Hacker News Reader

Comment by genocidicbunny | Hacker News Reader

> As an academic exercise I guess it's interesting, but living this way must be truly exhausting.

Especially because it's not sufficient against a motivated adversary. Disney wants the data, but they're not going to expend extra effort to catch the few people that slip through, it's not worth it to them. For example, Disney could be using gait recognition in addition to all the other stuff they do, and that could significantly help to tie together activities; But this is not economical to implement right now,

View on HN

> gait recognition

Luckily the British have been preparing for this via decades of funding for the Ministry of Silly Walks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pE9IHuGZA

Who knows where we could be if the Ministry of Silly Walks didn’t get it’s budget slashed in the 70s

Why is it exactly economical for China, but not Disney? They already have the video. They can do it at any time. They have night vision and lots of other tech so I doubt expenses will stop them.

The Chinese government is particularly interested in identifying people who are trying to avoid being identified; Disney isn't.

Yea, the government is worried about you staging a riot or attack. Disney doesn't really have that risk profile.

China isn't interested in it being economical. They have different goals with their systems.

Notice I also said that its not economical _right now_. In the future it may very well become that.

I'm not aware of the actual state of b2b offerings for this kind of tech, but I'd imagine that when someone starts offering a reasonably priced turnkey solution for this sort of thing, Disney will start using it; Along with everyone else.

I don't think Disney is really an adversary in this scenario (where an adversary is not purely economically transactional); the recognition is primarily geared towards (a) analyzing general patterns to optimize (b) selling you more things you would be interested in buying. Their motivation is entirely economical.

These detection tools aren't perfect, and there is a diminishing return on getting that last few percent of people who slip through the cracks. At some point, it isn't worth the effort.

China, on the other hand, is motivated by more than mere economics. It is also interested in analyzing general patterns- they are a partial-command society given the extensive centralized planning that goes into the economy and social behaviors. However, the people who attempt to go unseen are precisely the most important people to observe- the bad actors, the malcontents, those most likely to cause trouble (乱) to an otherwise harmonized society.

> Their motivation is entirely economical.

That doesn't mean it's not adversarial.

Viewing everyone trying to sell you things, particularly the ones who you are actively seeing out to buy entertainment from, as adversaries is a pretty self-defeating approach.

Companies Wanting to sell people things isn't the problem. Using the most mundane details of our life to manipulate us, and to extract as much money from us as possible is a problem. So is failing to secure that data.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/disney-responds-to-all...

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/disney-responds-data-breach-...

https://chipandco.com/the-walt-disney-world-dolphin-hotel-wa...

The first two reference something where there's no strong evidence showing that it actually happened (it's more likely that it was credential stuffing-- using data from other breaches to compromise Disney+ accounts using the same passwords), and the third was Starwood Hotels (now Marriott), not Disney.

My fault! One of those first two should have been about this: https://disneynewstoday.net/2016/07/31/disney-interactive-sh...

I wouldn't give Disney a pass on the credential stuffing. https://www.the-parallax.com/poor-security-password-reuse-di...

As for the hotel it's sort of a partnership deal, Disney owns the land, built it, leases the building to another company to run, takes a cut of the profits, and has them branded as part of their Walt Disney Collection of resorts. I think it's fair to give Disney the blame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Dolphin

There's also this, which you could argue was outside of their control too, but I think once a company hands your data over to third parties they're on the hook for what happens as a result: https://threatpost.com/epsilon-data-breach-expands-include-c...

What do you consider a smart TV vendor who advertises to you on your own TV?

Setting up a surveillance system to part you from your money sounds adversarial to me in the combative sense. That said, adversarial doesn't necessarily imply hostility, does it?

You're right. But I'm not doing that. I view the data collection and the use the data is put to as adversarial, not necessarily the efforts to sell me things.

Although that can be very adversarial, too, depending on how the sales effort is conducted.

There isn't an opt out for things like facial tracking, and it doesn't bring benefit unless your goal is to be sold things based on being calculated. If they had a way to automatically track you for your benefit like emotional distress, lost kids, etc it is not adversarial. My goal is to not be sold things I don't need or to add to their data, so I don't go to Disneyland.

Is there any benefit to the end user if they're not interested in being sold to? If I don't get one is adversarial and they are my enemy.

Some of their tracking is directly improving guest experiences in the parks though. Live data from magic bands helps with crowd control measures for example.

Sure, this is ultimately a business move, but it's not a manipulative tactic, it's actual product improvement. If you don't care for Disney to begin with that is fine, but I think the tracking absolutely can bring benefit to the entertainment value of the trip if you are a fan of the parks. I like having my ride photos automatically show up in my account and having my lunch pickup order come out with impeccable timing.

I'm not saying Disney doesn't also play psychological tricks to get you to buy more, and probably they are using personalized info for that. I'm just saying "it doesn't bring benefit unless your goal is to be sold things based on being calculated" is not entirely true either. It does improve things you are already paying for like how efficiently you can plan your activities each day in the parks.

Thanks I haven't been to Disneyland in a long time. I'm so used to seeing tracking with no benefits I didn't believe it could be used in a way that a customer like yourself defends it and says it has uses you benefit from.

> it's not a manipulative tactic, it's actual product improvement.

Such things can be, and often are, both.

    I don't think Disney is really an adversary in this scenario (where an adversary is not purely economically transactional);

Club-33 and Disneys close, repeated ties with pedophiles (especially including the grooming of disney kids) indicate you are probably wrong, but I'll admit we are mostly working with inductive evidence on this.

What is your claim about Club 33? As far as I know, it’s a kind of cool elite thing for people with money to burn (I had the opportunity to have lunch there once in the 80s—I kind of wonder whether the tourist couple they turned away when our group checked in were cast members whose role was to help enhance the exclusive factor), but beyond being something that’s exclusive for rich people, what’s the harm you see with it?

To rephrase this another way

What is the potential economical cost of a dissenter? For Disney it's not likely much. For a government it could be loss of control.

Disney is profit-motivated. Doubling the cost and complexity of your surveillance system to capture 5% more data at best is probably not worth it.

Disney is just trying to manage their theme park more effectively, and sell you some stuffed animals and t-shirts. 99.99% of people are not going to any lengths to avoid the unsophisticated stuff they're already doing, so they gain nothing from spending any more effort on it.

I imagine OP understands this though - they're opting out on principle, not out of practical reasons.

The majority of people I've seen at the parks have intentionally opted in to tracking measures for over a decade now. People literally pay extra to give Disney more information, because it makes the trip a lot smoother. It's part of the fun of Disney honestly, living in their bubble for a few days.

Anyway, just seconding your point - not only do most park guests make no effort to avoid tracking, but many want to be tracked, because it helps Disney do a better job. Sure this might mean they spend a bit more, but if it also means the already expensive trip is a better experience it's worth it for a lot of folks.

As an academic exercise it's interesting as a solo project or as an adventure with a fellow researcher. With the kids it's effectively spoiling their vacation while teaching them things they shouldn't have to know or understand for at least a few more years.

I could imagine that certain people would have a risk profile that might necessitate this kind of behavior -- but that kind of person wouldn't turn around and blog about it 1.) calling attention to it 2.) giving Disney more pieces to the puzzle if they were motivated enough to solve it.

You're right - the average person doesn't need to have that kind of stance. Even if they were a real target, much higher value targets slip through the cracks all the time. We're not nearly as good at data processing as we think (yet).

Just wait, this is not the final stop at the train, by any means. Certainly D could afford it, price is not a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com