Facial Recognition Denied Mom Entrance to NYC Rockettes Show With Daughter Because of Her Employer
Security knew everything about Kelly Conlon before she even spoke to them
Minority Report is a movie, not a guide. If you haven’t seen it, you should watch it. Great movie.
Kelly Conlon went to New York City with her daughter on a Girl Scout trip. But she couldn’t attend a Rockettes show at Radio City Music Hall because of facial recognition.
Conlon spoke to NBC New York. Insanity:
That’s because to Madison Square Garden Entertainment [MSG], Conlon isn’t just any mom. They had identified and zeroed in on her, as security guards approached her right as he got into the lobby.
“It was pretty simultaneous, I think, to me, going through the metal detector, that I heard over an intercom or loudspeaker,” she told NBC New York. “I heard them say woman with long dark hair and a grey scarf.”
She said she was asked her name and to produce identification.
“I believe they said that our recognition picked you up,” Conlon said.
MSG manages Radio City Music Hall and produces the Christmas Spectacular, the annual musical with the Rockettes.
Security knew everything about Conlon before she even spoke to them:
Conlon is an associate with the New Jersey based law firm, Davis, Saperstein and Solomon, which for years has been involved in personal injury litigation against a restaurant venue now under the umbrella of MSG Entertainment.
“I don’t practice in New York. I’m not an attorney that works on any cases against MSG,” said Conlon.
But MSG said she was banned nonetheless — along with fellow attorneys in that firm and others.
“MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment. All impacted attorneys were notified of the policy, including Davis, Saperstein and Salomon, which was notified twice,” a spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement.
Sam Davis, a partner at the firm, described it as “punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSB in their multi-billion dollar network.”
MSG has faced lawsuits over facial recognition and blacklists. Conlin cited a recent order stating “that ticketholders like her ‘may not be denied entry to any shows.'”
Conlon’s treatment motivated Davis even more to take legal action against MSG. He’s now “challenging MSG’s license with the State Liquor license.” Interesting point:
“The liquor license that MSG got requires them to admit members of the public, unless there are people who would be disruptive who constitute a security threat,” said Davis. “Taking a mother, separating a mother from her daughter and Girl Scouts she was watching over — and to do it under the pretext of protecting any disclosure of litigation information — is absolutely absurd. The fact they’re using facial recognition to do this is frightening. It’s un-American to do this.”
A spokesperson for MSG reiterated in a statement that safety is their highest priority and that facial recognition is just one of the methods they use. MSG Entertainment also said it is confident their policy is in compliance with all applicable laws, including the New York State Liquor Authority.
Davis has a great point.
How can anyone justify separating a mother from her minor child and a group of Girl Scouts that she is chaperoning in one of the largest cities in the world?
Conlon behaved better than I would have in that position. I would have caused a scene and then some. You don’t get between Mama Bear and her cub.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Get their liquor license pulled. That will hurt.
This is coming everywhere as part of the ESG discrimination. Add in digital currency, and there’s going to be issues…..
Tell me again how we live in a free society.
Most people have no idea how much freedom we’ve lost over the past century. But they’ve lots of pretty toys to keep them distracted.
Most of that loss came after 9/11 and after Bush signed the Patriot Act and instituted Homeland Security. I opposed it at the time and it’s a reason I left the GOP. My stance has proven justified. Since then, the independents of this country have become the largest voting block. To get our freedoms back, we must eliminate party politics.
Party politics aren’t going away. So what’s Plan B?
We still have the right to ban lawyers from the firm suing us.
The worst part of this? It’s petty.
It demonstrates that MSG has a thin skin. They have to retaliate against lawyers who representing clients who have sued them. There’s no civilizing thought at MSG, it’s all law of the jungle, and that they’ll do silly, foolish, petty things because of that.
They should be mocked for this.
Agreed; it’s an utterly infantile, vindictive and shameful stunt; the kind of behavior one would expect from a small-town bar or restaurant, not a publicly-traded corporation.
And, to those who down-voted my comment — attempt to defend this idiotic stunt. Articulate why it’s something that’s laudable, or, that we want to see in American society. Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Common sense is not an idiotic stunt, vindictive, etc.
Keeping the opposition as far away as possible is common sense.
Up next: You were photographed at a pro-gun rally. Facial recognition detects you entering a venue for a large-scale event with thousands of people. The management considers you a threat to the safety of the attendees, due to your pro-gun stance, so they bar you from the event.
You OK with that? Of course you are. It’s common sense, right?
@DaveGinOly,
Please explain the thought process behind equating a temporary ban against a small set of declared legally hostile individuals versus a general and permanent ban against non-threats.
LOL, maybe they’re just upset because you denigrated small-town bars and restaurants.
My experience with facial recognition is that it is wrong 60% of the time. The software usually picks a number of photos out of a database that “could” be a match and puts them in order from 1 to 10 and a user needs to look at each one and decide if it is the person whose picture was just taken.
Years ago, I was the director of a biometrics lab where multiple types of biometrics were tested including facial recognition. The woman involved would have needed to have her face in the database. How did it get there, Who enrolled her photo? Who took her photo?
In order for her to have her photo pulled up as a possible match, her face would need to be in pretty much the same position it was when her photo was enrolled.
I suspect it was a set up.
Her full name, a short biography, and a picture are publicly posted on the firm’s website. From there it would be easy to compile a photo set from her social media, news articles, etc.
I think you might be shocked to learn how rapidly the field of AI in general, and facial recognition in particular, have progressed in recent years.
Pretty freaking insane
The police state mentality is spreading.
Don’t worry. It’s OK so long as it’s being enacted by private companies that the state isn’t able to control (until it desires to do so, then stand back and watch them go to town – lockdowns, anyone?). Am I right?
Now someone will tell us they can guarantee there will be no state involvement. Just like Twitter did to Congress.
I guess large corporations don’t have to “Bake The Cake”….
“He’s now “challenging MSG’s license with the State Liquor license.”
A variation of the “Streisand effect”
Frankly, PI lawyers, what goes around comes around.
What a foolish comment. You’d be the first one calling a PI attorney, if you had personally experienced a significant accident or injury that was caused by someone else’s negligence, hypocrite.
They are pulling in Jan 6 protesters by face recognition I assume, they can start political prisoners just like this.
Waiting for the Minority Report?
Might it be fraud to sell her a ticket and take her money, but with no intent to supply her with the related service?
This one is interesting to me.
If yr gonna screen people, screen them before they have sunk costs, and follow-on costs. Sinct BigCorp is not doing this, part of the point, I speculate, is the spectacle. Part of the point is the punishment of the process.
This looks like a case of “play the game you’re in.” “Hey, if you’re gonna ratchet up the extortionate incidental costs under the guise of policy and what you are permitted to do, Imma ratchet up the incidental costs under my rights as a consumer, and your fradulant contract.”
The game is lawfare. Let’s play.
How exactly could they have screened her beforehand? Presumably she didn’t show up in person to buy her tickets. She would have bought them online, like anyone else, so how could they have known who she was?
But her firm was on explicit notice that none of its attorneys were allowed onto their adversary’s property; as a member of that firm, she was on notice, and if the firm failed to notify her then her dispute is with the firm, not with the property owner. If she was notified then she should not have bought the ticket.
Notice or not she is relying upon a vendor with a specific duty for public accommodation to meet their burden of performance for retention of their liquor and other licenced privileges as well as general public accommodation doctrines.
Since they were able to recognize her, they had some sort of biometric information, which I can only assume she did not provide or give permission for.
Agree that the firm should have let her know if they were aware of the ban.
That was my thought exactly.
My first ever downvote of Milhouse!
Venue management ID’d her as she walked in. She should have been ID’d when she attempted to purchase a ticket. Ticket purchase was probably conducted by a third party, unable to ID her.
Did her employer acquiesce to the ban and agree to keep their employees from MSG’s property? Her firm acknowledged the ban, but seems to not have agreed to it. The ban was unilateral. Now people can be banned from public venues if they work for the wrong employers? Because that’s what this boils down to. No matter the specifics of this situation, if it is allowed to stand it will set a precedent. Our system has the unfortunate habit of forgetting the reasons for why something was done, and then approving of the next insult merely because it is similar to one already permitted. Each insult to our rights becomes a stepping-stone to the next, rationalized only due to precedent for the insult, and without regard for why it was initially allowed.
Oh, please. She didn’t pay cash, and her credit card has details that would have shown who she was.
MSG gives headaches to many. Avoid it.
Orgs get away with shenanigans like these because their deal-partners tend to be polite. These guys embarrassed a lawyer in front of family. They didn’t think this through:
Never start a PiTA contest with a bigger jerk than you are.
Most of us make a related mistake dealing with the orgs and officials forever encroaching on our lives:
Never do a deal with someone willing to be a bigger jerk than you are. Double-plus don’t if they enjoy it.
Maybe we should start using facial recogition technology to document undocumented immigrants so we will have an accurate record of them instead of using the bullshit names they provide.
Or if that technology is too complicated for government workers to use, at least get their finger prints.
I would only object that there is no such thing as an “undocumented immigrant”. The proper and legal term is “Illegal Alien”.
I don’t understand your problem with this. Do you seriously not believe in private property?! What is this, suddenly some kind of socialist blog?!
MSG is private property, exactly like your house or mine. And it is reasonable for any property owner to have a policy that if you are suing me you are not welcome on my property. Suing someone has consequences; you are that person’s enemy, so it’s understandable that they don’t like you and don’t want to provide you with any services. There’s no law that says they have to.
We will both get slammed hard, but, I agree with you completely. I take it further: being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason you desire.
Private businesses on private property only became “public accommodation” because someone said so. I believe that is wrong.
Actual public accommodation law is centuries old. It’s part of the common law. But it applied only to things like inns and mills, where everyone needs you and you’re the only game in town. Not to frivolities like entertainment.
But even current law does not require a business to deal with all comers equally. If you’re not a traditional public accommodation you’re still entitled to turn away customers on any grounds you like except for those specifically listed in the law. You’re certainly allowed to turn away people you have a personal beef with, whether it’s your ex-brother-in-law or the bully who punched you on the schoolground 30 years ago, let alone a lawyer who’s in the process of suing you.
Sometimes it not about whether you can, it is about whether you should. In this instance it was not a personal thing. Turning away the bully or your ex-brother-in-law is personal. You know them and they know you and what happened. This is more like the bully’s granddaughter that has no clue about the animosity is kicked out without knowing anything about the background. No it is personal to a new person that had nothing to do with the original problem. Not a good business decision.
“Actual public accommodation law is centuries old…
… even current law does not require a business to deal with all comers equally.”
Not anymore.
Now, go bake me a cake.
Yes anymore. In jurisdictions where sexual orientation is not specifically listed in the law as one of the grounds on which a business may not discriminate, it is completely legal not only to refuse to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding, but even to refuse outright to sell ready-made cakes to gay people. The federal anti-discrimination laws do not list sexual orientation, so it’s entirely up to state and local law.
But here we’re not even talking about that. Here the discrimination is on grounds that are not listed anywhere. Personal antipathy. There is no jurisdiction in which such discrimination is not legal.
that cake comment shows that you have no understanding of the cake-florist-wedding issue. Baking is the least important aspect of creating a wedding cake. Obviously, a ten year old can “bake a cake” using a cake mix. The more significant aspect of the wedding cake is the concept and execution of the design, which can take days. And then, you’re conflating entry to a venue with an artisan accepting or rejecting a COMMISSION to create a unique, custom made artifact. Creation is at the disposition of the artisan – the identity or feelings of the would be customer are irrelevant.
What was direct, the personal beef? I think you are painting with way too broad of a brush here.
The owner of a business that was not Radio City Music Hall refused an attorney who was not suing the non-Radio City Music Hall business to see a show at Radio City Music Hall.
If we are going to start a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon vendetta on people with AI, this is going to get ugly fast.
A real free market doesn’t care what your personal views are. Unfortunately, because too many adults never moved beyond a toddler’s emotional IQ, we’ve moved away from that. Elon Musk spent $44 billion to show you exactly what can happen when this shit goes unchecked.
Oh, Twitter is a private company, they can do whatever they want. What could ever go wrong?
I think your take on the “gay wedding cake” (below) is completely backwards. The baker can’t refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding only in states where sexual orientation is protected by law. A business can’t discriminate against gays because they have a license issued by the state that does not expressly allow them to discriminate, and there are no laws requiring or permitting such discrimination. This is so because the state isn’t authorized to similarly discriminate based on sexual orientation (because such discrimination is almost certainly not authorized by its constitution), and therefore the state is unable to extend such authority to a licensee.
The situation is exactly the opposite of what you posit. In order for a state license holder to be able to discriminate, state law must require (such as an age limit on the sale of cigarettes) or permit the discrimination, and the state must be on sound constitutional grounds to authorize such discrimination. It should be self-evident that a state cannot extend authority to another entity when it does not have that same authority for itself.
Note that I am of the belief that “no guns allowed” rules imposed by “private” businesses are unlawful even where allowed by statute, because the state can’t empower its licensee to do that which the state is constitutionally prohibited from doing (interfering with the public bearing of arms).
So I will ask – Is it OK for the state to bar employees of certain law firms involved in litigation with the state from entering public buildings? If you think that’s not OK, then why would you think it’s OK for a licensee of the state to do the same thing? The licensee is bound by what the state permits (and not just by what the state forbids), and if the state can’t do it, it can’t extend such permission to its licensees.
I’m old enough to remember when this was enshrined in our bill of rights. These days I guess it runs afoul of other peoples rights not to have their feelings hurt.
I’m with you. It seems strange that so many are bothered by this. You don’t get to sue me and then demand that I entertain you.
You also don’t get to take my money for a performance ticket, then refuse to admit me.
Happens all the time. Gotta follow their rules. Why I’ve attended zero concerts in the last several years- all the nearby ones I was interested in required useless mask wearing. Or said the rles might change after I bouught the ticket.
The rules must be expressed at the point of purchase. Maybe MSG (or their ticket vendor) has some kind of boilerplate “can refuse entry to anyone” language at the point of purchase.
Still, a state licensee is bound both by what the state permits and by what the state forbids. Is discrimination based on “employment” or lawfully pursuing claims against a vendor an OK reason to discriminate? I don’t believe so. The woman was discriminated against because her employer is working for others who are exercising their rights as Americans. And people here think this is OK?
Could you name a rule she was violating?
I’d be willing to bet the fine print on group tickets mentions MSG reserving the right to deny entry to individuals within the group.
1.) She isn’t involved in the lawsuit
2.) That lawsuit doesn’t involve Radio City Music Hall
3.) The lawsuit is in NY, she doesn’t even work in that state
Guilt by association? That’s what you support?
1. Insofar as she is an attorney at the firm suing, she is involved (whether by association or action appears unimportant to MSG)
2. The article indicates the establishment being sued had come under MSG and if MSG is the gatekeeper to Radio City Music Hall, then RCMH’s relationship or non-relationship to the suit is irrelevant
3. See #1
Guilt by association within courts of law, no. However, private individuals can, do, and sometimes ought to order their actions based on associations, real or perceived. Lawyers not being part of a favored class, a private entity on private property may bar entry for any reason or no reason at all.
1.) She is involved how? Oh that’s right. She’s not. Her employer is suing another employer. Meanwhile she and Radio City Music Hall are on the sidelines, irrelevant to this lawsuit. I’d love to trace every association you have with everything and start banning you from society. I’m sure you’d be thrilled. We can start by you not using a screen name any more. I’d like to know who you really are and who you work for so I can get the ball rolling.
This has nothing to do with protected classes. I’d be making the same case if she were a garbage collector. I have no affinity for lawyers. You think her job is important here. Why? Well, you don’t like lawyers, either. Great argument.
2.) See 1
3.) See 1
This country is full of the most childish people…
The people her employer represents are pursuing their legal rights in a court of law. A vendor (a state-licensee) can discriminate against people who are exercising their rights (in a process that isn’t even conducted on the business’s premises)?
What if the membership list of the NRA was hacked and made publicly available. Would it be OK for a “private” business (A bank? A hospital? An insurer?) to blackball anyone on the list?
Verizon is a private business should they be allowed to intervene? We will censor your phone calls? If you vote Republican you lose internet access after 4 pm?
Furthermore remember Marsh v Alabama? The more a business is open to the public the less permissible it is for that business to act as if it is their house.
1 “MSG manages Radio City Music Hall”, so it is not the owners policy.
2 She was not asking for “Custom” services, just wanted to be in the audience.
3 MSG knew she was specifically banned from all of their locations. They obviously spent time and money to research and enter her info. They should have mailed a letter informing her.
4 I don’t like our over government licensing, but in this case the managing company, MSG, chose a license a license that agreed to let her in. They are free to make their facility a Private Club, require attendees to be named/approved before showing up.
If MSG had simply sent her a personal letter, instead of some form letter to her employer this would have been avoided.
State licensing imposes obligations that businesses assume voluntarily by applying for and accepting the license. In doing so, they surrender certain of their rights in order to exercise the benefits granted by the state through the license. The state licenses businesses not only for the benefit of business people, but also for the benefit of the communities in which the businesses operate, both for the services they provide to the community, and the potential job opportunities and other benefits the business may attract to the community. Among the obligations (voluntarily assumed by those who seek and accept a business license) is to 1.) abide by the laws and regulations governing their business, and 2.) to provide their services without prejudice, to everyone legally able to avail themselves of the service and able to pay for it (if only because the state can’t authorize a licensee to do that which it is unable to do itself).
Can the state discriminate against a person based on who employees them? Obviously not. Then the state licensee/”private” business can’t do it either. A “private” business is only private insofar as it is not owned by the state. But the state-issued license imposes many obligations upon the license holder that aren’t applicable to, say, the owner of (actually) private property, such as a home. A “private” business and a “private” home are not “private” in the same sense.
When I can refuse to bake the cake for ANY reason I choose, then we will have “private property” again. As long as I can be forced to provide service to anyone who walks in, the concept is meaningless.
Three words
Marsh vs Alabama
Sorry but you really have to stop thinking businesses operate as if they are a persons home or a private club. Once you set up as a public business open to the public your rights vis a vi government change dramatically.
It is not your property like a house the law settled that question in Marsh v Alabama.
Having been on the wrong end of a shyster lawyer before, I get it, at least to some extent. But I wonder of MSG has run this policy by their own legal counsel, and if so, what sort of advice they received? Things like this produce some short term satisfaction, but can have unpleasant consequences. Until now, the litigation was probably “just business” to the attorneys at Davis, Saperstein and Salomon. Now MSG has made it personal to them. Which might make it just that much harder (and more expensive) for MSG to resolve such lawsuits.
Diversity (e.g. class-based bigotry). Affirmative action… discrimination with plausible cause.
That said, they should probably wait until there is probable cause, to mitigate the progress of minority report in liberal societies.
Davis has a great point.
How can anyone justify separating a mother from her minor child and a group of Girl Scouts that she is chaperoning in one of the largest cities in the world?
No. Time to start making life miserable for those making life miserable for the rest of us. Doesn’t fall into any of the protected classes- the mother is a hostile actor against the company. If she was separated from her daughter- her fault. She should have left with her daughter. If she was a part of the GSA leadership= an essential part- then the whole group should have left. Tough crap for all of them. life lesson learned.
Liberals have been driving conservatives out of public places for years. Turnabout is absolutely fair play. F— them.
“…the mother is a hostile actor against the company.”
So you know that she is one of the lawyers assigned to the case against MSG? Oh, wait! She states that she is not involved in any case with MSG and is not a member of the NY Bar. So her offense is working for a company which represents a plaintiff against a restaurant managed by the company managing Radio City Music Hall.
And can we assume you have been on the wrong end of a legal action which colors your rather strong reaction to someone you have never met? It seems her very existence enrages you.
Well anyway, lest we forget – Big Brother is watching. And when Big Brother is banned from watching, they have no reluctance to enlist corporations to do the watching for them. Sort of makes me wonder why a venue management company utilizes facial recognition and who they search for. Admittedly it’s rather immaterial for me, I’m not likely to set foot in NYC ever again.
Still no edit capability.
The Girl Scouts have rules about how many chaperones a troop ;leader must engage to take girls anywhere but to a scheduled meeting at an approved location. The number varies based on the destination and the age of the girls. I have led international trips with Scouts, and the rules are clearly spelled out for all levels of troop activities. If removing this chaperone had caused the number of adults to drop below the threshold needed, Girl Scout rules would have required the whole troop to leave.
The lawyers are not suing anyone. The law firm is representing someone who is. The approach taken here can also be used to suppress any speech and to deprive people of lawyers. On a conservative website, we should be especially sensitive to that, given that we are often on the target end of the arrow these days. Don’t like a lawyer representing someone who is fighting for a First Amendment right? Bar him. Don’t like the pro-life cause? No entrance to counsel. Want to fight a law that you think violates your Second Amendment rights? Good luck finding a lawyer. Law firms have already been giving the boot to attorneys who represent conservative causes.
I think the actions by Radio City Music Hall including the use of facial recognition software are deserving of an all out boycott by anyone who believes in the Constitution and our Rights as citizens.
I read that book. George Orwell’s 1984. When I first read it, decades ago, I thought I was reading fiction. This is where fiction becomes real life, we’re living it now.
That door can swing both ways.
Here I was wondering if I were being overly paranoid in donating to LI with cash rather than online or even by check.
Ironically labor unions are the best at pushing back on this tech. Can’t disclose how I know that… but I do.
Shame on MSG acting like a child. I remember that back in the early 1970’s I was barred from a Bronx bar by facial recognition. Stemmed from an altercation not litigation. LOL Missed seeing the Coasters