Why a Facial Recognition Device Barred This Woman From a Rockettes Show
Kelly Conlon's bizarre experience gives a glimpse into a future with omnipresent facial recognition systems.

Last month, Kelly Conlon arrived with her daughter's Girl Scout troop to watch a Rockettes performance at Radio City Music Hall, but she abruptly was denied entry. Why? Conlon works for a law firm the venue's parent company had blacklisted. While the policy is unusual, Conlon was found out for an even more surprising reason: the venue's use of facial recognition technology.
Conlon's experience, while bizarre, gives a glimpse into a future with abundant facial recognition devices—one where our personal information can be accessed and used against us at a moment's notice.
Just how Conlon ended up being turned away by security guards starts with a corporate grudge. According to NBC New York, Conlon is an attorney working for the New Jersey-based law firm Davis, Saperstein, and Solomon, which is currently involved in personal injury litigation against a restaurant owned by MSG Entertainment, the parent company which also owns Radio City Music Hall. A twist of this litigation is that the company decided that all attorneys working for law firms engaged in litigation against them are banned "from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved."
As Conlon describes, she was identified almost immediately by a facial recognition device. "It was pretty simultaneous, I think, to me, going through the metal detector, that I heard over an intercom or loudspeaker," Conlon told NBC New York. "I heard them say woman with long dark hair and a grey scarf." After being stopped by security, they demanded her name and ID and told her that facial recognition had picked her up.
"They knew my name before I told them. They knew the firm I was associated with before I told them. And they told me I was not allowed to be there," Conlon told NBC New York.
Despite insisting that she doesn't work on cases against MSG—or even practice in New York, Conlon was still denied entry, and forced to wait outside during the show. "I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show," Conlon told NBC New York. "It was embarrassing, it was mortifying."
Conlon's law firm is challenging the policy—claiming that it violates MSG's liquor license, which "requires them to admit members of the public, unless there are people who would be disruptive who constitute a security threat," according to one member of Conlon's firm.
However, the most troubling part of this story isn't why Conlon was turned away, but how.
Facial recognition devices are becoming increasingly common in public spaces and private businesses. However, these devices, while often touted as a reasonable security measure, have dangerous implications for privacy rights. After all, Conlon could only be stopped because MSG Entertainment had access to a database with pictures of her, and personal information tying her to her job.
Adding to these privacy concerns, there is good reason to believe that facial recognition data collected by private businesses won't stay in corporate hands for long. "Corporate face surveillance is dangerous because government agencies could one day demand access to all of the data amassed by companies in order to institute essentially a turnkey authoritarian surveillance regime," wrote Reason's Ron Bailey.
Facial recognition data in government hands, as Bailey wrote, could lead to a staggering invasion of individuals' most basic privacy rights, leading to "pervasive real-time video tracking of citizens as they visit their doctors, attend religious services, engage in private sexual activity, and participate in political meetings, gatherings, and protests."
While Conlon's unpleasant rejection from Radio City Music Hall seems strange, it's likely that the facial recognition systems that enabled it—and the dangers they present to individual privacy—aren't going away anytime soon.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is MSG Entertainment not a private company, therefore she has no rights to be on their property, despite having a type of written contract, i.e. a ticket?
I’m making more than $57k by just doing very easy and simple online job from home.Last month my friend sis received $94280 from this work by just giving only 10 to 12 hrs a day.Everybody start earning money online. visit for more details…
This is what I do …> http://Www.onlinecash1.com
"I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show," Conlon told NBC New York. "It was embarrassing, it was mortifying."
Oh no! She missed the musical!
@Mickey Rat
She got caught up in and was humiliated by litigiousness that she had nothing to do with! No fair!
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ:) GOOD LUCK.:)
For further details, see this article—————————>>>OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
We're back to the bad old days before threaded comments!
Fucking living like savages.
"Is MSG Entertainment not a private company, therefore she has no rights to be on their property, despite having a type of written contract, i.e. a ticket?"
I would also think the following would apply, if accurate:
"...Conlon's law firm is challenging the policy—claiming that it violates MSG's liquor license, which "requires them to admit members of the public, unless there are people who would be disruptive who constitute a security threat," according to one member of Conlon's firm."
Is this not just a 'business decision'?
Serious question, Reason - why is it ok for Facebook, et al, to forbid individuals to use their service but it's not ok for a brick and mortar place to do so?
Is facial recognition here somehow different than the sort of individual identity of an online account? There are Reddit subs that will preemptively ban you if you're a member of a blacklisted sub.
That’s different!!1!1!!!
Also, I think both aspects of this, the facial recognition AND the corporate policy, can be troubling without putting one over the other.
Also also, I can’t believe EVERYTHING IS GOING BACKWARDS, including the commenting system.
When facial recognition was in its infancy, I remember Facebook asking me to tag people in any photo I posted that remotely looked like a face.
One of them was of my car's alloy wheels.
@Minadin
Did you tag it as Jesus Christ?
@ Jefferson's Ghost
I think MSG Entrainment should be obligated to honor the contract inherent in her having a ticket, barring some past behavior that indicates she would be a potential disruption to their other customers. However, I see this as an in non-online world example of the kind of malicious gatekeepers soci as l media platforms have been engaging in with people they have personal or political vendettas against.
A twist of this litigation is that the company decided that all attorneys working for law firms engaged in litigation against them are banned "from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved."
Wait wait wait wait wait. Hold on. Just a second. Why is Reason even reporting this as news. These are ALL private actors and have a right to ban anyone they want for any reason using whatever technology and algorithms at their disposal.
I don't give a shit if the Parent company *checks article* MSG Entertainment owned all the grocery stores and restaurants in town.
Build your own parent company and facial recognition system.
Diane or Paul
Your defense is eloquent. But is it universal? Does it apply in all circumstances? Do you consistently apply your reasoning in the defense of a private business having control of to whom it provides service? Or are you just virtue signalling? If the detection technology is the human eyeball, and cause for rejection or refusal of service is a dark skin and wide nose, would you still defend the businessman's right to refuse service?
Serious question, Reason – why is it ok for Facebook, et al, to forbid individuals to use their service but it’s not ok for a brick and mortar place to do so?
That's not a serious question. It's a dishonest question because it demands the author defend an argument they never made. Kinda like every question from JesseAz.
Of course its a serious question. It explores an implication, not an outright position.
Asphalt 8 MOD APK[https://apkgarden.net/]
The racing genre is among the most popular and well-liked in the game world. There are millions of action games available on the internet, but only a small percentage of them offer a satisfying gameplay experience. Asphalt 8: Airborne is a high-quality racing video game by Gameloft. Throughout the ASPHALT series, the game’s subject is consistent.
Conlon's law firm is challenging the policy—claiming that it violates MSG's liquor license, which "requires them to admit members of the public, unless there are people who would be disruptive who constitute a security threat," according to one member of Conlon's firm.
El oh el.
Despite insisting that she doesn’t work on cases against MSG—or even practice in New York, Conlon was still denied entry, and forced to wait outside during the show. “I was just a mom taking my daughter to see a Christmas show,” Conlon told NBC New York. “It was embarrassing, it was mortifying.”
*looking around desperately*
But… but I’m NOT an “anti-vaxxer”, I’m just questioning if I should be vaccinating my infant!
@DesigNate
Close, I tagged it Mark Zuckerberg.
I see no wrong here. Indeed, now that Democratic cities have decided that both shoplifting and rioting are now civil rights if you belong to certain intersectional groups, I expect more business owners to use this technology to keep out people who have been seen to do them. The alternative is for those businesses to shut down, or at least to move all their merchandise behind a counter with bulletproof glass in front of it. Would you prefer that?
MSG should facial-deny people at the point of ticket purchase maybe?
@ sarcasmic
I am not sure Emma Camp has ever specifically made that argument, but it is one that the Reason staff writers do trot out often (and the question was addressed to Reason, not Camp).
I am making over $30k a month working part time. I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online jobs 🙂
AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> GOOGLE WORK
The threat from doxxing has just been amplified.
Find that you are on the wrong end of the current heterodoxy, with corporate CEO's bowing to whatever are the whims of the popular rabble, and one could rapidly find that admittance to the theater is the least of problems. How many grocery chains are in your area? likely just a few, and if they follow the whims of the howling masses of cancel culture, suddenly your food desert could become a real problem.
Gotta say that once a business opens its doors to the public, then it cannot screen for ideology.
@gasman
Not to mention banks in an era where governments are starting to talk on favor of eliminating cash.
"sarcasmic 34 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Serious question, Reason – why is it ok for Facebook, et al, to forbid individuals to use their service but it’s not ok for a brick and mortar place to do so?
That’s not a serious question. It’s a dishonest question because it demands the author defend an argument they never made. Kinda like every question from JesseAz."
Hey. Hey! Pay attention. Are you paying attention? Good.
I did not ask *Camp*, I asked the publication - which has posted articles supporting the very thing opposed here.
Not long ago there was a publicly accessible facial recognition db based on Facebook data. I fed video from a doorbell cam and security cam into it. When I answered the door I would get a message linking to their Facebook profile. I'd occassionally use it to call someone by name who had left flyers on my door to come and retrieve them.
This was just playing around to see what was possible with free at the time tech. 8 out of 10 people walking through my neighborhood would be identified along with the majority of people who came to my door.
When without the government having access to my cameras the potential for a defacto surveillance state was obvious.
"Gasman" I have, over the last couple years certainly become more tolerant of 'public access laws'.
It may be a situation where I have to tolerate 'bake the cake' as a tradeoff from people being mass shunned in an ubiquitous surveillance state.
Stay tuned for bigger and better changes coming soon!
Just fix the reply function.
I asked the publication – which has posted articles supporting the very thing opposed here.
I say you're trying to blow smoke up my ass. Show me such an article that says what you claim. Seriously. Saying "IT IS KNOWN" works for the haters here, but I prefer evidence over narrative. Show me and I'll shut up about it. I might even admit to being wrong.
Sounds like a good reason to organize a boycott against all MSG's properties and events.
Seems like there might also be a basis for a lawsuit under privacy and/or contract law. MSG's privacy policy does contain a notice that they may collect biometric information but nowhere in the "How We Use Your Information" section is an allowable use of 'denying you access to the services we sold you'.
A corporate surveillance state facilitated by the FBI which maintains an office right next to the CEO... if recent history is any guide.
Hey but we were totes cool with vaxx passes to get into establishments. Not so cool when it gets it's tentacles on you is it?
Hey but we were totes cool with vaxx passes to get into establishments. Not so cool when it gets it’s tentacles on you is it?
Yeah, like we have some rich history of hip-swiveling freedom to navigate public life that's just been disrupted last friday.
Sounds like a good reason to organize a boycott against all MSG’s properties and events.
Not if they boycott you first.
However, these devices, while often touted as a reasonable security measure, have dangerous implications for privacy rights.
Isn't it revealing our "rights" are suddenly at risk via the actions of a private company again? But in the Twitter brouhaha we were informed our rights are limited to the first amendment protections and broader traditions of free speech were excised from the discussion. I'm sure it's a coincidence this flip in how we understand rights exactly coincides with Team Blue advocacy.
How did they get the lawyer's image for their exclusion data base? Presumably from some ethically questionable Internet data harvesting. This sounds like a "bridge too far" in private retaliation.
(2) On the other hand, I support stores using facial recognition to exclude, or put extra surveillance on known shoplifters, especially in progressive jurisdictions that refuse to punish repeat shoplifters.
@Mickey Rat
I think MSG Entrainment should be obligated to honor the contract inherent in her having a ticket, barring some past behavior that indicates she would be a potential disruption to their other customers. However, I see this as an in non-online world example of the kind of malicious gatekeepers soci as l media platforms have been engaging in with people they have personal or political vendettas against.
Even at that, "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone who, in whole or in part, is participating in ongoing litigation against this establishment." is literally categorically different than "We refuse the right to serve anyone who thinks COVID came from a lab."
...
"Or anyone who thinks Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID."
...
"Or anyone who thinks the COVID vaccines have side effects."
...
"Or anyone who thinks there might have been election fraud."
...
"Or anyone who's just going to kvetch about the Hunter Biden dic pics disinformation."
"sarcasmic 48 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I asked the publication – which has posted articles supporting the very thing opposed here.
I say you’re trying to blow smoke up my ass. Show me such an article that says what you claim. Seriously. Saying “IT IS KNOWN” works for the haters here, but I prefer evidence over narrative. Show me and I’ll shut up about it. I might even admit to being wrong"
Brother, no one was fucking talking to you. You jumped into this conversation and, Franky, I could give a fuck what you want.
I literally do not care if you're unsatisfied that I am not going to fulfill your demand.
Brother, no one was fucking talking to you. You jumped into this conversation and, Franky, I could give a fuck what you want.
I literally do not care if you’re unsatisfied that I am not going to fulfill your demand.
Lol. It's because you can't. Just like nobody can come up with a comment of mine supporting the left even though IT IS KNOWN that I do.
Pathetic.
I've fallen through a time warp and ended up back on Usenet.
@Vernon Depner
I feel the same way too. It's like we've fallen back 25 years through a time warp. Maybe if we jump to the left?
How did they get the lawyer’s image for their exclusion data base?
Her linkedin page.
It's all her fault for entering New York City.
Avoid the fascists as much as possible.
@ mad.casual
Categorically different as a more acceptable reason to bar her or a less acceptable one?
I don't think they exactly line up, but I do think whether the company is justified in doing that is similar enough and Camp's article is written so as to frame Nolan as the aggrieved party.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by.
follow instructions on this website………… http://Www.onlinecash1.com
"Hugo S. Cunningham 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
How did they get the lawyer’s image for their exclusion data base?"
Likely on the law firm's website.
They had the right to do it and I fully support their decision to do so. As a private enterprise, as long as they are not discriminating on the basis of membership in a protected class, they can tell her to pound sand. I suspect the ticket terms and conditions allow them to refuse entry for any or no reason.
@Mickey Rat
Categorically different as a more acceptable reason to bar her or a less acceptable one?
Categorically different in an acceptable manner. That is, (absent some kind of shadow ban or other collusive situation) I don't see how they could rule in favor of Conlon without abjectly fucking up private property. If you and I get into a property dispute over some property you have sitting in a warehouse, are you not allowed to distribute publicly-attained photos of me to security at any/all warehouses and say, "Don't let this guy onto the property."? Conlon wasn't even *that* specifically targeted and the barring of her entry still avoided "race, creed, ethnicity, country of origin, political affiliation, or sex" and striking down the rule would essentially remove any ability to bar anyone for any reason.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Does Facebook block everyone working for a particular company, without regard to whether any rules were broken, after they had already paid for access?
@sarcasmic
Serious question, Reason – why is it ok for Facebook, et al, to forbid individuals to use their service but it’s not ok for a brick and mortar place to do so?
sarc: That’s not a serious question. It’s a dishonest question because it demands the author defend an argument they never made. Kinda like every question from JesseAz.
I read that as a great suggestion for Reason to investigate and discuss the differences among the various ways companies could or could not legally refuse service. I hope I see such an article soon.
The answer to most of these controversies is in the contract. It should be transparent and honored. In this case, the contract was NOT honored as I am certain it did not call out "except for lawyers from XYZ law firm". Before making the contract the person paying should be able to determine with 100% certainty whether the contract will be fulfilled. (provided they are not fraudulently entering into the contract, e.g. as someone else)
Such contracts usually say "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone for any reason".
Davyc - are you going with the 'qualified immunity's stance?
'substatntially similar circumstances' or it doesn't count?
That place is a "public accomodation" and thus cannot discriminate against this woman by denying her access because of the firm with which she is employed.
Start the popcorn. I think the coming lawsuit will be fun to watch. So the parent corp will now have TWO lawsuits going against them, and will no longer be able to deny access to any of the attorneys working there. The complaint shoud include an injunction against banishing employees of the law firm access to their publically accessible venues. That will end up being one VERY costly admissions ticket.
Can the local Regal Cinema banish me because I work for a particular firm? Nope, They'd have to establish that I was there for nefarious purposes, spying, data collecting, scouting, plotting, or some such. Obviously this Mum was in none of the above categories.
It can't deny you entry based on membership in a protected class.
It can certainly deny you entry for other reasons.
Yes. They can also banish you for your social media posts, for what you're wearing, or for your poor personal hygiene.
I read that as a great suggestion for Reason to investigate and discuss the differences among the various ways companies could or could not legally refuse service. I hope I see such an article soon.
Pretty sure the answer to that is whether or not the person being discriminated against is a member of a protected class. People working at a law firm are close to the bottom of the victim hierarchy.
"After all, Conlon could only be stopped because MSG Entertainment had access to a database with pictures of her, and personal information tying her to her job."
I've seen the websites of a few law firms. They post images and biographies of many, if not all, of their attorneys. If one doesn't want one's image to be publicly available, then one shouldn't make it publicly available.
The device did not bar the woman from the show; the venue's owner did and he was perfectly within his rights as owner of muh private property to do so.
Unless, of course, the woman belonged to one of the many grievance groups pestering the country. Then the owner would have been sued for discrimination.
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is where i started…………..>>> onlinecareer1
Google pays $100 per hour. My last paycheck was $3500 working 40 hours a week online. My younger brother’s friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 30 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once.
For more details visit this article.. http://Www.onlinecash1.com
My problem is that they refused to let her in because she worked for a law firm that was suing them, as opposed to refusing to let her in because she was a lawyer.
What if she was a lawyer for the Institute for Justice?
Another thread, another example of sarc being a complete and total asshole.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply
COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Corona is a big threat of the century which affects physically, mentally and financially/ To overcome these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.
For more details visit this article..https://richsalary4.blogspot.com
Today i am going to show you that how to earns more than $500 every day simply working and staying at home. Last month my earning from this are $16205 and i gave this job only 2 hours from my whole day. Easiest way to earn more income online and it doesn't needs any kind of special experience. Go to this website right now and follow details to get started right now.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.Worksclick.com
The point is - how did they collect the information and deploy it to prevent the woman from entering the show? If they spent hours trolling through publicly available social media posts to collect all of the names and photos of the employees of the law firm - while creepy, it's not a serious privacy violation. However, if there was a government database with employee names with pictures that the venue accessed that raises some serious privacy concerns!
"If they spent hours trolling through publicly available social media posts to collect all of the names and photos of the employees of the law firm – while creepy, it’s not a serious privacy violation."
That's probably what they did. The only other explanation is that she consented to face tech and allowed them to take her picture. But that couldn't have happened.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
[ JOIN US ] I get paid more than $145 to $395 per HOUR for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $23k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here’s what I do…………>>> http://Www.onlinecash1.com
Hang on here. We're talking about the right of private organizations to decide who may and who may not come on their own property. No libertarian should have any problem with this.
Me, treating this story like Reason covered the Twitter Files
"We already know governments and private companies use facial recognition tech. This just confirms what we already knew. Yes, governments will ask private companies for info related to facial tech. I mean, GOSH don't they have anything better than to do? Yawn"
Notice that Reason will consider facial tech is AUTOMATICALLY grounds for privacy concerns regardless of context, and will ring alarm bells. But when the FBI pays Twitter to monitor satire accounts and suppress news stories, they can't quite connect the dots and say "election interference" or "government and private company collusion".
Did you know that some stores take pictures of shoplifters and post them on the windows? I'm assuming the company in question scanned publicly available photo of Kelly Conlon and used that to identify her. Assuming that all this is legal, what can be done? They're private companies. We libertarians have to do live with that right?. But we don't have to live with the government interfering with legal speech made on a private forum.
"government agencies could one day demand access"
One day?
This woman was barred from a Rockettes show due to a facial recognition device that was being used to monitor the crowd. The device works by scanning the faces of the attendees to identify people who may be known troublemakers or security risks. In this case, the woman had been previously flagged as a potential risk and was subsequently barred from the show.