Why Some Artists Boycott Venues That Use Facial-Recognition Tech

It's a privacy nightmare, and doesn't even work properly

  • Over 100 music artists have boycotted venues that use face-recognition tech. 
  • Facial recognition is a privacy invasion and is open to all kinds of abuse. 
  • It's particularly bad at recognizing non-white faces.
Facial recognition on a crowd in a public area.
Facial recognition examining a crowd in a public area.

Ekkasit919 / Getty Images

Concert venues are scanning your face, and—surprise!—it's already being abused.

Over 100 artists, including Tom Morello and Deerhoof, are boycotting music venues that use facial-recognition tech to scan audiences. It's an invasion of privacy masquerading as a security measure, and if there were any doubt about the possible misuse of this technology, there are—as we shall see—already plenty of examples of pretty gnarly abuses from supposedly respectable venues. What's going on?

"Surveillance tech companies are pitching biometric data tools as 'innovative' and helpful for increasing efficiency and security. Not only is this false, it's morally corrupt. Whether it's in the form of ticketing, payments, or actual surveillance, facial recognition at live events poses enormous risks to fans, workers, and performers," Leila Nashashibi, campaigner at Fight for the Future, said in a statement.

No Cameras Please

In recent years, sports and event venues have deployed facial-recognition surveillance technology to scan the crowd and pick out individuals. This is particularly ironic in venues that don't allow patrons to take photos or record audio. And just like facial recognition used by the cops and other government and law enforcement agencies, it is a privacy nightmare. First, who wants to be tracked in a public place? Then, it's not even accurate, and that's for white faces. For non-whites, the software is even worse at facial recognition—the very purpose of the whole technology. 

Surveillance tech companies are pitching biometric data tools as 'innovative' and helpful for increasing efficiency and security. Not only is this false, it's morally corrupt.

This leads to misidentifications, wrongful arrests, and harassment. And that's when it is being used "for good." The technology can also be used for active discrimination. MSG Entertainment, owner of Madison Square Garden and the Radio City Music Hall, used its cameras to recognize lawyers working for law firms that were suing it and to actually throw those people out of the venue. These concertgoers weren't even necessarily working on any cases against MSG.

"We should be very worried about privacy concerns from technology like this. In a world where many states are interested in keeping people from crossing state lines for things like abortions or gender-affirming healthcare, this technology could give them the power to catch their citizens in other states through facial recognition on cameras in public spaces," Ben Michael, attorney at Michael and Associates, told Lifewire via email.

Dangers of Facial Recognition

So why do venues employ this technology? There are many uses other than keeping out people you don't like or delegating racism to an algorithm for deniability purposes. For example, at the US Open finals in New York's Flushing Meadows in 2018, the venue used facial recognition to help find people who were transmitting data out of the venue to scam betting services. 

Another use is for the detection of known felons or troublemakers. But it doesn't always get that right. In 2021, a Black teenager was kicked out of a Detroit roller rink because she was previously barred for fighting on the premises. In reality, this was the first time she had visited the rink. 

"Facial recognition is a powerful way to control who has access to a venue. If face photos are required to purchase a ticket, it's possible to simply scan the crowd for faces that aren't ticket-holders and send security over to escort them out," says Michael.

The crowd at a music concert.
Crowd at a concert.

Hanny Naibaho / Unsplash

The argument in favor of facial recognition technology often cites security and safety, but the technology is so inaccurate that it cannot be used even for its intended purposes, so what's the point? All that's left is the privacy invasion and human rights abuse angle, and it's a pretty big angle. 

In addition to Black teens being harassed, face recognition can be used on protesters. Even if you leave your phone at home and take other measures to remain anonymous, police and governments can record crowds and identify them later. This could have a chilling effect, making people think twice about exercising their democratic right to protest, and that's in a democratic country. 

Couple this with the huge facial databases amassed by Facebook and its Instagram app, and you can see the problem. 

If you want to join the boycott organized by the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, you can do so. You can also see a list of all venues already using facial recognition and the venues which have pledged to ban it.

Was this page helpful?