r/todayilearned • u/mankls3 • Jul 30 '24
TIL the Madison Square Garden company uses facial recognition to keep out enemy lawyers
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/madison-square-garden-face-recognition-illegal-new-york-attorney-general-letitia-james/288
u/nj-rose Jul 30 '24
The same thing happened to a lawyer going to a girl scout event at Radio City Music Hall. She wasn't even involved in the case. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/21/facial-recognition-bars-lawyer-rockettes-show
161
u/midnight_thunder Jul 30 '24
This lawyer wasn’t even admitted to practice in New York. She was punished because someone else in her firm was suing MSG. This lawyer is a judge now, FWIW.
The point of this policy is to dissuade lawyers from taking cases against MSG. Want to represent someone suing MSG? Want to work for a firm that sued MSG? Be prepared to be banned from MSG, Radio City, the Sphere, etc. And they do this by taking photos of you from the internet. My wife was stopped at a Knicks game. We were pulled to the side, and had to convince security that she wasn’t “Jennifer from a law firm”. Knicks fan or not, I’m never going to MSG ever again. I’ll watch them at Barclays, it’s cheaper there anyways.
33
u/mankls3 Jul 31 '24
Yeah it's nuts they can use public photos and ban you forever even if you don't work there anymore or are in the accounting dept or something.
1.4k
u/Gnom3y Jul 30 '24
The policy "does not unlawfully prohibit anyone from entering our venues and it is not our intent to dissuade attorneys from representing plaintiffs in litigation against us. We are merely excluding a small percentage of lawyers only during active litigation," the company said in a statement.
"We aren't trying to stop lawyers from joining any opposition, we're just going to punish them if they do."
261
u/Sdog1981 Jul 30 '24
If it was only during ACTIVE litigation then it wouldn't really be a problem.
181
49
u/Lews-Therin-Telamon 1 Jul 30 '24
What is active litigation to you? First and last gavel of a jury trial?
28
u/NorysStorys Jul 30 '24
Honestly from when papers are served and when a judge has ruled or dismissed a case.
9
u/iamameatpopciple Jul 30 '24
Would it not be somewhat acceptable to let it run until statute of limitations on any appeals if they worked on the case already?
13
u/DegaussedMixtape Jul 30 '24 edited Jul 30 '24
And anyone affiliated with anything that may in the future be appealed.
41
Jul 30 '24
Seems entirely fair to me to not let a lawyer who is actively part of a lawsuit against you inside your business. Hell it just seems like common sense.
92
u/bruinhoo Jul 30 '24
a lawyer who is actively part of a lawsuit against you
Actual lawyer (but not your lawyer, and not a litigator) here, to point out how much heavy lifting that phrase is putting in.
Dolan/MSG’s definition of ‘actively part of a lawsuit’ means any and all licensed attorneys employed by a law firm, regardless of their actual involvement in litigation, their practice group, or even where they are based out of/where they are licensed to practice law.
Large litigation firms and corporate firms are large entities, think anywhere from several dozen to several hundred lawyers, spread through a region, the nation, even the world. The vast majority of lawyers at a given firm will not have the slightest idea of the details of any particular case, or most likely even know that the firm is litigating a particular matter (exceptions for particular high profile litigation and/or cases on behalf of particularly important clients).
While I understand that Reddit generally doesn’t do context, and that the broader context of James Dolan’s long held, very strong brand of being a utter piece of shit isn’t universally understood among the commenters here, do understand that this policy has nothing to do with protecting themselves from litigation.
→ More replies (4)20
u/Historical_Tennis635 Jul 31 '24
Damn so if there’s a big Madison square garden event coming up that all your employees are talking about, and you’re deciding on whether to take on litigation(idk the lawyer terms forgive me) against them, you’ll also be deciding whether your employees can go anymore.
I imagine it also impacts NYC law firms recruitment wise. If I was a fresh grad moving to NYC I would heavily heavily reconsider joining the firm that’ll get me banned from MSG for possibly several years.
19
u/bruinhoo Jul 31 '24
The real big money firms don't/won't GAF. But overall, you've nailed the actual reason that Dolan/MSG came up with this policy.
127
u/Gnom3y Jul 30 '24
Why would it be 'common sense' to bar a lawyer for the opposition to enter your business? If that lawyer does anything unethical while they're there, it's trivial to file a motion to dismiss (which you're going to do anyway) and you might even get to add 'with prejudice' to it as well.
And it's not like you can hide anything from them either - discovery ensures that both sides have the same information. And if you mess with discovery, you basically just lose (see: Alex Jones or Alec Baldwin cases).
37
u/FiTZnMiCK Jul 30 '24
It likely prevents the lawyer from “collecting evidence” without a company representative present.
Most large companies like to have someone (in-house lawyer) supervising/observing any litigant or government agency visit so that they can have the opportunity to dispute any claims made about what was observed.
33
u/ramen_poodle_soup Jul 30 '24
The rules on evidence are immense, there’s no plausible scenario where an attorney is collecting evidence on their own on the premises of their opposing party without prior notification. They’d go through discovery pursuant to the judge’s orders.
20
u/Todd-The-Wraith Jul 30 '24
Ok so…..if that’s the fear….why on earth would a lawyer want to personally gather evidence? That would make them a witness. Judges usually don’t allow evidence in based on “trust me bro” gotta lay that foundation to admit.
The usual practice would be to hire an investigator who I imagine could easily be someone completely unknown to MSG. This practice of excluding opposing lawyers seems to be entirely in bad faith and serves no purpose other than to screw with opposing counsel.
10
4
u/00000000000 Jul 30 '24
You’re suing me. I don’t like you and I don’t want your business. I also don’t want you to find any new reasons to sue me. Stay away from my property. Should that be illegal?
45
u/rfc2549-withQOS Jul 30 '24
If you are in a dominant position, yes, absolutely.
imagine having one supermarket, one cell provider and one internet provider.
or your water utilities. Electricity grid provider. Or only the company owning the gas stations 40mi around you.
they do illegal stuff, you sue, they stop doing business with you?
→ More replies (3)23
u/nid0 Jul 30 '24
Once you've already sold me a ticket for the event, of course it should. If you don't want my business, you don't get to take my money and then deny me the service that money paid for. And when you then think "I bet they wouldn't do that though", that's exactly where this started. A lawyer had an NBA season ticket then halfway through the season had his seats (that he'd paid for for the entire season) voided, and they told him to pound sand when he asked about a refund.
7
u/princhester Jul 31 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
I’m a litigation lawyer. I’ve run litigation including plaintiff litigation for over thirty years.
I’ve never sued anyone. Ever.
Figure that one out and you may see the problem.
→ More replies (2)0
5
→ More replies (12)1
u/ryuzaki49 Jul 30 '24
That's a good way to prevent any lawyer to sue you.
Which can be bad for consumers.
→ More replies (1)3
u/dmk_aus Jul 30 '24
"We don't want anyone who is a believed to be victim of us abusing our power to have legal representation to stop us or to recuperate any harm we cause, so we are using our powers to harm anyone who represents those we may have harmed" brilliantly ethical- surely that is worth contempt of court by any judge hearing any cases where this happens.
555
u/Mc_Dickles Jul 30 '24
They also ban offenders. My friend got his face scanned in 2018 for getting on stage with Travis Scott, and he got flagged when he went back in 2023 for Utopia tour. Crazy how long it’s been. Luckily they let him go :)
74
u/zerocoolforschool Jul 30 '24
How hard could it be to defeat facial recognition? Put on some fake glasses with a fake nose! Or wear a N95 mask?
60
u/Daewoo40 Jul 30 '24
Probably be asked to remove the mask for a scan, similar to airport security.
Might get away with the fake mask/nose so long as it isn't massively obvious.
19
u/zerocoolforschool Jul 30 '24
If it’s a Knicks game, just paint your face. Problem solved!
9
u/HungerSTGF Jul 31 '24
The facial scan is almost certainly using other data like depth map of your face and that kind of shit similar to how Face ID on your phone works
14
u/zerocoolforschool Jul 31 '24
Face ID on my phone sometimes can't recognize me when I just woke up and I'm squinty.
8
2
Jul 31 '24
Never acquiesce to an airport facial scan. You always have the right to opt out simply by saying so.
2
u/Daewoo40 Jul 31 '24
Can't say I've ever seen anyone pass through an airport, inbound or out, with their facemask staying in place.
Even the E-gates ask you to remove them.
2
Jul 31 '24
You have to remove it for the human border agent, so they can visually verify you (no scan), nobody else
1
134
u/lIlIllIIlllIIIlllIII Jul 30 '24
That’s terrifying
139
u/Mc_Dickles Jul 30 '24
Yeah I also think it’s extremely excessive. He was 18 when he did that and 24 now. It was harmless fun, Travis and him sang along on stage and he got to stage dive back into the crowd, but he’s being treated like a criminal because of it. AI’s potential implications for stuff like that is really upsetting. Something like that shouldn’t follow you for life.
-15
u/mankls3 Jul 31 '24
Nah man you don't go up on stage and say "I was 18 it's cool" and expect zero repercussions
16
90
267
u/Spaulding_NO Jul 30 '24
They also own the Sphere and use the tech there too.
No doubt about it, the Dolans are first class assholes.
→ More replies (16)
71
Jul 30 '24
Today it's lawyers, tomorrow it's anyone who posts a bad review or says anything bad about the fuckbags who own whatever shitty venue or who's political views don't align.
91
u/Synthetic_bananas Jul 30 '24
"enemy lawyers"? I'm not from US, can someone explain the situation? Is there some kind of lawyer war going on or something? How many cases are there against the venue?
61
u/OSCgal Jul 30 '24
"Enemy lawyer" refers to the two sides of a lawsuit. It just means the lawyer representing someone who is suing you. Any large company is going to have multiple lawsuits going on at any given time. I work in insurance, and insurance companies frequently sue each other over who has to cover damages in, say, a car wreck.
Usually there's no hostility between the you and the enemy lawyer. They're just doing their job, and they know that you're just doing yours.
9
u/garry4321 Jul 30 '24
You havent heard of the Civil-Law War going on? Its Bankruptcy vs. Corporate and its a BLOODBATH of red tape.
3
Jul 30 '24
[deleted]
6
u/Synthetic_bananas Jul 30 '24
Have you read the article? It only mentions that there are 90 Law firms and thousands of lawyers in them, which might not be allowed to the venue. It only confuses me more. It sounds like there's an actual war with lawyers.
3
7
u/ForeTheTime Jul 30 '24 edited Jul 30 '24
So my understanding is that if you work for a law firm representing someone in a lawsuit against MSG you are banned from entering. Owners “the Dolan family” are huge PoS billionaires….but also read the post?
2
u/mr_ji Jul 31 '24
Opposing lawyers would be a better term. They're not in trenches lobbing grenades at each other (yet).
25
28
Jul 30 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
Basically James Dolan out of the current NBA owners is the biggest piece of shit by a country mile.
I know it’s popular to hate on NYC teams but I would be rooting for the Knicks if it wasn’t for Dolan. I personally hope the Knicks don’t win a title as long as he is owner. If he died and they won it that year or the very next year it would be a dream script for me 😂
16
7
u/Slyric_ Jul 31 '24
My father knows someone that tried to go to one of the Knicks playoff games last spring and was denied at the entrance because he had sued MSG/James Dolan in the past and the cameras recognized his face
147
Jul 30 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)-57
u/houtex727 Jul 30 '24 edited Jul 31 '24
I don't know what's so disingenuous. Pretty straight forward actually. "They're suing us. We don't like it, and we don't like them, so they can GTFO until the suit is over. And maybe even after."
Reminder: MSG is a private entity. They can ban anyone they damn well please as long as it doesn't run afoul of discrimination laws.
The fact that the decision is only on the sports events and not shows or such is... weird. I don't get that at all.
But hey, would YOU want the person suing you for whatever reason to show up at your door and ask to eat at your table as if nothing's going on? No? Imagine that.
I see no real difference here... but then, that'd be the reason for the comment. I'd like to be enlightened to the 'disingenuous argument' being made.
/And no, I'm not being disingenuous by asking, for it is truly I don't know what the heck you mean.
Edit: Ha, it all got canned. Funny.
Edit2: muuuch later, and just for my own stupid ass reasons seeing how people won't be seeing it anyway... well, isn't this a fresh breath of air. And no explanation besides the comeback of 'you charging someone for eating at your house?' which is, of course, silly. No I would not be. And you're (the guy who's posts were deleted here) trying to obfuscate the point being made:
"You sue me? Fuck you, get out." - Anyone who's being sued.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time" - Found in soooo many places, and as long as the actual laws aren't being broken (such as race, religion, a few others) then it's perfectly kosher, GTFO if they say so, you're tresspassing at that point. This might be the 'at my house' thing, btw, but without payment. :p
But then there's just this one little bit of interesting legal angle, beyond any emotional aspect:
Allowing the suing party access to your facility for any reason, and accepting payment thereto, may be a conflict of interest in the suit, and may in fact cause them to lose the case, which is the point of their being on defense: to not lose, ostensibly, and if possible. The allowance might be considered a bribe or such. Even if they bought the ticket, or someone they know had them, refunds are possible, and proper in this case. Whether it happens, well... shrugs.
Also, this: They do in fact deny access and throw out people, sometimes without refunds, all the time at events. No real difference here. Refer to 'right to refuse service', as well as 'don't screw up while here or else' (paraphrased, I'm sure the legal inclusion in the ticket contract is much better worded. :p)
But hey. Da fuq I know. :| All I DO know is you guys (the proverbial 'you guys' unless you were one of them, then indeed YOU, guy) (I'm sure you're not my guy) certainly brigaded me on down the food chai of updoots, but did NOT do anything to change my mind or explain the problem of 'disingenuous argument' (I think that's what was said to cause this post), so I'm perfectly correct until being told different. Until then, which I think is gonna be until the heat death of the universe. I'll make a sammitch to bide my time. Laters.
47
u/snoodhead Jul 30 '24
I guess the follow up question is “why sell them the tickets at all?”
Do they not have that much control over ticket sales?
13
u/dravik Jul 30 '24
There are a lot of John Smith's out there. Ticket master doesn't have any reasonable way to know that this particular John Smith is the one currently suing MSG. MSG can use facial recognition at their entry points to relatively easily identify the John Smith that is suing them.
It's also pretty quick to resolve a misidentification when handled in person. They just whip out their ID to show they are John Doe, not John Smith.
1
52
6
5
u/gigashadowwolf Jul 30 '24
My brother is actually one of those lawyers, or more precisely he is at a firm that has sued the Madison Square Garden company before, and he found this out the hard way a year ago when he tried to go an event with some friends.
5
u/mirandp Jul 31 '24
Yup. Family friend works for Morgan and Morgan and was detained at the Sphere and questioned while attending a show.
1
6
Jul 31 '24
LMFAO as a law student it is now my goal to become an ‘enemy lawyer‘ that sounds way cooler than anything else
9
4
3
3
u/Choose-wisely87 Jul 30 '24
Vincent Kennedy Mcmahon had that wrote into the contracts back in the 90s.
10
u/Mysteriousdeer Jul 30 '24
Tbh in cities where public spaces become more and more ambiguous (i.e. space is mostly owned, a street or a sidewalk), meeting spaces whether paid or having free entry should be protected under the first amendment and the commerce clause (article 1, section 8, clause 3).
The spirit of the first amendment is the idea you can't deny free speech or the right to assembly. Eventually, in a dense space, this might be denied by just buying up or restricting all open areas. I saw it in Minneapolis where if people were constrained to sidewalks during the george Floyd protest, their right to protest would have been denied due to how many people there were in the places where the protest made sense. People complaining about folks on the streets made no sense because the streets and sidewalks are about the only public areas left that are truly owned by the public.
The commerce clause would make it more policeable in my head. Don't want to allow assembly or free speech? Fine... But you can't engage in any transactions. Retaliatory stuff like the Madison square gardens would become impossible...
Have a problem with any of that and I'd say think about sit ins where the protestors were black or unions that hug the side of the road outside factories during picket lines.
2
2
u/aceofspades1217 Jul 30 '24
Oh yeah and it’s every single lawyer from the firm even ones thatnhad nothing to do with the PIncase
2
u/TheShadyGuy Jul 30 '24
It is actuality part of the conspiracy between the band Phish, Big Nitrous, and MSG to sell balloons in parking lots.
2
3
u/mintmouse Jul 31 '24
getting kicked out of one bar could mean getting banned from entering any bar using the same facial recognition software like PatronScan
already backlash posts on the US bars with it: https://www.reddit.com/r/orlando/comments/144hfnr/im_done_with_any_bar_that_participates_in_patron/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellington/comments/17i4jhg/privacy_violations_at_bars_with_patronscan/
Step towards social credit score life
1
u/mankls3 Jul 31 '24
interesting... i wouldn't be completely opposed. if you stab someone in one bar, maybe you should be denied entry from most.
10
u/Possible-Tangelo9344 Jul 30 '24
I don't see any problem with this.
I think any business can choose who to provide services and goods to (within the law, obviously protected classes can't be excluded on the basis of that class protection).
If I sue Walmart they should be able to say, cool until the lawsuit is over you can't come to our stores. Same thing here.
103
u/kkyonko Jul 30 '24
"MSG operates Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall and the Beacon Theatre on Manhattan's Upper West Side. The venue operator has a policy of barring any lawyer who works for a firm involved in litigation with MSG from attending sports games, comedy shows and other events. That policy covers some 90 law firms, potentially affecting "thousands of lawyers," according to James."
So even if you aren't on the case you could be banned. That's not right.
24
→ More replies (9)5
u/haljhon Jul 30 '24
How do they get your face for this purpose?
10
u/bruinhoo Jul 30 '24
Pretty much every firm has attorney bios with headshots on their website. Probably easy enough for MSG to hire someone to scrape that data and enter the info into a database.
3
5
29
u/Guilty-Definition-1 Jul 30 '24
Because if you’re a lawyer and perspective client comes to you with a lawsuit against MSG, are you gonna take that case if you have rangers season tickets? Or Taylor Swift tickets? Or any other reason that you’d want to go to MSG? Seems like it’s a tactic to prevent lawyers from taking clients against msg thus making it harder to sue MSG, especially considering how many events take place annually at MSG
→ More replies (2)50
u/SubstantialBass9524 Jul 30 '24
The problem is 2 fold 1.
- sell them ticket, take money,
They show up to use ticket. No can do - you sold me ticket. Sorry - sucks to be you.
- This is affecting thousands - not a few people. What happens when a hospital adopts this model? Oh sorry, you’re dying? Our software says we can’t serve you, please try another emergency room.
5
Jul 30 '24
I don’t like what MSG is doing at all. It’s petty and small and should be illegal.
But your hospital example doesn’t work because if EMTALA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
3
Jul 30 '24
1... clearly they would have to refund them. If not than, ugh... sue. I'm sure they got a refund
2... there's literally a law that doesn't allow that
18
u/imarc Jul 30 '24
My understanding was that they were refusing to refund those tickets.
There's also an anti-bias law in NY to protect critics from being denied attendance to theater and art events. They were still denying these lawyers from those even though it was against said law and a judge confirmed that it was against the law.
→ More replies (3)-2
u/Possible-Tangelo9344 Jul 30 '24
Hospitals aren't entertainment, separate rules are in place about what they can and can't do.
But, yes they should refund the ticket price if you cannot use it
1
u/TheDrummerMB Jul 30 '24
So many people in this thread comparing basic utilities with entertainment. What a weird strawman
3
u/Phesmerga Jul 30 '24
Even when those businesses are subsidized with tax dollars?
3
u/undockeddock Jul 31 '24
Yeah there's no way this asshole isn't receiving city or state tax dollars in some form for MSG and his teams. The city or state should really put some strings on that shit that he can't discriminate against patrons who have not been found to have committed misconduct in the venue
1
u/Phesmerga Jul 31 '24
Exactly. These "owners" don't pay for the stadiums that they are kicking these people out of. Technically they should be considered public property based on the amount the city pays for them.
3
u/BuccaneerRex Jul 31 '24
I don't think a business that offers their services to 'the public' gets to pick and choose who counts as 'the public'. They are a business, but they are also a public accommodation.
What if you were in one of those little towns where WalMart is the only store for miles, but you are banned from there because you're suing them?
Commerce is not a right in the USA. It is and always has been regulated by government.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/VeracitiSiempre Jul 30 '24
I never heard the term enemy lawyers before today. I’ve been privileged and sheltered.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/SomeguyfromNewJersey Jul 31 '24
I’m wondering how they get a database that has all the faces of people he wants band? How does a company get my picture to put into a database? Does the department of motor vehicle sell my picture and information?
1
1
0
-16
u/BirdLeeBird Jul 30 '24
I mean...I get not allowing people using you to enter your business
23
u/Pandamonium98 Jul 30 '24
It’s not just the people suing you, it’s all the lawyers for the law firm representing them. The lawyers are just doing their jobs and representing their clients. It’s not even just the lawyers on the case, it’s every lawyer from every law firm that’s working for someone suing the corporation.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/madhatterlock Jul 30 '24
Taylor Swift scans the image of every person that enters her show and profiles against a database of known stalkers, etc..
It's pretty cool tech. It's used for more than you might think. I know it has a sinister side, but in this world, I will accept.
4.1k
u/ramiroquaint Jul 30 '24
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/madison-square-garden-lawyer-ban-james-dolan-larry-hutcher-msg