fivefives55555

> I'd expect a decent food journalist to ask if their conditions of payment for endorsement required their support in these times.

From the article:

> Mr. Chang and Mr. Samuelsson did not respond to request for comment. In a text, Ms. Ray said she had written her letter to the California legislature “after giving the issue much thought” and that she stood by it.

I've been following this on X/Twitter and I think one of the most egregious things that's important to point out is that folks from Phrack reached out to Proton in private multiple times, and Proton ghosted them. Proton only engaged with them and then reinstated the accounts after Phrack went public and their X/Twitter post went viral.

It also looks like one of the writers filed an appeal with Proton and Proton denied the appeal, so they manually investigated the incident and refused to reinstate the account and then only did after this got attention on X/Twitter.

So make no mistake about it: Proton didn't just disable the accounts after whatever CERT complained, which would have been bad enough - they also didn't do anything about it until this started getting lots of eyes on social media.

> If you only have the capability to ban 10 people, you are going to be very judicious in who you ban.

But how do you arrive at this limit? Why 10? Why not 100? Why not 0?

> There's essentially a contract between people and the state whereby most people accept that there are traffic laws that they'll loosely follow and the state can enforce the laws but will almost universally ignore or miss minor infractions.

Someone should let small town cops know about this contract. I've been ticketed for speeding 7, 5, and even 3 miles over the limit. I've also once had my car searched for running a stop sign (at 2 in the morning, when other than the cop car lurking in the parking lot, there were absolutely no cars anywhere). I was a teenager back then, and didn't know my rights, or had any resources to pursue legal recourse. But the point is that traffic laws are enforced extremely erratically, depending on where you happen to be living in a country.

> If each security guard has the entire database

What I meant was that each security guard has a certain subset of the database, so they're only responsible for scanning for those people. Say, instead of having 10 security guards each with a list of all 100 banned people, each security guard has a list of 10 people.

> Now you could invert the problem. You have the security guard take an image and distribute it to other guards who have their portion of their database that they're combing through and match against a subset of that. Still, that's a heck of a lot of extra man power that scales with the amount of bans you hand out and there's a natural backpressure for your business.

I think that's then an open problem of 1) how many people can one security guard reliably track, 2) how many people are on the ban list, 3) is it cheaper to hire that necessary number of security guards for each event than it is to invest in facial recognition tech? 4) How much cheaper or more expensive is it, exactly?

But my main question wasn't about the technical implementation, it was once again about what the actual argument is. Is it that businesses should be allowed to bar people as long as they don't use technology to do so? How would that account for different businesses having wildly different enforcement capabilities?

I'm having the same exact issue. I don't understand the argument that many here seem to implicitly be making, that "businesses should be allowed to ban as many people as they can without using automated technology". First of all, the question is 'why?' Why should a business be allowed to ban a person so long as they're not using technology to do so? The next question is, this would still allow a big business like MSG to ban significantly more people than a smaller business, just by virtue of being able to hire more security staff.

I guess my question is then, what is the limit? Should a business be allowed to bar as many people as it can do so without using automated technology?

> I think the difference between automated image recognition and security guards with clipboards is one of scale. It would simply be impossible to have images of lawyers from across 90 firms on clipboards and would take long enough to be infeasible for every single patron coming through the doors. Automation makes this possible and easy and thus it’s worth having the discussion.

Sure, I definitely see that. What I am having a hard time understanding is what, then, are people who are against the use of facial recognition in this case but are not against businesses being able to bar access to unprotected cases in general, arguing here, exactly? That businesses should be allowed to bar as many people as they can manually?

Basically the position that "businesses shouldn't use tech to help them bar people, but should still be able to bar people" seems confusing to me, because then obviously bigger businesses like MSG can still do even manual barring 'at scale' (e.g. hire more security guards and distribute lists of barred individuals across them) that small businesses wouldn't be able to do, etc...

First just a disclaimer that I am not a proponent of facial recognition technology (I think it has a number of significant faults).

That being said, it does not seem like facial recognition technology is the issue here, at all.

The crux of the matter appears to be this:

> Businesses generally have the right to decide whom they want to do business with, as long as they are not discriminating by ethnicity, sex, religion, disability or another protected class.

This seems to be the issue that people are fundamentally disagreeing with. Facial recognition technology is one way of achieving that. If the venue just had all security guards carry a list of the lawyers' photographs, instead of using automated technology, would people be fine with the venue barring access?

Essentially it seems to me like people are disagreeing with the fact that businesses can choose to not to business with unprotected classes. If so, that's fine, but I don't understand why people are just couching this as an attack on facial recognition technology, which seems like in this instance is actually doing its job well.

The article ends with:

> Lawyers may not be the most sympathetic victims and their need to be entertained may not be the most compelling of causes. But their plight, Mr. Greenberg said, should raise alarms about how the use of this technology could spread. Businesses, for instance, might turn people away based on their political ideology, comments they’d made online or whom they work for.

But again...."Businesses, for instance, might turn people away based on their political ideology, comments they’d made online or whom they work for" with or without the use of facial recognition technology, so the fundamental issue appears to be that businesses _shouldn't_ be allowed to turn away unprotected classes?

This was a paper in a journal titled Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. Which doesn't sound like a social science journal, but hard to tell nowadays.

The question the editors should be asking of their peer reviewers is: why was neither this, nor any of the other glaring errors spotted during the process of peer review, a process literally designed to catch things such as this?

This is why I think that peer reviewers should be deanonymized post-review, to allow for accountability and open conflict-of-interest investigations.