In each section, the document includes background information on the
activist, their contact information if available, their social media handles
and follower count, then quotes each have previously said about MSG’s facial
recognition program.
This seems like a pretty normal thing to do. If anything its kind of quaint to see “Facial Recognition Activists.docx” . . . in a folder named “Activists" instead of plugging it into a repurposed CRM with built-in social media monitoring, or maybe an electronic Evidence Board in Foundry to tie back EFF donations to season ticket holders of various things. Maybe they do all that too, or maybe the event venue management doesn't care that much.> This seems like a pretty normal thing to do.
(Name checks out) yeah this is not a normal thing to do. Man we need mandatory ethics classes in school.
"This seems like a pretty normal thing to do." - adolph
(relevant username)
> This seems like a pretty normal thing to do.
That is NOT normal.
Crazy to see this attempt to be normalized here.
No. No, this is not normal.
"Normal" here requires a time bound. I would say it's pretty abnormal if the window is "the last thirty years", and pretty normal if it's "the last thirty days."
Because of the thing.
> This seems like a pretty normal thing to do
sorry to the rest of the esteemed hn community for the low-effort reply, but... gross.
Yeah, not much to see here. Each of the activists named likely had a similar "dossier" on MSG and the Dolan guy. Knowledge workers are going to practise knowledge management. People use to do this with a Rolodex.
It isn’t really a normal thing to do, no. Do you think they keep dossiers on everyone who complains about concession prices? About long lines to get in? Do you think people who have done either of those things get denied access to MSG?
The fact that they’re this motivated to track people on this niche topic sounds alarm bells for me.