Congress concerned over MagicBand security issues..

[ses1230]

You know what else does most of that? PHONE BOOKS!!! OMG!!!

Really?! The phone book lists how many bedroom and bathrooms, who my sister and her husband are, who my parents are, marital status, what my salary range is? And afaik, you can request an unlisted phone number and the phone company will comply. Have you seen the opt out process for any of those data compiling websites? Some are easy but some are not.

But your point is taken. Your info is out there even when phone books were the only means of obtaining an address and phone number. My point is that there is so much more personal info on everyone that is readily accessible, so it is not a big deal that Disney (a place that I am voluntarily visiting) knows what park I am in or what ride I am on.

 

[finedice]

In fact, why aren't those on this board who are concerned about a mickey-mouse bracelet voicing the same concerns about Google, FaceBook, Walmart, etc?

Because if you are aware and careful you can use those things without a loss of functionality or privilege while minimizing your exposure. If the same really is true about MDe and the RFID bands, then fine. If you cannot use the convenience without the data collection, and it results in a more difficult vacation for the same dollar, that isn't right. Furthermore, I do think it's scary that they cannot only track what I buy, but how long I'm willing to wait in line so my DD can meet Ariel, Tink, or Cindarelly, and then use that data to send me a "Suprise and Delight" FP+ to the new LM ride that conveniently exits through a LM themed gift shop. I, like many daddies, occasionaly cave to my DD's pleas. That is how and why the children are marketed to. But what is the effect of that marketing on them? Shoot, what was it on us?

And I definitely do try to minimize exposure to those companies and more. When did it become socially acceptable to ask my phone number when buying something? When did it become acceptable to just collect it without asking?

 

[ChrisFL]

Really?! The phone book lists how many bedroom and bathrooms, who my sister and her husband are, who my parents are, marital status, what my salary range is? And afaik, you can request an unlisted phone number and the phone company will comply. Have you seen the opt out process for any of those data compiling websites? Some are easy but some are not.

But your point is taken. Your info is out there even when phone books were the only means of obtaining an address and phone number. My point is that there is so much more personal info on everyone that is readily accessible, so it is not a big deal that Disney (a place that I am voluntarily visiting) knows what park I am in or what ride I am on.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to attack your point, just making a more general statement about modern things vs. information that has been available for decades.

I just happen to disagree that its not a big deal at Disney, because they still aren't very clear about who/what/where/how all of the information is being collected and used, and I believe anything that gives us a constant "signal" with personal data can be abused.

People have blissfully given up personal data before in many ways, but there's a line that shouldn't be crossed....to me, this new wristband setup is just the start of a question that many guests could be asking about if this is going too far.

From a business perspective, even if 5% of guests are turned off by this idea and decide to change their vacation plans, it could seriously affect Disney's bottom line.

Meanwhile what they could have been doing is adding several quality D- and E- ticket attractions with a large capacity. That would spread out the crowds better between the parks, letting more attendance go to DHS and AK to check out the new attractions.

Also, adding capacity to the MK park with more large capacity attractions would resolve many of the issues they're having currently.

Guest satisfaction would be higher, the WDW resorts wouldn't be suffering from much lower on-site numbers and there wouldn't be congressional hearings about a questionable "big brother" personal tagging system.

 

[momimouse27]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I think the Senators concerns are warranted. There is a lot of technology now, and that can be used for good or evil. I personally think it is the responsibility of our elected officials to be concerned with this stuff.

I actually thought that the first time I heard of the band. Good for him.

 

[dadddio]

Alternative ways that they could have spent their billion isn't useful to the conversation. The bottom line is no one has an expectation of privacy in MK. Further, the RFID bracelets don't really give them any more sensitive info than KTTW did.

It should further be noted that Congress has no authority to tell a private company that they cannot collect and use this data.

 

[ChrisFL]

Alternative ways that they could have spent their billion isn't useful to the conversation. The bottom line is no one has an expectation of privacy in MK. Further, the RFID bracelets don't really give them any more sensitive info than KTTW did.

Again, that is not true, there is other technology than just an RFID tag hidden in a card that is only used at certain times when the GUEST CHOOSES to use it...not to be scanned at random when they're not planning to have their info being used...and possibly for nefarious purposes.

 

[keri125]

Interesting thread. Don't really have an opinion one way or another, which is unusual for me (lol), but feel that both sides seem to be making good, well thought out points.
I wish I had the problem of trying to decide whether or not I was going to opt out or not. Took a once in a lifetime trip in 2010, and probably will not ever be able to take another one, due to financial reasons. Not downplaying concerns, but just wanted to mention that those of you who are concerned about how this is going to affect your future trips are really lucky!

 

[SaraJayne]

Alternative ways that they could have spent their billion isn't useful to the conversation. The bottom line is no one has an expectation of privacy in MK. Further, the RFID bracelets don't really give them any more sensitive info than KTTW did.

It should further be noted that Congress has no authority to tell a private company that they cannot collect and use this data.

The FCC does, which is overseen by Congress.

 

[doconeill]

Alternative ways that they could have spent their billion isn't useful to the conversation. The bottom line is no one has an expectation of privacy in MK. Further, the RFID bracelets don't really give them any more sensitive info than KTTW did.

It should further be noted that Congress has no authority to tell a private company that they cannot collect and use this data.

The bracelets are NOT just RFID - if they were, there would be less of a problem. They are also transmitters which can be picked up without the guest's direct knowledge, transmitting their location in the park when they are close enough to a receiver station. And since they operate at 2.4GHz - you know all that new Wi-Fi in the parks? Well...it isn't just there for your smartphone

Congress DOES have authority to a certain degree when it comes to collecting and using information on a minor. They are very strict about such things and Markey wants to know what they plan to do with it.

The FCC does, which is overseen by Congress.

The FCC has control over the devices, because they are transmitters (if they were RFID only, they wouldn't have needed to submit them for approval). I don't believe they have dominion on the information gathered, but MIGHT be able to ban the use of transmitting devices that would allow collection of that information - I don't know about that.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

If you cannot use the convenience without the data collection, and it results in a more difficult vacation for the same dollar, that isn't right.

Why isn't that right?

If someone is uncomfortable giving their credit card online, then they have to shop at a brick and mortar store. Less convenient, but that's the price they pay for not opting for the "new" technology.

If Disney is employing this new technology to make a vacation more seamless, and you CHOOSE not to employ that technology, then by definition you're CHOOSING a less seamless (double negative ) vacation. I can't imagine what legitimate complaint someone could have with this.

You would be deciding that the benefits (more seamless vacation) are not worth the costs (perceived/actual? loss of privacy). That would be your CHOICE... since this is all opt-in.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[carrie6466]

not even going to bother

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

While I am all for the whole 'opt out if you don't like it, you should be penalized' thing, not really. I think if the adult is the one who chooses to opt out, fine. But Disney then esentially 'punishing' the child doesn't really make for good public relations.

In the hypothetical scenario you've sketched out, the parent -- the one making the decision on the minor's behalf -- would be "punishing" the child. Not Disney.

Why would that be bad PR? The parent - the one making the purchasing decision - made the call. Why would they be unhappy that their child is "missing out" on the Disney extras?

Not exactly the same, but this is similar to saying that FaceBook is punishing kids -- whose PARENTS don't let them use the site -- by denying them a cool online social network. And that this is bad PR for FaceBook.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[carrie6466]

see last post of mine

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Not the same at all, actually, since the minimum age to sign up for a Facebook account is 13.

But I still think that the info could spill far past the borders of Disneyland and Walt Disney World for the Disney Company to gather info.

OK... So let's pretend I forbid my 13yo from using FaceBook (ie I don't allow my child to use a MagicBand). We're back in the same place. My parenting choice -- I'm denying them the awesome social network (ie the MagicBand perks) -- not FaceBook (ie Disney) denying my child.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[BenKling]

I've read about half of the thread (it's really long!) But here's what I think:

1. Disney is storing your information whether or not you get the band. They do it on the internet, and when you use your key card. This isn't anything new. Literally 90% of the banner ads in my computer are from Disney, because they know I've been on their site pricing it vacations. But because they have that info, they can offer things that are customized. (I also, get pin codes all the time, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason)

2. They can only use the info that you give them! Don't want to use the kttw card fir purchases? Don't link it to credit card. Don't want Facebook to have your phone number? Don't add it to your profile. If you're so worried about secret information getting out, don't offer it up to begin with.

3. The concern about Disney marketing to children baffles me, because I'm pretty sure that's the entire goal of the company. People are getting worked up over the idea that a company might find out a kid likes princesses, but have no issue with slapping a birthday button on for the world to see.

Isn't Disney's marketing the reason you are there in the first place?

I'm actually really excited for the things that might happen with this technology. If Disney finds out that I went on space mountain 7 times and then emails me a link for a SM shirt when I get home, I'm totally fine with that.

This data also gives them real, qualitative data that they could use for future park updates. Also cool.

If you're that worried, I guess don't use it. But then don't use any technology that's been out for the last five years.

 

[doconeill]

1. Disney is storing your information whether or not you get the band. They do it on the internet, and when you use your key card. This isn't anything new. Literally 90% of the banner ads in my computer are from Disney, because they know I've been on their site pricing it vacations. But because they have that info, they can offer things that are customized. (I also, get pin codes all the time, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason)

Actually, it's not Disney who does this, but the advertising services. THEY know you've been to the Disney web site, or other Disney-related sites like this one, so they target ads that might connect with you, like Disney discounts - or Universal tickets.

Disney does help them by notifying them of your visit, however...

3. The concern about Disney marketing to children baffles me, because I'm pretty sure that's the entire goal of the company. People are getting worked up over the idea that a company might find out a kid likes princesses, but have no issue with slapping a birthday button on for the world to see.

It's _targeted_ marketing - tailored to a particular child - the government doesn't like. It's one think to have a commercial for stuff on a TV program that has a broad base of children watching it. But to go, "Hey Susie, since we know you like Belle, tell your mom you can get 10% off the new 30" Belle doll at the Emporium, which you are standing right outside of..."

(Yes, that's an extreme example...)

 

[dadddio]

How are they telling Susie this? The bands have no monitor or speakers, after all. What is more likely to happen is that after waiting in the line to see Belle, mom gets a text with a coupon code for a Belle tshirt for Susie.

 

[finedice]

Why isn't that right?

If someone is uncomfortable giving their credit card online, then they have to shop at a brick and mortar store. Less convenient, but that's the price they pay for not opting for the "new" technology.

If Disney is employing this new technology to make a vacation more seamless, and you CHOOSE not to employ that technology, then by definition you're CHOOSING a less seamless (double negative ) vacation. I can't imagine what legitimate complaint someone could have with this.

You would be deciding that the benefits (more seamless vacation) are not worth the costs (perceived/actual? loss of privacy). That would be your CHOICE... since this is all opt-in.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Please play the semantics of the language any way that makes you feel more at ease about it. If you don't care, more power to you. I do, and I also like taking my family to WDW. It shouldn't be penalized for protecting my family's identities as much as possible in this world.

I don't want to have to offer up personal information to large scale corporations just to use a service of theirs; I feel that the financial pricetag is enough. I don't feel I should have to give them anymore that that, but they want more. They want to know about me intimately, and I am not comfortable with their desire to know me that way. If you are, fine... I have no problem with that desire...

 

[finedice]

It's _targeted_ marketing - tailored to a particular child - the government doesn't like. It's one think to have a commercial for stuff on a TV program that has a broad base of children watching it. But to go, "Hey Susie, since we know you like Belle, tell your mom you can get 10% off the new 30" Belle doll at the Emporium, which you are standing right outside of..."

(Yes, that's an extreme example...)

Yes, Yes, Yes, and it is not that far fetched, for Mickey's sake!

 

[Granny square]

Yes, Yes, Yes, and it is not that far fetched, for Mickey's sake!

Ummmmmm, the band can't tell the kid anything.