Can Magic Bands be used to locate people?

[photo_chick]

Right, which I suppose leads me to the real question: would Disney do that? If there was a lost child, would they take advantage of the technology, and further, is there a mechanism in place to even do it? What I mean is, while long and short range scanners certainly could 'track' the person, is there a function of the software that is specifically coded to 'find' a person, or is it all reactionary and big-data-gathering in nature?

Would you feel that this violates some kind of privacy? Knowing that, should the need arise, Disney can pinpoint anyone wearing a magic band in the park?

You give permission for them to track you when you put on the band, so I think it's more a question of accepting the tracking rather than a violation of privacy. And I sincerely hope they do utilize the bands if a child is lost. It seems silly to have the technology and not do that.

 

[chartle]

If WDW implements long-range, I could see this process speeding up considerably. If the equipment is in place (for guest experience, not for finding lost kids), then the only additional cost is a bit of software programming. Which would pay for itself quickly by not wasting a CM's time locating parents or taking Junior to the CCC.

You have to realize that "long range scanning" means like 10 to 20 feet. Not like radar that would scan the entire park. The Magic Bands have two ways of communicating the RFID chip for close range, touch to pay, and an active Wi Fi transmitter for the special unique surprize elements in attractions. This transmitter will have a very low power antenna in them to conserve battery power.

Also not sure how it would speed up anything. How would you expect this system to work? I'm sure most parents are found within minutes of being lost using the current system. Using this scanning system means that parents would have to go somewhere that had access to this system and then report their kid lost. That CM "finds the kid on a map" and then what, they send a team of CM's to look for the kid. (Remember most CM's do not have cell phones or any other form of communication system on them). By now the kid should have already found a CM or the CM found him and that CM should be already be looking for you but you have left the area.

As for "paying for itself". I doubt anyone knows or would care to find out how much time is spent by CM's taking care of lost children but I'm sure it minimal much less than implementing this system that would still involve looking after your kid while you are being found and again it works.

Now as a side note years ago, before everyone and his brother had a cell phone, I thought of an idea of having kiosks around the park where you could retrieve and leave messages for family members. You would walk up and login with a bar code on wrist band. All your party's wrist bands would be linked so everyone could see what was posted like "meet up at SM at 4:00". Of course this would have only lasted for a few years when cell phones and texting became popular.

 

[chartle]

Not an answer to your question, but this discussion did get me thinking. Could Disney implement something similar to what hospitals do with newborn babies, where a child with a band could not leave the park without an adult who is linked to the same account? I guess a turnstile would have to lock to slow them down and some kind of warning would need to go off to attract a CM.

I can see a few scenarios where this could be potentially life saving...
1) Someone tries to kidnap a child
2) A lost child wanders off (potentially out of the park), or thinks the best way to find their family is to get back to the hotel or car
3) A defiant child angry about something or other runs off and tries to go somewhere else

I am sure these things rarely happen, but even so.

No they really don't.

Your system would create far more problems than you think it would solve. Think of the thousands of people that leave the park at the end of the day. All CMs are trained to look for kids out of place and a kid say under 10 ish or a toddler is definitely out of place.

 

[chartle]

True, they are going to only tell us what they want us to know, but you could easily find their true capabilities with a little research.

I'm thinking besides attractions that they will also be tracking when you go into and leave certain shops or CS restaurants.

 

[Simba77]

As far as I'm aware, the chips in the bracelets are similar to the chips inside a credit card that has the "tap to pay" feature. In other words, you'd have virtually no way of "discovering" where a bracelet is, without it being purposely scanned at a scanner. It's not a GPS device. It's not a cellular transmitter that can be "located." It's not a two-way wifi communicator. It can be read by a reader in very close proximity to retrieve your ID number. It's almost as simple as if you had a bar code on a piece of paper that an optical reader would scan, only it's done with RF scanning instead. In terms of it's transmitting ability, it can't contain anything more than a watch battery. Without a device being able to actively transmit a strong RF signal, there's no way to locate it from a remote location. And the potential battery inside that band couldn't possibly transmit further than a few feet.

And in terms of people's concerns over the "tracking" nature of all this, what's your concern, exactly? Like I've said, they can't "find" you or your band. It's not a beacon when it's sitting on your desk at home.

The only "tracking" that they do is knowing when/where you actively scan the band. And Disney isn't using that info to sell your name or spending habits. They would use the bands for data collection to assess trends and consumer habits and activities as a whole, not to record your activity to be shared with the government. What exactly would you be doing at WDW that you'd be concerned that could be used against you?

 

[chartle]

As far as I'm aware, the chips in the bracelets are similar to the chips inside a credit card that has the "tap to pay" feature. In other words, you'd have virtually no way of "discovering" where a bracelet is, without it being purposely scanned at a scanner. It's not a GPS device. It's not a cellular transmitter that can be "located." It's not a two-way wifi communicator. It can be read by a reader in very close proximity to retrieve your ID number. It's almost as simple as if you had a bar code on a piece of paper that an optical reader would scan, only it's done with RF scanning instead.

And in terms of people's concerns over the "tracking" nature of all this, what's your concern, exactly? Like I've said, they can't "find" you or your band. It's not a beacon when it's sitting on your desk at home.

The only "tracking" that they do is knowing when/where you actively scan the band. And Disney isn't using that info to sell your name or spending habits. They would use the bands for data collection to assess trends and consumer habits and activities as a whole, not to record your activity to be shared with the government. What exactly would you be doing at WDW that you'd be concerned that could be used against you?

As posted above. Its already been released by Disney that they also have an active Wi Fi transmitter in them. Its used to trigger certain special personalized features in some attractions. There has been talk that there will be TV monitors at the end of Small world.

 

[Simba77]

As posted above. Its already been released by Disney that they also have an active Wi Fi transmitter in them. Its used to trigger certain special personalized features in some attractions. There has been talk that there will be TV monitors at the end of Small world.

I don't know where you got this information, but there's no way they contain "wi-fi transmitters" (as identified by the universal wi-fi standard). Such transmitters would need a rechargeable battery that must be charged on a daily basis. Somewhere along the line, the "report" of a wifi transmitter was incorrect. Any device that transmits a signal further than 10-15 feet would need a rechargeable battery source and be very expensive to produce. Wireless transmission is one of the most power hungry aspects of an electronic device. A tiny bracelet with transmission capability would simply not last for more than a day of high activity.

TV monitors at the end of Small World - not sure what that would have to do with the bracelets, but if they did implement some sort of personalization, it would be done by scanning your bracelet on a scanner as you boarded the vehicle - not by wifi transmission from the bracelet.

 

[chartle]

I don't know where you got this information, but there's no way they contain "wi-fi transmitters" (as identified by the universal wi-fi standard). Such transmitters would need a rechargeable battery that must be charged on a daily basis. Somewhere along the line, the "report" of a wifi transmitter was incorrect. Any device that transmits a signal further than 10-15 feet would need a rechargeable battery source and be very expensive to produce. Wireless transmission is one of the most power hungry aspects of an electronic device. A tiny bracelet with transmission capability would simply not last for more than a day of high activity.

Here is the post that hit here a 5 months or so ago

http://www.disboards.com/archive/index.php/t-3003343.html

and link they referred to

http://www.wdwmagic.com/other/fastp...id-bracelet-revealed.htm#.UG9m08H-NHY.twitter

Here is the FCC Filing for the transmitter

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...lledFromFrame=N&application_id=427834&fcc_id=

Its buried in there some where.

 

[OKW Lover]

As posted above. Its already been released by Disney that they also have an active Wi Fi transmitter in them. Its used to trigger certain special personalized features in some attractions. There has been talk that there will be TV monitors at the end of Small world.

That's a good trick since they don't have a "Wi Fi transmitter" in them. There will be an active RFID chip (which does transmit, but is not Wi Fi nor is it cellular) as well as the passive one but don't expect that to have a range beyond 10'. Not seeing WDW adding enough receivers for the "lost child" scenario to work.

 

[Simba77]

Here is the post that hit here a 5 months or so ago

http://www.wdwmagic.com/other/fastp...id-bracelet-revealed.htm#.UG9m08H-NHY.twitter

Here is the FCC Filing for the tramitter

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...lledFromFrame=N&application_id=427834&fcc_id=

Its buried in here some where.

Ah, okay, see that's where I balked. Thanks for the info. It's not wifi, but it is indeed a battery powered RF transmitter (a very weak one). That makes at least some sense.

"The maximum peak conducted output power is 0.687 mW" <- that signal is not wifi strength by any means, and certainly wouldn't have a very long transmission range. And they could only broadcast a signal at very sparse intervals. If they were always on, the battery would die incredibly fast - much faster than the amount of time that they are claimed to last.

 

[bwang123]

You have to realize that "long range scanning" means like 10 to 20 feet. Not like radar that would scan the entire park. The Magic Bands have two ways of communicating the RFID chip for close range, touch to pay, and an active Wi Fi transmitter for the special unique surprize elements in attractions. This transmitter will have a very low power antenna in them to conserve battery power.

they don't need a high power antenna to be seen by the wireless infrastructure that is already in place. wherever you can see the "Disney-Guest" SSID, which is practically everywhere now, you pick up an rfid tag with the necessary back-end appliances (servers).

I am not sure you understand how this works. I am most familiar with Cisco products (not sure what DIsney uses) because I have worked with those the most. Cisco has wireless appliances that can be used with an existing wireless setup to track RFID.

Here is a case study from a company in India that did exactly this to track active rfid tags within a few meters:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/cisc...atwork/pdf/Cisco_IT_Case_Study_RFID_India.pdf

So, unless you have some knowledge about the behind the scenes IT infrastructure, you can not say for a fact they do not have something like this implemented. What we do know is they have the in the park wireless part already in place.

 

[dlove28]

As simba77 has said twice now, these bracelets do not have the range to have the capability to do what you all are hoping for. Short range is the tap to the Mickey console. "Long range" is for rides to identify you and flash your name in a screen or something similar on a walkway (10-15ft). The best they could do is look up where the band last had a point of contact. That's my current understanding, at least.

 

[Simba77]

That's a good trick since they don't have a "Wi Fi transmitter" in them. There will be an active RFID chip (which does transmit, but is not Wi Fi nor is it cellular) as well as the passive one but don't expect that to have a range beyond 10'. Not seeing WDW adding enough receivers for the "lost child" scenario to work.

Yes, this is what I was basically getting at. The range of a device with a watch battery in it is not very far, nor can it be "on" all the time without dying rapidly.

 

[bwang123]

As simba77 has said twice now, these bracelets do not have the range to have the capability to do what you all are hoping for. Short range is the tap to the Mickey console. "Long range" is for rides to identify you and flash your name in a screen or something similar on a walkway (10-15ft). The best they could do is look up where the band last had a point of contact. That's my current understanding, at least.

why do you feel they need range? The disney wireless signal (Disney-Guest) is all over, even touching your skin (where the bracelet is located). See my previous post. This is already being done all over the world with wireless access points and the same RFID technology that is being used in the bands.

 

[chartle]

That's a good trick since they don't have a "Wi Fi transmitter" in them. There will be an active RFID chip (which does transmit, but is not Wi Fi nor is it cellular) as well as the passive one but don't expect that to have a range beyond 10'. Not seeing WDW adding enough receivers for the "lost child" scenario to work.

OK Wi Fi is not really the correct term if you are talking 802.11 standard Wi Fi but it does transmit wirelessly and it does have a battery.

From the FCC Filing

"The radio of the device, Model MB-R1G1, is a wrist worn arm band that transmits a 2.4 GHz signal to an indoor wireless infrastructure. The PCB assembly is potted in plastic and completely overmolded with thermal plastic polyurethane. The band has no on off switch and is powered with a non-replaceable coin cell. The PCB assembly also includes a passive UHF RFID tag radio and a passive HF RFID tag radio."

 

[Vertical]

As simba77 has said twice now, these bracelets do not have the range to have the capability to do what you all are hoping for. Short range is the tap to the Mickey console. "Long range" is for rides to identify you and flash your name in a screen or something similar on a walkway (10-15ft). The best they could do is look up where the band last had a point of contact. That's my current understanding, at least.

Read the post before you? Seems like there is contradictory information all over the place. I don't understand the technology myself, and I don't know that anyone here does, either.

 

[Simba77]

why do you feel they need range? The disney wireless signal (Disney-Guest) is all over, even touching your skin (where the bracelet is located). See my previous post. This is already being done all over the world with wireless access points and the same RFID technology that is being used in the bands.

The bands, in order to be identified/loacted, must themselves broadcast as far as the nearest reciever. The range at which the object can be detected is not determined by the Disney wireless network, but rather the wireless transmission range of the object itself (in this case, the magic band).

 

[Simba77]

Read the post before you.

The bottom line here is apparent to me: While it may be technically possible to do the kind of scanning required for something like this, no one here knows what kind of technical implementation Disney has in place, so this thread is relatively pointless as no one here can answer it.

Let's put it this way: based on the power output specs of the bands, and based on the fact they are supposed to last for approximately 3 years on an internal watch battery, it's safe to say that the maximum range at which the band can transmit a wireless RF signal should be nothing more than perhaps 10-15 feet. The technology simply doesn't exist for that small of a power output (0.687 mW) to transmit any further than that. And in fact, putting the band behind a soda can or inside a thick bag would negate the signal almost completely.

 

[chartle]

.

 

[bwang123]

The bands, in order to be identified/loacted, must themselves broadcast as far as the nearest reciever. The range at which the object can be detected is not determined by the Disney wireless network, but rather the wireless transmission range of the object itself (in this case, the magic band).

read the case study i posted. they use the wirleless network (in this case Disney-Guest) to track active RFID (magic bands) to a few meters. This is possible. I think you are basing your information from misinformation on message boards and your interpretation of FCC documentation. My post is a real world case that is being used in hospitals, labs and government facilities.

I am not saying Disney is doing this and I personally do not care but it is possible as I have sent you real proof, not just quotes from Disboards.