Madison Square Garden’s Secret Database Labels LGBTQ+ Celebrities as “Risk”

A leaked internal “talent” database from Madison Square Garden (MSG) reveals that venue security has assigned risk scores to high-profile guests, including explicit “LGBTQIA” labels for 93 celebrities. The database, uncovered by the hacker collective ShinyHunters and first reported by 404 Media, lists 39,539 entries spanning business, technology, media, politics and sports. Risk categories range from “low” to “high,” with the highest tier applied to rappers Lil Jon and Da Baby. Labels such as “medium risk” appear next to artists like Jadakiss and Fat Joe, while LGBTQ identities are flagged for figures including Ricky Martin, Phoebe Bridgers and transgender guitarist Emily Green.

The Advocate

MSG security has long monitored public commentary about owner James Dolan, the New York Knicks executive chairman. Earlier reporting documented the venue’s tracking of a trans Knicks fan’s movements down to the second, compiling an 18-page dossier of ticket scans, elevator use and bathroom visits. The current database, with entries dating back to December 2020 and updated through early June 2024, expands that practice to a broader roster of VIPs.

The Advocate

• James Dolan – MSG owner and Knicks chairman, whose public image appears central to the risk assessments.

Wired Magazine

• Evan Greer – Director of the digital-rights organization Fight for the Future, who has commented on the surveillance.

The Advocate

• ShinyHunters – Hacker collective that obtained and released the database.

Wired Magazine

• MSG security staff – Internal personnel responsible for risk scoring and social-media monitoring.

Wired Magazine

• Total entries: 39,539.

Wired Magazine

• Celebrities labeled “LGBTQIA”: 93 (e.g., Ricky Martin, Phoebe Bridgers, Emily Green).

The Advocate

• Risk scores assigned to roughly 400 individuals; categories include “low,” “medium,” and “high.”

Wired Magazine

• “High risk” applied to at least two rappers (Lil Jon, Da Baby).

The Advocate

MSG declined to comment when approached for comment on the database. A spokesperson for the venue did not return Wired’s request for comment. The leak’s source explained that “SM concerns” (social-media concerns) trigger risk designations, noting that “you’ve done something in the publicity world, the social media world, that has caught the attention of the wrong people.” No formal criteria for the LGBTQIA label or the risk tiers have been disclosed.

Wired Magazine

Privacy advocates describe the system as “paranoid” and “terrible.” The practice of cataloguing sexual orientation and gender identity alongside perceived loyalty to Dolan raises concerns about discrimination and overreach. Critics argue that the database enables selective surveillance of queer and trans individuals without clear justification.

The Advocate

• “It’s a really, really paranoid, terrible system,” — source, Wired investigation

The Advocate

• “I’ve never met James Dolan. I don’t know the higher-up leadership at Madison Square Garden. But, like, there does seem to be a bit of a pattern here,” — Evan Greer, director, Fight for the Future

The Advocate

• “They scared the crap ? out of some 14 year old kid in Colorado,” — MSG security staffer, text message reviewed by WIRED

Wired Magazine

• “It doesn’t have to be that serious. You could just be critical of the team or the place itself,” — source, WIRED

Wired Magazine

• “Shoutout to Mr. Dolan, greatest team owner in the game,” — Fat Joe, rapper, press interview

Wired Magazine

The database provides no explicit explanation for why Fat Joe, a known Knicks superfan, received a “medium risk” label, though a source suggests it stems from his association with Jadakiss, who criticized Dolan in 2020. MSG has offered no public rationale for the LGBTQIA tags, and the absence of official comment leaves the criteria for risk scoring opaque.

The Advocate

The revelation underscores how a major U.S. entertainment venue may be using extensive data collection to monitor and potentially marginalize LGBTQ+ individuals and outspoken critics. The lack of transparency raises legal and ethical questions about privacy, discrimination, and the scope of private security operations in public spaces.

The Advocate