Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ruiner8850 t1_j5v9j2s wrote

Reply to comment by Jaded_Prompt_15 in NY AG wants answers on Madison Square Garden's use of facial recognition against legal opponents by Sorin61

> So the problem is that can be considered harassment to prevent firms from taking those cases

That honestly sounds like the entire point of what they are doing. For a lawfirm to be willing to sue them they have to be willing to sacrifice all their employees never to be able to go to any events there. They have to be willing to upset all of their employees. I'm sure there are lawfirms that wouldn't see taking a case against them being worth the trouble. Hell, some of them might have season tickets and don't want to lose those.

149

Zwets t1_j5yi7tc wrote

> Hell, some of them might have season tickets and don't want to lose those.

So they wanna screw a whole lot of lawyers out of their already purchased movie/convention tickets, and want to do so by using a privacy invasion they could be sued for....

Let me know how that works out for them.

24

jdland t1_j5znxvd wrote

They are simply robbing people who have potential claims against MSG of their day in court and, potentially, the opportunity to hire competent counsel.

It’s not the law firm or employees who have a beef with MSG, it’s the client.

I have to ask people defending this as a “right” of private businesses (not saying you are): what happens if this tactic is adopted large scale? Are regular citizens left no recourse against aggressive corporate leaders who want to avoid the consequences of their actions even more than they already do?

It’s a fascinating, albeit horrible, use of newish technology and I’m always curious how society adapts…though not optimistic it will be a beneficial adaptation.

3