Facial Recognition at Madison Square Garden

Last month, the story broke (alternate link) that Madison Square Garden uses facial recognition software on everyone entering the facility, and—among other groups—flags activists that oppose using facial recognition.

Turns out that the system was shut off for Taylor Swift’s wedding.

Evan Greer—one of the people that MSG alerts on—comments:

Ironically, Swift herself has reportedly used facial recognition at her own concerts to identify stalkers. This “privacy for me, surveillance for thee” attitude feels like a perfect encapsulation of the future we’re already living in: one where wealthy elites can afford privacy, while the rest of us are forced to live in a corporate surveillance panopticon.

Whatever privacy measures Swift had in place for the wedding seems to have worked. No photos have leaked online.

Tags: face recognition, privacy, stalking, surveillance

Posted on July 31, 2026 at 7:08 AM • 8 Comments

Comments

Not Really Anonymous • July 31, 2026 9:20 AM

Swift’s wedding reminds me of Louis Tully holding a party and inviting clients instead of friends so he could write it off as a business expense. Who would accept an invitation to a wedding from a supposed friend who required you to sign an NDA to attend?

Rontea • July 31, 2026 9:52 AM

What is more obscene than a company drafting intimate portraits of those who merely speak against it? The tyrannies of the past at least required uniforms, rituals, and the machinery of law; today, a spreadsheet suffices. Activists, like insects pinned to digital corkboards, are collected not for correction but for the quiet ecstasy of control. In this theater of humiliation, dissent itself is already archived as evidence of futility.

Here, privacy is not a right but a purchase—a sacrament sold by the high priests of surveillance to the chosen few. For the many, the Garden is a cathedral of exposure; for the famous, it can transform into a cloister at will. And in this reversal of the natural order, the modern soul is revealed: we tolerate bondage if we are granted the fantasy that someone, somewhere, is free.

r • July 31, 2026 9:59 AM

it might not have been a wedding, it could have been an antifa or anti-technology meet and greet.

maybe a keyswap.

maybe they were all smoking weed, it did get to new york somehow.

interstate commerce.

funding terrorism.

very criminal.

Clive Robinson • July 31, 2026 10:21 AM

@ Bruce, ALL,

With regards,

“Whatever privacy measures Swift had in place for the wedding seems to have worked. No photos have leaked online.”

To be honest I wouldn’t “know her from Adam” as I’ve never ever really ever taken an interest in her or her abilities.

schwit • July 31, 2026 10:25 AM

It’s private property and no one was compelled to be there. Why is this a problem?

DBA • July 31, 2026 11:25 AM

Apparently even the law enforcement working the event weren’t allowed cell phones, which is interesting because for them a cell phone is a backup to their radios in case of a radio outage – which happens!

KC • July 31, 2026 11:35 AM

Greer and Wired have excellent points. dossier now? sheesh

There’s a shift in the power balance when entities – in this case private company MSG – use powerful surveillance technologies and methods for personal actions.

In a lawsuit against Wired, MSG argued Wired’s coverage was damaging as the public’s reaction would increase “the foreseeable regulatory and political consequences to MSG.”

Two lawmakers had referenced Wired’s reporting along with “existing and proposed biometric-data legislation.”

I guess MSG is fighting the fight.

Clive Robinson • August 1, 2026 2:18 AM

@ schwit, ALL,

With regards,

It’s private property and no one was compelled to be there. Why is this a problem?

Because it is not actually “private property” in the meaning you imply.

Whilst the buildings and space within might be held under “private title” those who hold the title have gone to great lengths by very deliberate actions for commercial gain to make it a “public social space”. You can look up all the permits etc for the usage to clearly see this.

Society in general has expectations of “public social spaces” and those expectations should be respected by the title holders if they wish to continue their commercial activities.

The fact they tried to keep their behaviours against public social space expectations hidden clearly indicates they knew not just that what they were doing was socially unacceptable, but also that it’s legality was questionable thus draw down the ire not just of society but the authorities as well.

Now I can not say if Ms Swift was being overly sensitive with respect to her private life on what is traditionally a very important day of her life, or if she had entered into contractual agreements with respect to the making the event partially public thus available in a controlled way[1] but she had expectations of some measure of privacy in what would otherwise have been seen differently as a public social space.

As an accepted social rule, at a wedding what happens in the church is actually not considered public but private to a chosen group. However the photographs taken in the light of day outside the church or in the public park is in effect an announcement to the world and the start of a new day hence the expression “wedding breakfast”. It is a social custom to see this and wish the couple well for their lives to come, but it is also still considered private even though it’s a public announcement. Thus as an observer the expectation is you will walk on with private good wishes not get your mobile phone out and photograph every thing.

The problem is technology makes the latter not just inexpensively possible but highly probable if there is even a hint of “celebrity” involved.

So ask yourself how the brides expectations of long accepted social customs can be granted when there is so much commercial interest to do the opposite with what is now ubiquitous effectively minimal cost technology?

It is this conflict of expectations that is causing society as we have understood it just a very short time ago to be obliterated, and in general society can not move that fast or even want to move in that direction.

Unfortunately a certain percentage of the population sees this as a way to gain personal benefit and they care not a jot for others as long as their “self entitlement” is grabbed first and formost every time.

And that can only lead to trouble and harm.

[1] Many years ago two friends close to me got married, every one had them pegged as a couple from almost the first time they met. The girl was an “english rose” but with a little “scottish feistiness” along with a very very strong sense of natural justice. At the wedding some small issue arose the details long forgotten. However the photographer caught her “stamping her foot” as it were. I think it’s probably the best photograph of her ever taken as it captures not just her beauty on a beautifully day in her life but also the essence of her spirit and essential vitality. The photograph is rarely seen as it sits in a wedding album but it’s one of those true “moment in time” memories that so rarely happen.

Schneier on Security

Facial Recognition at Madison Square Garden

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply