfying Mr. Dolan’s pique by hunting down the attorney staff members of every law firm, locating current pictures and feeding it into their security database. I suspect the only reason that clerks, secretaries and janitors of these same firms aren’t being targeted is that it’s a bit harder to get that information. For now.
This demonstrates the ease in which security systems can be put to use for non-security reasons. How often do you go to a restaurant or sports game or theater and are fully aware of the corporate ownership of the place? Do you work for anyone that may have annoyed that corporation? What if Disney’s Bob Igor decided from now on to bar Ron DeSantis, his staff, his associates, even his friends, and all their families from all Disney venues and services?
What is also troubling about Dolan’s targeting is that it seeks to intimidate lawfirms into refusing to take any case against MSG Entertainment regardless of merit. This is a frightening development that was practically unheard of ten or more years ago in that it seeks to deny people the right to legal counsel, civil or criminal.
As we’ve seen with the coverage of #TwitterFiles, our government is quite anxious to use technology and social media to conduct behavior against American citizens that is usually, and Constitutionally, barred to them. Of course, our Beltway Betters either gaslight the public about their involvement or tell us it is for our own benefit.
Jordan Peterson’s warning here should make you pay attention. And if you’re not alarmed, watch it again.
How far are we going to allow the use of AI and software like face-recognition programs to go in determining our legal behavior, choices, employment, and travel in a “free” society?
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
featured image, cropped, Adobe Stock standard license
SDN says: Oh, this sort of behavior has been a thing for years. It was an open secret in the 90s that if you filed any sort of complaint against a doctor that your ability to access medical care was going to suffer. Nowadays, they just put a “non-compliant” note in your file.
Stephen J. says: I understand the outrage and on first reaction share it… but either Mr. Dolan has the right to decide who his company does business with, or he doesn’t. And if he does, what difference does it make whether he happened to be in the lobby himself that night and personally recognized Ms. Conlon, or whether a computer system did that recognizing for him? Shouldn’t Jack Phillips have the right to refuse business with anyone from a law firm contracted to sue him over his refusal to bake same-sex union ceremony cakes, or to tell an employee to do that for him if they happened to recognize a name from a piece of legal correspondence?
This is a petty and vindictive action on Dolan’s part, and yes, the use of surveillance technology to enable it is alarming, but in the end, it’s an act of freedom of association using publicly available information. And a law firm that won’t take my case because they don’t want to lose access to the services of the people I want to sue isn’t a firm I want fighting for me anyway. (Notwithstanding the fact that the right to legal counseling extends only to defense against criminal prosecution by the State in the first place; I have no “right to counsel” from any given law firm in matters of private litigation any more than I have a “right to health care” for cosmetic surgery, or Ms. Conlon has a “right” to see a given stage show.)
Now if the desire here is to publicly shame Dolan for this and get people to stop patronizing his businesses, that I can get behind, because that too would be freedom of association. But we can’t have freedom of association without it cutting both ways. This is an issue not of legal rights but of antisocial dyscharity, and the law cannot fix that.
Alexander says: I would ask you to imagine the public hue and cry if a shopping mall or store chain (WalMart, Target, Best Buy, etc.) attempted to use such technology to block and ban accused/convicted shoplifters or other criminals from their premises.
Especially in “urban settings.”
Darleen Click says: When I was working at the DA office, it was a standard term of probation that the convicted were ordered to “stay away” from X, where they committed their crimes. Probation for petty theft usually 3 years. I personally have no problem with surveillance done for that specific reason as the perp would actually be committing a violation of their terms.
Open for business to general public, especially venues with joint public/private ties (e.g. museums, stadiums, libraries) should not be allowed to block anyone from attendance who is NOT engaged (engaging) in criminal activity.
This is entirely different from the bakery incident. The bakery was open for business and barred NO ONE from the premises or from buying product already on sale in the display cases. It hinged entirely on custom-created products that convey a message.
Being a legit ticketholder to an event open to the public is an entirely different scenario.
A ticket to an event is also a contract. There are statutes (the Uniform Commercial Code among others) and much judicial precedent about “unreasonable and therefore unenforceable terms” in contracts – and this kind of blanket ban by association (not individual behaviors) would almost certainly be considered unreasonable by any half bright judge.
Testu Nagouchi says: In hindsight the whole “but they’re a private company and they can do what they want” was a mistake.
6 Comments