Slashdot Mirror


A Data Scientist Visits The Magic Kingdom, Sans Privacy

An anonymous reader writes "MailChimp Chief Data Scientist [John Foreman] is at Disney World this weekend wearing his RFID-equipped MagicBand. Here's how he thinks the practice of digitally tracking consumers in the physical world will reach everywhere from theme parks to our homes." Foreman's conclusion (and headline) — shades of Scott McNeally's famous "Get over it" — is "You don't want your privacy." That seems to miss the mark, at least for me: I don't mind parceling out certain kinds of information (like whether I like to buy decaf at Starbucks, or how long the wait is to ride Space Mountain), in contexts of my own choosing, but that's much different from being snooped on by the NSA or other state actors in other contexts.

25 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Fuck you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I do value my privacy and its people like you selling it down the river for a cup of cofffee

    1. Re:Fuck you! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      how much do you value the privacy of what kind of coffee you drink ?

      do you value it as much as the things a loved one might tell you in bed at night ?

      That's kind of a nonsensical question. Assuming that someone reading Slashdot understands what can be accomplished through the collection of seemingly trivial and unconnected data, of course.

      Would you rather die of cancer or blunt trauma? Would you rather your child or grandchild be killed?

      Having some "data scientist", who, let's face it, makes him living advising corporations on how to collect and use data, tell us, "You don't want your privacy" is rather insulting. I could tell him "You don't want your big toe" because he'd probably rather lose a toe than an arm. Either way, it's a loss.

      If you can keep someone distracted enough to never realize that they're really not getting any benefit from all the data that's being collected about them, then it's a big win for the corporate and government elite. But it's still a loss. When you lose your privacy, there's no getting it back. This is a one-way street of no return and it deserves more serious evaluation than some technocrat jackoff at Disneyland.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Fuck you! by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed there is a great amount of privacy we should demand.

      I'll start with his conclusion first, then with one of his Disney examples.

      He claims we really don't want our privacy even in our homes because it is the future. Interesting.

      It is odd how he concludes that we ultimately will be giving "all our info" to everyone, including random strangers on the Internet in exchange for a flashlight app. Would he mind if his job performance information (and those of his co-workers) are publicly shared? Perhaps he has always been a stellar employee and doesn't mind that becoming public. What about if his family's medical records become public knowledge, that is part of "all our info". perhaps again he is a rare individual with nothing he cares to hide in his family; nobody has a mental illness, nobody has reproductive issues, nobody had a tumor or other problem that could affect him or his children for seven generations.

      Or taking it further, since he is willing to share "all our info" for his family with everyone online, what if we installed webcams in his bathroom, broadcasting every angle of the toilet and shower featuring his wife and daughters? Or cameras in his marriage bed? He plainly states he doesn't care about the privacy of himself or his family, so why not?

      Moving on to the middle of TFA, he details about high-spending visitors should be given preferential treatment when waiting in line in order to encourage additional money extraction through entertainment. What he blissfully fails to notice is the flip side of the coin: everyone else gets screwed by this model.

      Sure, if you are the wealthy people targeted for money extraction you will have entertainers making sure you have the time of your life. If you are the commoner spending an average amount of money your experience will decrease from the present level. And if you are not exactly wealthy but taking your family on a once-in-a-lifetime entertainment retreat, well, sucks to be you under the new model.

      If he doesn't see the difference between a per-instance transaction of specific information versus a wholesale surrender of "all our info", he is a fool.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    3. Re:Fuck you! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I'm starting to believe the end of this argument will come the first time several million people have their medical records stolen, a la Target and Macy's loss of credit card info.

      When we can start to see who's got erectile dysfunction and who's got chlamydia, you will see people figure out that they want their privacy after all.

      But your mention of job performance data is a good pick too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Already read it. by Kotoku · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is called Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Cory Doctorow already figured it all out.

    1. Re:Already read it. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And Doctrow is a better writer. Damn that was painful to wade through.

      Anyway, back to the point, I don't care if Starbucks knows that I haven't shopped there for a month and decides to entice me back with a 50% off coupon for a latte. I choose if I want to purchase something from Starbucks.

      I care if the government is collecting information on me because the government can put me in prison.

    2. Re:Already read it. by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Where I disagree should be very obvious. Obama just stated on Friday that spying on the people won't change, but data collection would be privatized. This makes a very easy transition of all data into a single pool that all already questionable government offices have access to.

      If you have a kiddie porn habit, you may find a job with the TSA. Outside of that, your employer may see an message from DHS during your hiring process that you did look at porn, or you had a communicable disease, or that you purchase alcohol or tobacco products, etc..

      The point is, we all have histories. Most of us are not groomed politicians that have had people paying to cover up all of their mistakes through life. We should be able to choose what gets stuffed into a database and be able to see what people are collecting about us. Currently we can do this with some private company data, but the Government data we have no clue. Once these databases start to merge, it will all be closed and you won't be able to see a thing.

      If this turd from Disney thinks it's a good idea to RFID chip himself, good for him. I think he's an idiot, but his choice. I have the same ability to choose not to do this, and both of us should remain able to choose.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  3. Decaf at Starbucks? by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if you don't care today, others are using data mining techniques to learn from those innocuous facts.

    They know that coffee beans are decaffeinated using chemicals that cause cancer, and if they correlate that to an increased risk in cancer, they might increase your health insurance rates. And because people who drink decaf are statistically less alert and therefore more likely to get into car accidents than coffee drinkers, they're going to raise your car insurance rates, too.

    Everybody has something to hide, even if the facts don't seem relevant to your well being today.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Decaf at Starbucks? by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A lot of coffee is decaffeinated by water (Swiss water process).

      Plus I kind of think that doing risky behaviour *should* increase your premiums (and reduce everyone else's of course).
      Next you'll be wanting smokers to get the same health insurance premiums as non-smokers.

    2. Re:Decaf at Starbucks? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Next you'll be wanting smokers to get the same health insurance premiums as non-smokers.

      I do. Insurance shouldn't be about finding people devoid of risk and only insuring them.

    3. Re:Decaf at Starbucks? by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      I agree it shouldn't, which is why it is regulated. All insures should be able to insure everyone for a fair price.
      All I am saying is if that person is a smoker their premium should be higher than a non-smoker.

    4. Re:Decaf at Starbucks? by Sique · · Score: 2

      But then you should also agree that smoking should lower your pension premium.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Decaf at Starbucks? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus I kind of think that doing risky behaviour *should* increase your premiums (and reduce everyone else's of course).

      I never understood that argument. You guys argue that people who have insurance should pay their premiums in proportion to how likely they are to use it. You consider that the fairest possible payment system. However, if you take that to its logical conclusion, you should only charge people who actually end up using it. So you should go ahead and eliminate insurance altogether, and you have the fairest model possible: only people who get into car accidents pay the costs, only people who get sick pay medical costs, only people who get robbed suffer their losses.

      The entire point of insurance is to make the payment unfair in order to diminish the payment by spreading the risk among everyone. You agree to pay something, even though you hope to never have to cash in on the insurance, so that if you do have to cash in, everybody else who doesn't need to cash in subsidizes you, and you pay less. You do this for peace of mind. What you should want isn't to pay commensurate to your risk, you should want everybody to pay equal rates, which will result in the lowest possible premium for everyone. If you determine that premium is too high for your risk level, that should mean you think your risk level is low enough to go without insurance.

    6. Re:Decaf at Starbucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I might be okay with my favorite coffee shop (not a Starbucks) knowing what my usual is and getting started on it when I walk in the door each morning.

      Hey, my favorite coffee place (also not a Starbucks) already does this, based on the fact that the barista knows who I am (zero computerized databases necessary) --- that thing called "friendly customer service" that places like Starbucks are trying to fake with heavily automated systems and poorly-treated employees. If you need a global-mega-tracking-DB to make customers feel welcome, you're already doing something seriously wrong.

  4. Data Scientist for mass mail company says... by gnoshi · · Score: 2

    What would you expect someone who works as a data scientist for a company which does mass mailing say? Sure, Mail Chimp isn't a spamming service (through requiring double-opt-in) but a central part of its service is including trackers in e-mail to check if you're opening it.
    I'd be more dubious if it was a data scientist from doubleclick, but not necessary much more.

    1. Re:Data Scientist for mass mail company says... by fermion · · Score: 2
      And when you go to the disney world you double opt in and have paid a great deal of money to be provided an experience. It is not like you are going camping or hiking or generally exploring a city. You are basically giving up most of your self determination to select from a few highly engineered choices. The more engineered,the more directed, the better the experience is going to be.

      This is in fact where tracking is useful and will result in a better consumer experience. Complaining that you are being tracked at disney world is like complaining that google is selling you data to advertisers,

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  5. Tags are for petty criminals by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    In the UK we use that sort of technology to tag petty criminals. Nice to know how the mouse views me!

  6. Thanks for the disclosure by saynt · · Score: 2

    MailChimp sounds like a company that I'll go out of my way to avoid. Seems that their chief data scientist should have run this by their chief privacy officer before he slapped his companies name on it.

  7. "You don't want your privacy" by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    He may not, but i do.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. MagicBands don't track.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I went down to Disney just a few weeks ago.. and, to be honest, it would be awesome if the MagicBands actually worked. You have to be 1-2mm away from the reader for the readers to even attempt to get the data off the band.. and most times it just doesn't work and the cast members had to get the numbers from the back of the bands manually. So much for "Magic". Very frustrating. I was envisioning something more seamless.

  9. No sharing by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I too don't really mind that Starbucks sees that I prefer fizzy drinks and chocolate brownies when I am with my coffee drinking friends. But I don't want them sharing that data with anyone. The best privacy law would be that you have 3 options when dealing with a company. 1 That they only use your data for internal purposes (No "trusted" third parties) 2. That they do with your data as they want. 3. That they destroy your data or at least anything that an information scientist could use to identify you (except for your preference) down to the minimum data required to do business with you. Also the companies could not offer discounts or charge extra depending on your preference. Lastly # 1 is the default option.

    So looking at option 3 I would include information rich companies such as CC or phone companies. So with either of them they would be able to record what phone calls you made over the last month, Bill you, give you 30 days to dispute the charges, and then forget anything about you except that you are a customer and owe a certain amount. They wouldn't even be able to see what they billed you 5 months ago let alone who you called. Yes it is nice for the phone company to be able to look at their old records to figure out what they could sell you but that doesn't benefit me. That is stealing information from me. They would still have the information in aggregate so they could see that people 20% more each month and thus they should increase their capacity accordingly.

    The same with things like EZPass, the power company, the water company, even the police handing out tickets. The moment I pay the ticket there is no reason for them to specifically remember that I got a parking ticket on the corner of South and Main. They could remember that someone did get a ticket, just not who.

  10. This Is Not What People Should Be Up In Arms About by noc007 · · Score: 3, Informative

    To my understanding the MagicBand has two RFID components. One is long range, battery powered, and is used for tracking a person in the parks. My understanding is they use the data to see where crowds go, what's popular during different times of day on which days, and when there's too much of a crowd, they'll put out distractions to get the crowd to move. The other chip is for short range stuff like room key, purchase transactions, and FastPass. This one can be read by a NFC reader and everything but the serial number is encrypted. Here's the thing, it's a privately owned theme park that can dictate within reason what goes on in their park. Don't like it, don't go and patronize. Simple as that.

    I've read on a Disney enthusiast that people up in arms saying they'd be putting foil around their bands and honestly I don't know why they're paying Disney to go to the park if they don't like it. What people need to be up in arms about is the dwindling of our freedoms and the abuses of the law by our (US) government. No, people may get a little grouchy, but they just put up with it and let is slide. A private company with their private property doing something to better their product and people flip a shit when they have a choice to not participate.

  11. Magic Band Tech by gatzke · · Score: 3, Informative

    We went down recently and got the Magic Bands. Disney uses them in five ways:

    1. Ticket into the park
    2. "Fast pass+" for some rides in the park
    3. Purchases (with a pin, if your card is tied in)
    4. Room access if staying on resort.
    5. Photo pass (photos shot by in park employees)

    In most cases, these are actions that for >95% of us would be tied to our credit card transaction. Even the old paper fast passes would have been tied to your park ticket (which is probably tied to your credit card).

    The photo pass is one that previously was not tied to your credit card in any way. You would take pictures and get a code, if you never bought the code or tied the code to your online disney account they would not have your picture. But I am sure Disney has plenty of CCD in place and could tie in your entering the park to a picture if they wanted.

    I really doubt they are tracking people in the park. Their RFID sensors stink! You have to orient the band just right to get the RFID close to the sensor. You have to hold it still and sometimes swipe two or three times. I doubt they are long range scanning your RFID in the park without your knowledge.

    Also, you only get three of the new fast pass+ "experiences" in the park each day. So they really will only see you in three spots. For them, this stuff is probably more useful for load leveling than privacy invasion.

    BTW, problems with the system have been all over the place. Disney invested almost a billion in it and they were considering dropping it, but it worked pretty well for us.

    So in summary, if you are skeevy about this at Disney World, pay cash or use gift cards to buy your tickets.

  12. newsflash to Scott by Tom · · Score: 2

    "You don't want your privacy."

    That is my decision to make, not yours.

    If Scott doesn't want his privacy, fine with me, I don't care. But whether or not I want mine is not his call. That's the basic, simple in-your-face fact that everyone in these pro- and contra-privacy discussions seems to be missing.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  13. Re:Fine. Prove it, asshole. by canadiannomad · · Score: 2

    That would actually be a pretty neat reality show: "You have nothing to hide!" streaming live online!
    "Live in this glass hotel, and prove to the world you have nothing to hide!"
    "Cellphones and computers provided free! Stay 3 months and earn $10,000!"
    smallprint>Sponsored by the NSA and your local congress troll!/smallprint

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.