19 ms·

American Airlines Has Cameras in Their Screens Too

224 points by sricola 8y ago

mnm1 8y ago
How can you have privacy concerns in a completely public space?
- pizza 8y ago
  Would you want to go to a movie theatre where audience engagement is recorded by a hidden, undisclosed camera? Would you prefer that? People are right to have instinctual suspicion of being covertly spied upon en masse in public spaces.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Maybe I'm an outlier, but I would be okay with an IR camera scraping audience engagement at a movie or a concert or a billboard - even after hearing the slippery slope hypotheticals against it.
  - Animats 8y ago
    Would you want to go to a movie theatre where audience engagement is recorded by a hidden, undisclosed camera? Deployed since 2004 to look for camcorders.[1] Disney tried out technology for recording audience engagement in a theater in 2017. [2][3] "We instrumented a 400 seat movie theater using four infra-red (IR) cameras and four IR illuminators placed above the projection screen. The cameras were outfitted with IR bandpass filters to remove the spill of visible light that reflected off the movie screen. The video was recorded at 12 frames per second with a resolution of 2750×2200 pixels. The resolution of faces ranged from 15×25 (back rows) to 40×55 (front rows). We collected over 150 viewings of 9 mainstream movies released in 2015 and 2016". They show graphs for laughing and smiling over time for Inside Out. So it works. Coming soon to a theater near you, probably. Cinemark installed intensive surveillance of the concession stand.[4] That's where the money is made. "The concessions people could look through every kids’ combo that was sold across a region and see whether they are actually attracting children or if they are trading down college-aged women who would’ve bought a larger size of all of those items if you didn’t have that meal option for them." [1] http://www.pirateeye.com/pirateeye/technology/ http://www.pirateeye.com/pirateeye/technology/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20171116222427/https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/factorized-variational-autoencoder/ https://web.archive.org/web/20171116222427/https://www.disne... [3] https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/disneyresearch/wp-content/uploads/20170711130345/Factorized-Variational-Autoencoders-for-Modeling-Audience-Reactions-to-Movies-Paper.pdf https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/disneyresearch/wp-content... [4] http://www.filmjournal.com/content/envysion-better-business-cinemark-takes-surveillance-next-level http://www.filmjournal.com/content/envysion-better-business-...
    - pizza 8y ago
      Well, I'll be..
- smt88 8y ago
  What definition of "completely public" are you using that would include a privately-owned airplane that I spent $100+ to board after going through a security checkpoint?
  - imgabe 8y ago
    The fact that you are sitting in an open area with 100+ other strangers around you? A shopping mall might be privately owned, but it's still a public space. Any place that is open to the general public is a public space.
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      Its a difference of scale. We license people to be private investigators. They stalk around, take pictures, and otherwise spy on what they're paid to do within the confines of the law and their license. It costs people-time to do this. Whereas we can blanket cameras everywhere, run facial recog, and do further analytics on the saved videos. It takes roughly 0 people-hours to operate that (setup costs time, but further requires none). And remember Cardinal Richieu's (disputed) comment "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Instead, give me a year's worth of footage..... How many felonies will you find?
      - imgabe 8y ago
        If we find 100 felonies per person for everyone in the country, it's going to be physically impossible to prosecute that many cases and jail that many people. At some point we have to decide that it's not worth having a law that is essentially unenforceable. Maybe you could argue that they would just be selectively enforced to remove people the state finds inconvenient. We could probably fix that legislatively by requiring a law to be enforced some high X% of times that the state becomes aware of it, because what's really the point of a law if it's ignored 99% of the time? The thing is, technology doesn't just go away. Once something is invented, there's no uninventing it. So, we're going to have to figure out how to create a just world where public surveillance is ubiquitous. The idea of privacy in terms of "don't look at me" is not something we do for its own sake. It exists to serve a purpose, whether that's to prevent embarrassment or prevent tyranny. We're going to need to find other ways to serve those purposes.
- cco 8y ago
  "To continue watching your in-flight movie, please watch this ad, note looking away from the screen will pause the ad while we wait for your gaze to return." That is an entirely realistic scenario, patents have been granted for this already. Regardless of an expectation of privacy it is potentially a terrible UX as well.
  - imgabe 8y ago
    That's when you bring your own tablet with some downloaded movies. I mean, yeah, it's conceivable that someone could try that. It is also conceivable that it would fail miserably.
    - everly 8y ago
      It is also conceivable that it becomes the new normal and we slide further into our dystopian capitalist future.
      - imgabe 8y ago
        Sure we can conceive of nearly anything, but it's not like airlines can realistically stop people from bringing their own devices on planes and watching what they want. That's always going to be the alternative if the in-seat entertainment gets too shitty.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Nah, that's when you bring you "I'm paying attention"-mask to pretend you're paying attention.
      - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        So you're wearing a mask to pretend to be watching an ad so you don't have to actually watch the movie that you want to keep watching?
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Spotify already does that, except with volume. If you turn down your volume too much on your phone, it pauses the advert and demands to raise volume to continue.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  I think the people who disagree with this reply should explain their reasoning. You're in public on an aircraft, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The people around you, including the airline's staff, can listen to your conversations/see you. I'm not even arguing legally, even just in terms of common sense, everything you do or say is isn't private in those circumstances. So a camera being there (regardless of if it is used) isn't moving the needle either direction.
  - xdy 8y ago
    This site reminds me of big bang theory.
  - tomjakubowski 8y ago
    Sure, there are other, strange people on board. It would be uncomfortable if one of them positioned their face right in front of mine and stared at me, listening, the entire flight. The camera would bother me likewise.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      Even if they blocked the camera then the argument would shift to the microphone which may still work even if physically blocked. Plus you're contrasting the invasion of personal space, with the perception that a non-privacy space is now non-privacy. But since the space was never private to being with has anything changed or has the airline just ruined your own fiction about the space?
    - mindslight 8y ago
      I think the divide comes down to people's priors on whether a technological device will necessarily be abused. It's easy to write off a device as only possibly enabling something "bad", and hold off assigning blame to whomever actually does the bad thing. Or you can look at the incentives, history, and accountability of such devices being abused, and infer that the implications are completely likely. In the best case, an amateur breaks into this network simply to spy on people and masturbate (either on the ground, or in the bathroom). Not necessarily personally harmful, but most people would consider this creepy. A more chilling possibility is that the cameras end up being used to test some face-tension profiling system, in the name of security theater. And the airlines are prohibited and indemnified from disclosing this to the public. Note I am not saying that they were purchased/installed for this reason, but merely that having them installed and sitting around makes them an attractive nuisance! At any rate, especially as technologists, we're past the point of being able to write off the abilities of hardware devices because of some imagined idea that the software isn't setup to do that. Especially on less important devices that are more likely to fall by the wayside!
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  An airplane isn't really public space like the street, since you can't just waltz into an airplane free of charge, and airplanes are not generally owned directly by the public. They are managed places open to the public for a price, and that payment comes with certain expectations (e.g., there wasn't a camera present 20 years ago, why should it be present now?)
  - mnm1 8y ago
    Nothing about paying for a service disallows the airline company from putting cameras in the public space they operate for a profit unless it's specified in the contract that they are not allowed to do so. I guarantee you they did not put restrictions like that on themselves in the contract with the customer. Your argument that cameras did not exist in these spaces 20 years ago is completely irrelevant to what the airline can do now. If you don't like it, get the laws changed. By this reasoning, the airport itself could not put up security cameras beyond the security checkpoints where only ticketed passengers are allowed. That's absurd.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      Nothing disallows it. But just because it's perfectly legal doesn't mean that consumers don't have the right to question it and then agitate against it, which is what is happening in the article. The legal code is not perfect.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      So you always check hotel contracts for clauses forbidding them to film you?
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  I'm paying lots of money to be there. It seems like it's in an airline's best interests to not piss off customers by secretly filming them (or even appearing to have the capability to do so), given how creepy it seems to many people. Unlike "completely public spaces", it's not free to be on an airplane. You can vote with your wallet in this situation.
  - filmgirlcw 8y ago
    Exactly. Also, it’s techbcially “private” space which means they can record you, but there needs to be a notice somewhere. I’m sure there’s something hidden in the air passenger terms of service or whatever, but still!
    - devinmrn 8y ago
      It's interesting how the expectation of privacy varies from person to person! Since members of the general public are in close proximity I generally wouldn't consider an airplane cabin a place where I could have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In places that are intentionally restricted from view by others, like my own home, a hotel room, etc. I'd have an expectation of privacy.
      - CydeWeys 8y ago
        People by and large keep to themselves on airplanes. If someone was recording you with their cell phone for the duration of the flight, I promise you, you wouldn't like it. The resultant footage wouldn't particularly be any different than if it was recorded by the seatback in front of you, though. If I'm going to, say, a concert, or especially a taping of a TV show, I have a much higher expectation of ending up in some video footage. But people often sleep on planes. They're not expecting to be recorded.
        devinmrn 8y ago
        I wouldn't like it and if I noticed I'd politely ask them to stop. However, (and I'm not a lawyer) I don't think it'd be illegal or even unethical. If someone was recording me napping on a plane I'd treat it the same way as if I was napping under a tree in a national park. It would be a non issue for me. Privacy is something I control by not exposing sensitive information in areas where recording is a possibility. I already take precautions when flying by not working on my laptop or having sensitive conversations with family or coworkers. I generally don't consider information on where my gaze is looking, facial expressions, or if I'm awake or asleep sensitive information unless I'm in a private space like my home, a hotel room, or a bathroom.
- chooseaname 8y ago
  If I'm walking around, say, the Grand Canyon, you know, up top looking down. If someone is walking around filming a travel vlog and I happen to get filmed, ok, so what? Right? But if they run up and shove the camera in my face without asking for permission, that becomes rude and I should absolutely have some say in it. If I'm in an airline, I should have some say if there's going to be a camera facing me the ... entire ... flight. That goes beyond just the casual picture or video capture.
  - techer 8y ago
    Depends in what country you are. Don't need your permission in the USA or the UK.
    - Avshalom 8y ago
      Commercial use of a photo or video with an identifiable person requires permission (model release forms and stuff). I'm sure that airlines would argue that any data they use for commercial purposes are anonymous (despite you know aving video and name/seat/camera correspondence).
      - devinmrn 8y ago
        It's my understanding that a release form is typically only used if the video is going to be made available publicly, used in marketing material, etc. If their commercial purpose was internal to the company then a release wouldn't be required. I'm an American. This likely isn't true in other countries with more stringent privacy laws.
    - bdamm 8y ago
      It would still be rude and violate widely held standards for personal space and privacy. Never forget that legal and appropriate are very different things.
      - dclowd9901 8y ago
        The point here is "recourse". A "victim" would have no recourse in the illustrated situation. The person said "they should have some say in it." That would be recourse.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  There's a difference between "one person saw me pick my nose in the aeroplane" and "me picking my nose was recorded for all time, later published and made available to the entire World".
- jalgos_eminator 8y ago
  Imagine if cameras could read your retinas and identify you like in Minority Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ). Though we're not there yet, facial recognition tech is almost ready for something similar.
  - devinmrn 8y ago
    In this case wouldn't that point be irrelevant? Generally airlines have assigned seating and they already have validation of your identity from the booking information.
    - jalgos_eminator 8y ago
      Yes, in the case of flying on a commercial flight they already have your identity. The parent that I was responding to assumed the more general case though: > How can you have privacy concerns in a completely public space?
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  No, the burden is on you. How can you have a concern with people not being spied on in public?
  - mnm1 8y ago
    Because that's been the norm for decades and while I don't like the laws of our society, I must adapt to them.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      Anything that goes on for a few decades is already gospel to you? If everybody though that way, there would be no vote for women, there still would be slavery and segregation, half of the world would speak German or Russian today, and so on. Laws come from people. From citizens, actually. Just going along to get along is beneath all adults, not to mention citizens in socities that are still free on paper. Nobody has the right to be obedient. That is, you can forfeit all your own human rights if you want, but you cannot forfeit them on behalf of others and future generations.
hprotagonist 8y ago
This seems like a cost issue. Aside from the privacy issues, it’s gotta be cheaper to buy a pile of COTS tablets and bolt them to your airline seats than commission a custom form factor and hardware spec. That said, this is actually a time when physically occluding the camera makes sense.
- rwc 8y ago
  Interestingly, Delta just launched a group (Delta Flight Products) recognizing that this is an area for differentiation: https://news.delta.com/3-ways-delta-flight-products-revolutionizing-aircraft-interiors https://news.delta.com/3-ways-delta-flight-products-revoluti...
cbhl 8y ago
Most of these are just COTS Android tablets. When they reboot the IFE, you sometimes see the Android soft home/menu button on the bottom. It's easy enough to repair, too -- just apply some opaque tape to the camera.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I appreciate your use of the word "repair" in this instance.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Indeed. What's interesting is that they used to be Linux tablets (i.e. non-Android) but newer generations have all been Android. I'm guessing economies of scale precipitated the move. It has also come with a significant improvement in touch screen quality which is welcomed (the old Linux based ones had resistive screens).
  - filmgirlcw 8y ago
    I think part of this is exonolies of scale, but also the basis of how much faster/cheaper it is to build/maintain an Android-based interface is my thought. Delta and GoGo just launched a “wireless IFE” on the new A220 that is basically just a customized Android tablet sucking down/streaming the IFE stuff from a server either in the back of the plane or from satellites using the 2k WiFi system (likely the server on the plane, but admittedly I haven’t looked into the tech specifics), which is designed to be modular for this reason. Plus, if you’re not reliant on the IFE boxes under the seats (which the Linux/BusyBox units were), you can do a lot of the processing and serving and network stuff on the device rather than having to have those outated and expensive to upgrade computers in each row. Probably just a cheap to get a capricituve screen 10” tablet screen with a Mediatek quad-core professor and 2GB of RAM as if would be to get one “naked” too.
    - bpye 8y ago
      Using WiFi would be very surprising for most content, but it would be interesting to have live TV on aircraft.
Gpetrium 8y ago
The real question is, why didn't AA & Singapore Airlines not put a sticker on top of the camera instead of having all this negative publicity? QA was probably concerned about something else.
filmgirlcw 8y ago
I understand why airlines and other industries are using off-the-shelf parts; I actually prefer this because it gets us closer to more modular IFE systems like what Delta/GoGo are doing on the A220, which means airlines can conceivably upgrade their IFE systems more frequently and at lower costs. What I don’t understand is why there aren’t commodify parts available sans cameras, given the myriad of use-cases and the customer volume for camera-free Android/Linux/QNX (I doubt QNX is even a player given their royalties but just thinking of what embedded systems are available) tablets. Anyway, it would take very little effort to assuage customers by blocking the cameras. If a 2¢ cover is too much, gaffer tape would work. It’s disappointing — though not surprising — that the airline industry hasn’t done this.
- r00fus 8y ago
  It makes one question if there was an ulterior motive. That or complete disconnect with customer priorities (oh, they won't care).
  - na85 8y ago
    It's actually a complete "connect" with customer priorities. Most people don't care (yet) about their privacy, as evidenced by the scads of money that scummy data companies like Facebook et al are making selling our lives to advertisers.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      That's no kind of evidence. There is at least one hidden premise to your argument, something like "If people cared about their privacy, they wouldn't use Facebook et al", which doesn't seem true to me at all. You first need evidence for that. But these points have been debated a thousand times on HN already... (Anecdatally, I hate that such sites sell peoples' information, but I use FB)
- askvictor 8y ago
  What's the market for Android tablets (units per year) for airlines, compared to retail? I would suspect retail vastly outnumbers it, hence being considerably cheaper. What other use cases are you thinking of that would have significant volume?
robszumski 8y ago
United has several planes with what appear to be active IR LEDs in the same spot on the front bezel. Any idea what those are doing? Tracking empty seats? Movement for some reason?
- snazz 8y ago
  Delta does too. It appears it grows more intense the closer you get your hands to it, and the lights near the bottom of the screen turn on when your hand is sufficiently close to the sensor/LED thing.
  - baobrain 8y ago
    Maybe it's a nice ease of access feature to turn the screen back on after it's turned off in the dark on the flight
- objclxt 8y ago
  It's for detecting when your hands move towards the display, and turning on LEDs in response (for instance, many in-seat monitors have a USB socket with a LED ring around it) - I worked on those units many years ago.
  - robszumski 8y ago
    Pretty cool, I guess I never picked up on the behavior because I am mostly on my laptop.
subjoriented 8y ago
Soon the TSA will be confiscating sticky notes.
- berbec 8y ago
  More dangerous than Dasani!
bearcobra 8y ago
Given the state of surveillance at airports already, I'm honestly kind of surprised the cameras aren't active & recording the whole time to try to "detect threats"
- freeflight 8y ago
  No worries, I'm sure we will still be alive to see that happen. Ain't living in the future just wonderful?
gwbas1c 8y ago
These stories remind me of something that happened in my first internship in 2000. One of the interns that I worked with left a week earlier than I did so he could have some R & R. That Monday, we all got an email from him that went something like, "Check out my WebCam!!!!" I clicked on the link, and my screen was filled with a picture of him with his finger fully up his nose, picking a winner. Would have been better if we saw the full booger.
post_break 8y ago
If you're in a taxi cab the driver will have a camera pointed at them and you, the passenger. You're paying to get transported from A to B. If you're on an airplane you're doing the same thing only paying more and going up in the air. I guess I don't see the issue? Maybe, and I mean maybe if you paid for a plane ticket that had a "private" seat with a door, could this be a gray area.
- jpollock 8y ago
  Taxis have cameras because passengers have a terrible habit of beating up and robbing drivers.
  - berbec 8y ago
    Such history exists in air travel as well.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  Planes already have cameras in them. This just offers yet another angle to view you from.
netsharc 8y ago
To me this is just a distraction. Yes there's a hardware camera. I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously by AA or SQ. Some are raging about the non-existant theoretical privacy violation (again, not 100% non-existant, but I will bet money there's no surveillance through this camera), meanwhile we are ignoring actual privacy violations being done by e.g. Facebook or Twitter, or the millions of ad networks (which that webpage has too, btw). One might say "But what about hackers?", luckily unlike Alexa or Google Home, it's hard for hackers to tinker with one these devices and find remotely-triggerable exploits.
- astockwell 8y ago
  > Yes there's a hardware camera. I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously Talk about the tag line for the past decade.
- jackhack 8y ago
  >>I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously by AA or SQ. not yet Given the last 20 years of bad behavior from tech companies overall, and the steady erosion of privacy in nearly all quarters, I question your confidence and must ask "based on what?"
  - kortilla 8y ago
    AA isn’t a tech company. There revenue isn’t based on selling eyeballs.
    - Nextgrid 8y ago
      They can always diversify and milk out even more money out of their customers.
      - pixl97 8y ago
        To exit plane, PLEASE DRINK VERIFICATION CAN
    - 8y ago
yalogin 8y ago
This is the reason we need laws surrounding data its collection, usage, retention and sharing. Companies and people will willfully or through sheer incompetence collect data, create privacy violations. For consumers there is no option but to rail against every new find. As we saw every company big and small do it. There is no solution but laws. At least that way we have a line drawn and we can fight for that line and about that line. Right now we are all screaming into a void hoping someone will listen and in some cases we yell into a void when its not warranted.
monksy 8y ago
I've seen these in: SAS Emirites Cathray Pacific flights.
derekdahmer 8y ago
Most airplanes have built-in CCTV cameras whose explicit purpose is to record everyone in the cabin for the entire flight. So do MUNI buses. Instead people are raising the issue of a stock camera that's obviously not being used to record. There would be no way to keep that a secret, everything in an airplane has to be FAA approved.
- MrStonedOne 8y ago
  A CCTV camera from an angle far(relatively) away at the front and back of the cabin isn't the same level as one in the device staring you in the face. How long until that camera gets enabled to do eyetracking for ad and premium services tracking. Whos to say its not already? Mixed it in with facial recognition so they can sell that data to other ad agencies and now you see the problem with allowing the camera to exist at that location in the first place.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    Why are you more concerned about the tablet camera than the camera hidden in the air vent to steal your passwords?
  - derekdahmer 8y ago
    The recently passed California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) requires that any collection of biometric information to be disclosed and along with who the data is being sold to. The law goes into effect on January 1st, 2020 so we'll know then and in the future if they are doing any kind of personal identification at all. Given the tablets can't even scroll through a list of movies without lagging and show everyone the same 2 minute Honda commercial before each movie despite already knowing who you are from your ID and frequent flyer number, I'd venture that the airlines haven't figured out how to do eye tracking yet.
nkkollaw 8y ago
Buzzfeed confirms his focus on writing articles for the sole purpose of provoking outrage to get the last few clicks before they finally go bankrupt.
rootusrootus 8y ago
I give it about a week until the airlines cover all the cameras with stickers. Maybe a nice little company logo.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
exabrial 8y ago
Security concerns aside, I thought the cameras were there so you could swipe in front of it to turn the infotainment system on? Is there proof they are recording? Planes have weight limitations. A long-haul 8-12hr flight for 300 passengers is a significant commitment to storage space and the weight of said drives.
- jonahx 8y ago
  1 TB fits on a flash drive these days. If they were transferring semi-regularly when grounded and recording in SD, you'd be talking on the order of a few pounds.
  - exabrial 8y ago
    I forgot security cameras only run at like 5fps, so that's a good point.
- Cpoll 8y ago
  One 10TB drive, maybe more if you want a redundant array? I can't see this taking up any weight.
minikites 8y ago
I flew on a plane similar to the one cited in the article this past Monday. It was a late night flight and I turned the screen off to try and sleep, only to have the screen turn itself back on (and disable the power button) to show me advertisements. Between this and "smart" TVs that secretly surveil the end user, I'm not optimistic about the future of humane consumer electronics.
- Nextgrid 8y ago
  Should’ve grabbed keys or something sharp and scratched the screen.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
backtoyoujim 8y ago
I can't wait for the MKBHD breakdown of them.
yters 8y ago
It's ironic that in the book 1984 all the citizens have hidden cameras in their TVs. Today, in 2019, all the citizens have non-hidden cameras and microphones in pretty much every electronic device they use. We also have the customary day of rage, where we all direct our collective rage at some political opponent. Don't get me started on the butchering of the English language...
- chrisjc 8y ago
  It's been a while since I've read it, but wasn't everyone in 1984 well aware of the cameras in their telescreens? That's why Wilson sought out a corner of his room where he was out of view of the camera?
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    I believe you're correct, 'cept that Wilson was Winston.
- hiccuphippo 8y ago
  Sorry to nitpick but the cameras in the TVs in 1984 where not hidden. They even had a speaker and the government was able to talk directly to an individual through them. The problem there, and here, is people don't really care.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Except people do care, as evidenced by the fact that this is even an article about a controversy in the first place.
    - docker_up 8y ago
      Some journalists care. Don't conflate journalists or HN forum with the general public. Most people likely don't care at all.
      - 8y ago
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
They already take a high resolution back scatter shot of my genitals on the way in, what's a little more humiliation among friends? If they want to spend 6 hours watching me make pained expressions as I shift and turn and feel the bits that make me human slowly slip away, leaving me a crippled, grunting inhuman beast by the time I get out of the aluminum can full of other peoples farts, I guess they are welcome to it.
- exabrial 8y ago
  I've yet to go through any of these machines since they were implemented. I have opted out every flight, every time.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    In that case they don't have a picture, but they do know what they feel like, and if they don't, it just takes one ornery TSA agent for it to happen. It's a thoroughly miserable process no matter what way you slice it.
    - imustbeevil 8y ago
      I just don't go in with a toxic mindset and have never had a bad experience. I'd rather not feel negatively for no reason, because it hurts me and doesn't help me in any way. Maybe you have a better reason to go through life unhappily, but I don't.
      - pixl97 8y ago
        The beatings will continue until morale improves.
      - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        "You know what, I'm looking forward to having my privacy violated! I hope they stop me for packing some cookies in my carry on!"
mcrae 8y ago
What's the big deal, though? Its not like these devices are in your home -- they are in a public space that is well known to be heavily surveiled. So I guess, even in the worst case scenario where these cameras were recording you, what is so different from the other 500x camera FOVs you step into during your journey? What am I missing?
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  An airport is a public space. A plane seat is semi-private or at least has always had that expectation. And given that it was placed there by the people owning the plane, it is well within the bounds of what passengers can expect to demand changed by said owners.
  - xfitm3 8y ago
    I will never understand this mentality.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      Understand what? That public vs. private is a spectrum and not a black and white area? Or that consumers can discover they don't like something about the product they're using and demand changes?
  - kelnos 8y ago
    > A plane seat is semi-private or at least has always had that expectation. Really? I've never had that expectation. I consider it the same as sitting on a seat on a public transit bus or subway train. I still think the airline should disclose when and how they're recording me, but an expectation of privacy? Nah.
    - nacs 8y ago
      So when you're sitting next to your significant other and talking about personal issues, you have no problem with being audio/video recorded? Most people expect some level of privacy when sitting at their seat. This is not a general/overview cabin camera, this is literally a foot in front of you and pointed directly at your face.
DigiMortal 8y ago
You're in public on an airline, so whatever, they can have all the cameras they want on that airline.
peeters 8y ago
The overwhelming availability of gum in an airplane cabin might suggest a solution to the privacy-conscious.
madrox 8y ago
There's security cameras in every mass transit vehicle I've ever been in. Why is this a privacy issue?
- sverige 8y ago
  Then we have to hope that someone leaks a cell phone video of the incident as it plays on a screen in a security hut somewhere. No way any airline is going to publish video of airport security dragging a paying customer down the aisle of an aircraft.
dawnerd 8y ago
Actually surprised there's no cameras on planes (that I know of at least). Buses, subways, other mass transit have cameras. And I've seen no one complain about the cameras some food chains use in their table-side checkout systems. Red Robin is the first that comes to mind. It sits there your entire meal... Obviously it's to take your pic when you swipe your credit card (and apparently scan coupons and gift cards).
- jackpirate 8y ago
  Those kiosks have cameras in them? I've used them dozens of times and never realized, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    Yep https://www.ziosk.com/the-experience https://www.ziosk.com/the-experience "Scan coupons and gift cards with the built-in camera"
- Balgair 8y ago
  BART has cameras near every door. They recently updated them so that all of them work. Until mid 2016, only 23% of them did. Given that it's BART, I'd flip a coin to determine if any particular one still does work. https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2017/news20170628 https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2017/news20170628 https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-admits-77-percent-of-train-cameras-are-fake-6818459.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-admits-77-percent-...
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > Buses, subways, other mass transit have cameras. It was putting cameras in public transit that got me to stop using public transit.
jasonjei 8y ago
I think I remember reading Cathay Pacific has cameras in the first class cabin for a customer service reason—to attend to you when you were awake...
crazygringo 8y ago
I mean, I'm a big fan of privacy but I consider an airline cabin to be a pretty public place. I'm already used to security cameras in pretty much every public building I walk in... ...can anyone think of something nefarious that could be done with these cameras? The only possible "threat" I can think of would be to eavesdrop on someone's laptop/conversation for potential business secrets or otherwise, but the cameras are pointed at someone's face (not screen) and no mention is made of a microphone... although planes used to have those phones (obviously with a microphone) in them for many years. And in any case, a commercial flight is probably not the best place to be discussing top-secret info anyways.
- trumped 8y ago
  so you can think of only one nefarious purpose.... does it make it right?
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
  If Facebook paid the airlines a dollar per flight to be able to study your facial expressions during moments of turbulence, would that be considered nefarious?
adrianmonk 8y ago
Griping at and shaming companies who may or may not have a legitimate use case is a battle that will never end. You don't necessarily know which products have cameras, and you don't have a ton of leverage anyway. Instead, what would make sense to me is to have an across the board regulatory requirement that cameras, regardless of purpose, product type, etc.: (1) must be clearly marked (logo, wording, etc.), and (2) must have some kind of reliable, independent way to shut them down or defeat them (such as a plastic shutter to cover the camera, etc. -- not just a software controlled indicator light). That way there is considerably less need for complicated agree-to-disagree debates about whether a camera should or shouldn't exist in this or that context. Instead, there would be one thing that is clear cut, objective, and possible to enforce, and people would be empowered to do something about the cameras around them. (Except for security cameras, which would need to be a separate category.)
JohnFen 8y ago
Hmm. I guess I need to start carrying post-it notes when I fly.
andy-x 8y ago
Wait until they start embedding cameras in toilet seats. "For better passenger comfort".
sys_64738 8y ago
These cameras will eventually be enabled plus they're pointing at your face. This becomes especially important when facial recognition software gets to the point that it can, with high probability, capture your mood. If you look angry or aggressive then you are a risk to a safe flight. It might get to the point where you're escorted from the plane before it takes off due to you looking mad because you couldn't find an overhead bin. An extension of this would be for air marshals to Taser you inflight before you can causes an incident, all because you look drunk or look mad due to sneezing giving you a red face.
King-Aaron 8y ago
It's been about a year or so since I've flown, but from memory there were tablets on my last QANTAS flight that also had run of the mill hardware cameras on the tablets. They looked like any ol' chinese made tablet to be honest, I didn't think too much of it.

224 points by sricola 8y ago

mnm1 8y ago

How can you have privacy concerns in a completely public space?

pizza 8y ago
Would you want to go to a movie theatre where audience engagement is recorded by a hidden, undisclosed camera? Would you prefer that? People are right to have instinctual suspicion of being covertly spied upon en masse in public spaces.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Maybe I'm an outlier, but I would be okay with an IR camera scraping audience engagement at a movie or a concert or a billboard - even after hearing the slippery slope hypotheticals against it.
- Animats 8y ago
  Would you want to go to a movie theatre where audience engagement is recorded by a hidden, undisclosed camera? Deployed since 2004 to look for camcorders.[1] Disney tried out technology for recording audience engagement in a theater in 2017. [2][3] "We instrumented a 400 seat movie theater using four infra-red (IR) cameras and four IR illuminators placed above the projection screen. The cameras were outfitted with IR bandpass filters to remove the spill of visible light that reflected off the movie screen. The video was recorded at 12 frames per second with a resolution of 2750×2200 pixels. The resolution of faces ranged from 15×25 (back rows) to 40×55 (front rows). We collected over 150 viewings of 9 mainstream movies released in 2015 and 2016". They show graphs for laughing and smiling over time for Inside Out. So it works. Coming soon to a theater near you, probably. Cinemark installed intensive surveillance of the concession stand.[4] That's where the money is made. "The concessions people could look through every kids’ combo that was sold across a region and see whether they are actually attracting children or if they are trading down college-aged women who would’ve bought a larger size of all of those items if you didn’t have that meal option for them." [1] http://www.pirateeye.com/pirateeye/technology/ http://www.pirateeye.com/pirateeye/technology/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20171116222427/https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/factorized-variational-autoencoder/ https://web.archive.org/web/20171116222427/https://www.disne... [3] https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/disneyresearch/wp-content/uploads/20170711130345/Factorized-Variational-Autoencoders-for-Modeling-Audience-Reactions-to-Movies-Paper.pdf https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/disneyresearch/wp-content... [4] http://www.filmjournal.com/content/envysion-better-business-cinemark-takes-surveillance-next-level http://www.filmjournal.com/content/envysion-better-business-...
  - pizza 8y ago
    Well, I'll be..
smt88 8y ago
What definition of "completely public" are you using that would include a privately-owned airplane that I spent $100+ to board after going through a security checkpoint?
- imgabe 8y ago
  The fact that you are sitting in an open area with 100+ other strangers around you? A shopping mall might be privately owned, but it's still a public space. Any place that is open to the general public is a public space.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Its a difference of scale. We license people to be private investigators. They stalk around, take pictures, and otherwise spy on what they're paid to do within the confines of the law and their license. It costs people-time to do this. Whereas we can blanket cameras everywhere, run facial recog, and do further analytics on the saved videos. It takes roughly 0 people-hours to operate that (setup costs time, but further requires none). And remember Cardinal Richieu's (disputed) comment "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Instead, give me a year's worth of footage..... How many felonies will you find?
    - imgabe 8y ago
      If we find 100 felonies per person for everyone in the country, it's going to be physically impossible to prosecute that many cases and jail that many people. At some point we have to decide that it's not worth having a law that is essentially unenforceable. Maybe you could argue that they would just be selectively enforced to remove people the state finds inconvenient. We could probably fix that legislatively by requiring a law to be enforced some high X% of times that the state becomes aware of it, because what's really the point of a law if it's ignored 99% of the time? The thing is, technology doesn't just go away. Once something is invented, there's no uninventing it. So, we're going to have to figure out how to create a just world where public surveillance is ubiquitous. The idea of privacy in terms of "don't look at me" is not something we do for its own sake. It exists to serve a purpose, whether that's to prevent embarrassment or prevent tyranny. We're going to need to find other ways to serve those purposes.
cco 8y ago
"To continue watching your in-flight movie, please watch this ad, note looking away from the screen will pause the ad while we wait for your gaze to return." That is an entirely realistic scenario, patents have been granted for this already. Regardless of an expectation of privacy it is potentially a terrible UX as well.
- imgabe 8y ago
  That's when you bring your own tablet with some downloaded movies. I mean, yeah, it's conceivable that someone could try that. It is also conceivable that it would fail miserably.
  - everly 8y ago
    It is also conceivable that it becomes the new normal and we slide further into our dystopian capitalist future.
    - imgabe 8y ago
      Sure we can conceive of nearly anything, but it's not like airlines can realistically stop people from bringing their own devices on planes and watching what they want. That's always going to be the alternative if the in-seat entertainment gets too shitty.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Nah, that's when you bring you "I'm paying attention"-mask to pretend you're paying attention.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      So you're wearing a mask to pretend to be watching an ad so you don't have to actually watch the movie that you want to keep watching?
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Spotify already does that, except with volume. If you turn down your volume too much on your phone, it pauses the advert and demands to raise volume to continue.
Someone1234 8y ago
I think the people who disagree with this reply should explain their reasoning. You're in public on an aircraft, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The people around you, including the airline's staff, can listen to your conversations/see you. I'm not even arguing legally, even just in terms of common sense, everything you do or say is isn't private in those circumstances. So a camera being there (regardless of if it is used) isn't moving the needle either direction.
- xdy 8y ago
  This site reminds me of big bang theory.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  Sure, there are other, strange people on board. It would be uncomfortable if one of them positioned their face right in front of mine and stared at me, listening, the entire flight. The camera would bother me likewise.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Even if they blocked the camera then the argument would shift to the microphone which may still work even if physically blocked. Plus you're contrasting the invasion of personal space, with the perception that a non-privacy space is now non-privacy. But since the space was never private to being with has anything changed or has the airline just ruined your own fiction about the space?
  - mindslight 8y ago
    I think the divide comes down to people's priors on whether a technological device will necessarily be abused. It's easy to write off a device as only possibly enabling something "bad", and hold off assigning blame to whomever actually does the bad thing. Or you can look at the incentives, history, and accountability of such devices being abused, and infer that the implications are completely likely. In the best case, an amateur breaks into this network simply to spy on people and masturbate (either on the ground, or in the bathroom). Not necessarily personally harmful, but most people would consider this creepy. A more chilling possibility is that the cameras end up being used to test some face-tension profiling system, in the name of security theater. And the airlines are prohibited and indemnified from disclosing this to the public. Note I am not saying that they were purchased/installed for this reason, but merely that having them installed and sitting around makes them an attractive nuisance! At any rate, especially as technologists, we're past the point of being able to write off the abilities of hardware devices because of some imagined idea that the software isn't setup to do that. Especially on less important devices that are more likely to fall by the wayside!
bobthepanda 8y ago
An airplane isn't really public space like the street, since you can't just waltz into an airplane free of charge, and airplanes are not generally owned directly by the public. They are managed places open to the public for a price, and that payment comes with certain expectations (e.g., there wasn't a camera present 20 years ago, why should it be present now?)
- mnm1 8y ago
  Nothing about paying for a service disallows the airline company from putting cameras in the public space they operate for a profit unless it's specified in the contract that they are not allowed to do so. I guarantee you they did not put restrictions like that on themselves in the contract with the customer. Your argument that cameras did not exist in these spaces 20 years ago is completely irrelevant to what the airline can do now. If you don't like it, get the laws changed. By this reasoning, the airport itself could not put up security cameras beyond the security checkpoints where only ticketed passengers are allowed. That's absurd.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Nothing disallows it. But just because it's perfectly legal doesn't mean that consumers don't have the right to question it and then agitate against it, which is what is happening in the article. The legal code is not perfect.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    So you always check hotel contracts for clauses forbidding them to film you?
CydeWeys 8y ago
I'm paying lots of money to be there. It seems like it's in an airline's best interests to not piss off customers by secretly filming them (or even appearing to have the capability to do so), given how creepy it seems to many people. Unlike "completely public spaces", it's not free to be on an airplane. You can vote with your wallet in this situation.
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  Exactly. Also, it’s techbcially “private” space which means they can record you, but there needs to be a notice somewhere. I’m sure there’s something hidden in the air passenger terms of service or whatever, but still!
  - devinmrn 8y ago
    It's interesting how the expectation of privacy varies from person to person! Since members of the general public are in close proximity I generally wouldn't consider an airplane cabin a place where I could have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In places that are intentionally restricted from view by others, like my own home, a hotel room, etc. I'd have an expectation of privacy.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      People by and large keep to themselves on airplanes. If someone was recording you with their cell phone for the duration of the flight, I promise you, you wouldn't like it. The resultant footage wouldn't particularly be any different than if it was recorded by the seatback in front of you, though. If I'm going to, say, a concert, or especially a taping of a TV show, I have a much higher expectation of ending up in some video footage. But people often sleep on planes. They're not expecting to be recorded.
      - devinmrn 8y ago
        I wouldn't like it and if I noticed I'd politely ask them to stop. However, (and I'm not a lawyer) I don't think it'd be illegal or even unethical. If someone was recording me napping on a plane I'd treat it the same way as if I was napping under a tree in a national park. It would be a non issue for me. Privacy is something I control by not exposing sensitive information in areas where recording is a possibility. I already take precautions when flying by not working on my laptop or having sensitive conversations with family or coworkers. I generally don't consider information on where my gaze is looking, facial expressions, or if I'm awake or asleep sensitive information unless I'm in a private space like my home, a hotel room, or a bathroom.
chooseaname 8y ago
If I'm walking around, say, the Grand Canyon, you know, up top looking down. If someone is walking around filming a travel vlog and I happen to get filmed, ok, so what? Right? But if they run up and shove the camera in my face without asking for permission, that becomes rude and I should absolutely have some say in it. If I'm in an airline, I should have some say if there's going to be a camera facing me the ... entire ... flight. That goes beyond just the casual picture or video capture.
- techer 8y ago
  Depends in what country you are. Don't need your permission in the USA or the UK.
  - Avshalom 8y ago
    Commercial use of a photo or video with an identifiable person requires permission (model release forms and stuff). I'm sure that airlines would argue that any data they use for commercial purposes are anonymous (despite you know aving video and name/seat/camera correspondence).
    - devinmrn 8y ago
      It's my understanding that a release form is typically only used if the video is going to be made available publicly, used in marketing material, etc. If their commercial purpose was internal to the company then a release wouldn't be required. I'm an American. This likely isn't true in other countries with more stringent privacy laws.
  - bdamm 8y ago
    It would still be rude and violate widely held standards for personal space and privacy. Never forget that legal and appropriate are very different things.
    - dclowd9901 8y ago
      The point here is "recourse". A "victim" would have no recourse in the illustrated situation. The person said "they should have some say in it." That would be recourse.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
There's a difference between "one person saw me pick my nose in the aeroplane" and "me picking my nose was recorded for all time, later published and made available to the entire World".
jalgos_eminator 8y ago
Imagine if cameras could read your retinas and identify you like in Minority Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ). Though we're not there yet, facial recognition tech is almost ready for something similar.
- devinmrn 8y ago
  In this case wouldn't that point be irrelevant? Generally airlines have assigned seating and they already have validation of your identity from the booking information.
  - jalgos_eminator 8y ago
    Yes, in the case of flying on a commercial flight they already have your identity. The parent that I was responding to assumed the more general case though: > How can you have privacy concerns in a completely public space?
PavlovsCat 8y ago
No, the burden is on you. How can you have a concern with people not being spied on in public?
- mnm1 8y ago
  Because that's been the norm for decades and while I don't like the laws of our society, I must adapt to them.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    Anything that goes on for a few decades is already gospel to you? If everybody though that way, there would be no vote for women, there still would be slavery and segregation, half of the world would speak German or Russian today, and so on. Laws come from people. From citizens, actually. Just going along to get along is beneath all adults, not to mention citizens in socities that are still free on paper. Nobody has the right to be obedient. That is, you can forfeit all your own human rights if you want, but you cannot forfeit them on behalf of others and future generations.

hprotagonist 8y ago

This seems like a cost issue. Aside from the privacy issues, it’s gotta be cheaper to buy a pile of COTS tablets and bolt them to your airline seats than commission a custom form factor and hardware spec. That said, this is actually a time when physically occluding the camera makes sense.

rwc 8y ago
Interestingly, Delta just launched a group (Delta Flight Products) recognizing that this is an area for differentiation: https://news.delta.com/3-ways-delta-flight-products-revolutionizing-aircraft-interiors https://news.delta.com/3-ways-delta-flight-products-revoluti...

cbhl 8y ago

Most of these are just COTS Android tablets. When they reboot the IFE, you sometimes see the Android soft home/menu button on the bottom. It's easy enough to repair, too -- just apply some opaque tape to the camera.

52-6F-62 8y ago
I appreciate your use of the word "repair" in this instance.
Someone1234 8y ago
Indeed. What's interesting is that they used to be Linux tablets (i.e. non-Android) but newer generations have all been Android. I'm guessing economies of scale precipitated the move. It has also come with a significant improvement in touch screen quality which is welcomed (the old Linux based ones had resistive screens).
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  I think part of this is exonolies of scale, but also the basis of how much faster/cheaper it is to build/maintain an Android-based interface is my thought. Delta and GoGo just launched a “wireless IFE” on the new A220 that is basically just a customized Android tablet sucking down/streaming the IFE stuff from a server either in the back of the plane or from satellites using the 2k WiFi system (likely the server on the plane, but admittedly I haven’t looked into the tech specifics), which is designed to be modular for this reason. Plus, if you’re not reliant on the IFE boxes under the seats (which the Linux/BusyBox units were), you can do a lot of the processing and serving and network stuff on the device rather than having to have those outated and expensive to upgrade computers in each row. Probably just a cheap to get a capricituve screen 10” tablet screen with a Mediatek quad-core professor and 2GB of RAM as if would be to get one “naked” too.
  - bpye 8y ago
    Using WiFi would be very surprising for most content, but it would be interesting to have live TV on aircraft.

Gpetrium 8y ago

The real question is, why didn't AA & Singapore Airlines not put a sticker on top of the camera instead of having all this negative publicity? QA was probably concerned about something else.

filmgirlcw 8y ago

I understand why airlines and other industries are using off-the-shelf parts; I actually prefer this because it gets us closer to more modular IFE systems like what Delta/GoGo are doing on the A220, which means airlines can conceivably upgrade their IFE systems more frequently and at lower costs. What I don’t understand is why there aren’t commodify parts available sans cameras, given the myriad of use-cases and the customer volume for camera-free Android/Linux/QNX (I doubt QNX is even a player given their royalties but just thinking of what embedded systems are available) tablets. Anyway, it would take very little effort to assuage customers by blocking the cameras. If a 2¢ cover is too much, gaffer tape would work. It’s disappointing — though not surprising — that the airline industry hasn’t done this.

r00fus 8y ago
It makes one question if there was an ulterior motive. That or complete disconnect with customer priorities (oh, they won't care).
- na85 8y ago
  It's actually a complete "connect" with customer priorities. Most people don't care (yet) about their privacy, as evidenced by the scads of money that scummy data companies like Facebook et al are making selling our lives to advertisers.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    That's no kind of evidence. There is at least one hidden premise to your argument, something like "If people cared about their privacy, they wouldn't use Facebook et al", which doesn't seem true to me at all. You first need evidence for that. But these points have been debated a thousand times on HN already... (Anecdatally, I hate that such sites sell peoples' information, but I use FB)
askvictor 8y ago
What's the market for Android tablets (units per year) for airlines, compared to retail? I would suspect retail vastly outnumbers it, hence being considerably cheaper. What other use cases are you thinking of that would have significant volume?

robszumski 8y ago

United has several planes with what appear to be active IR LEDs in the same spot on the front bezel. Any idea what those are doing? Tracking empty seats? Movement for some reason?

snazz 8y ago
Delta does too. It appears it grows more intense the closer you get your hands to it, and the lights near the bottom of the screen turn on when your hand is sufficiently close to the sensor/LED thing.
- baobrain 8y ago
  Maybe it's a nice ease of access feature to turn the screen back on after it's turned off in the dark on the flight
objclxt 8y ago
It's for detecting when your hands move towards the display, and turning on LEDs in response (for instance, many in-seat monitors have a USB socket with a LED ring around it) - I worked on those units many years ago.
- robszumski 8y ago
  Pretty cool, I guess I never picked up on the behavior because I am mostly on my laptop.

subjoriented 8y ago

Soon the TSA will be confiscating sticky notes.

berbec 8y ago
More dangerous than Dasani!

bearcobra 8y ago

Given the state of surveillance at airports already, I'm honestly kind of surprised the cameras aren't active & recording the whole time to try to "detect threats"

freeflight 8y ago
No worries, I'm sure we will still be alive to see that happen. Ain't living in the future just wonderful?

gwbas1c 8y ago

These stories remind me of something that happened in my first internship in 2000. One of the interns that I worked with left a week earlier than I did so he could have some R & R. That Monday, we all got an email from him that went something like, "Check out my WebCam!!!!" I clicked on the link, and my screen was filled with a picture of him with his finger fully up his nose, picking a winner. Would have been better if we saw the full booger.

post_break 8y ago

If you're in a taxi cab the driver will have a camera pointed at them and you, the passenger. You're paying to get transported from A to B. If you're on an airplane you're doing the same thing only paying more and going up in the air. I guess I don't see the issue? Maybe, and I mean maybe if you paid for a plane ticket that had a "private" seat with a door, could this be a gray area.

jpollock 8y ago
Taxis have cameras because passengers have a terrible habit of beating up and robbing drivers.
- berbec 8y ago
  Such history exists in air travel as well.
mywittyname 8y ago
Planes already have cameras in them. This just offers yet another angle to view you from.

netsharc 8y ago

To me this is just a distraction. Yes there's a hardware camera. I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously by AA or SQ. Some are raging about the non-existant theoretical privacy violation (again, not 100% non-existant, but I will bet money there's no surveillance through this camera), meanwhile we are ignoring actual privacy violations being done by e.g. Facebook or Twitter, or the millions of ad networks (which that webpage has too, btw). One might say "But what about hackers?", luckily unlike Alexa or Google Home, it's hard for hackers to tinker with one these devices and find remotely-triggerable exploits.

astockwell 8y ago
> Yes there's a hardware camera. I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously Talk about the tag line for the past decade.
jackhack 8y ago
>>I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously by AA or SQ. not yet Given the last 20 years of bad behavior from tech companies overall, and the steady erosion of privacy in nearly all quarters, I question your confidence and must ask "based on what?"
- kortilla 8y ago
  AA isn’t a tech company. There revenue isn’t based on selling eyeballs.
  - Nextgrid 8y ago
    They can always diversify and milk out even more money out of their customers.
    - pixl97 8y ago
      To exit plane, PLEASE DRINK VERIFICATION CAN
  - 8y ago

yalogin 8y ago

This is the reason we need laws surrounding data its collection, usage, retention and sharing. Companies and people will willfully or through sheer incompetence collect data, create privacy violations. For consumers there is no option but to rail against every new find. As we saw every company big and small do it. There is no solution but laws. At least that way we have a line drawn and we can fight for that line and about that line. Right now we are all screaming into a void hoping someone will listen and in some cases we yell into a void when its not warranted.

monksy 8y ago

I've seen these in: SAS Emirites Cathray Pacific flights.

derekdahmer 8y ago

Most airplanes have built-in CCTV cameras whose explicit purpose is to record everyone in the cabin for the entire flight. So do MUNI buses. Instead people are raising the issue of a stock camera that's obviously not being used to record. There would be no way to keep that a secret, everything in an airplane has to be FAA approved.

MrStonedOne 8y ago
A CCTV camera from an angle far(relatively) away at the front and back of the cabin isn't the same level as one in the device staring you in the face. How long until that camera gets enabled to do eyetracking for ad and premium services tracking. Whos to say its not already? Mixed it in with facial recognition so they can sell that data to other ad agencies and now you see the problem with allowing the camera to exist at that location in the first place.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  Why are you more concerned about the tablet camera than the camera hidden in the air vent to steal your passwords?
- derekdahmer 8y ago
  The recently passed California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) requires that any collection of biometric information to be disclosed and along with who the data is being sold to. The law goes into effect on January 1st, 2020 so we'll know then and in the future if they are doing any kind of personal identification at all. Given the tablets can't even scroll through a list of movies without lagging and show everyone the same 2 minute Honda commercial before each movie despite already knowing who you are from your ID and frequent flyer number, I'd venture that the airlines haven't figured out how to do eye tracking yet.

nkkollaw 8y ago

Buzzfeed confirms his focus on writing articles for the sole purpose of provoking outrage to get the last few clicks before they finally go bankrupt.

rootusrootus 8y ago

I give it about a week until the airlines cover all the cameras with stickers. Maybe a nice little company logo.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

exabrial 8y ago

Security concerns aside, I thought the cameras were there so you could swipe in front of it to turn the infotainment system on? Is there proof they are recording? Planes have weight limitations. A long-haul 8-12hr flight for 300 passengers is a significant commitment to storage space and the weight of said drives.

jonahx 8y ago
1 TB fits on a flash drive these days. If they were transferring semi-regularly when grounded and recording in SD, you'd be talking on the order of a few pounds.
- exabrial 8y ago
  I forgot security cameras only run at like 5fps, so that's a good point.
Cpoll 8y ago
One 10TB drive, maybe more if you want a redundant array? I can't see this taking up any weight.

minikites 8y ago

I flew on a plane similar to the one cited in the article this past Monday. It was a late night flight and I turned the screen off to try and sleep, only to have the screen turn itself back on (and disable the power button) to show me advertisements. Between this and "smart" TVs that secretly surveil the end user, I'm not optimistic about the future of humane consumer electronics.

Nextgrid 8y ago
Should’ve grabbed keys or something sharp and scratched the screen.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

backtoyoujim 8y ago

I can't wait for the MKBHD breakdown of them.

yters 8y ago

It's ironic that in the book 1984 all the citizens have hidden cameras in their TVs. Today, in 2019, all the citizens have non-hidden cameras and microphones in pretty much every electronic device they use. We also have the customary day of rage, where we all direct our collective rage at some political opponent. Don't get me started on the butchering of the English language...

chrisjc 8y ago
It's been a while since I've read it, but wasn't everyone in 1984 well aware of the cameras in their telescreens? That's why Wilson sought out a corner of his room where he was out of view of the camera?
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  I believe you're correct, 'cept that Wilson was Winston.
hiccuphippo 8y ago
Sorry to nitpick but the cameras in the TVs in 1984 where not hidden. They even had a speaker and the government was able to talk directly to an individual through them. The problem there, and here, is people don't really care.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Except people do care, as evidenced by the fact that this is even an article about a controversy in the first place.
  - docker_up 8y ago
    Some journalists care. Don't conflate journalists or HN forum with the general public. Most people likely don't care at all.
    - 8y ago

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

They already take a high resolution back scatter shot of my genitals on the way in, what's a little more humiliation among friends? If they want to spend 6 hours watching me make pained expressions as I shift and turn and feel the bits that make me human slowly slip away, leaving me a crippled, grunting inhuman beast by the time I get out of the aluminum can full of other peoples farts, I guess they are welcome to it.

exabrial 8y ago
I've yet to go through any of these machines since they were implemented. I have opted out every flight, every time.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  In that case they don't have a picture, but they do know what they feel like, and if they don't, it just takes one ornery TSA agent for it to happen. It's a thoroughly miserable process no matter what way you slice it.
  - imustbeevil 8y ago
    I just don't go in with a toxic mindset and have never had a bad experience. I'd rather not feel negatively for no reason, because it hurts me and doesn't help me in any way. Maybe you have a better reason to go through life unhappily, but I don't.
    - pixl97 8y ago
      The beatings will continue until morale improves.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      "You know what, I'm looking forward to having my privacy violated! I hope they stop me for packing some cookies in my carry on!"

mcrae 8y ago

What's the big deal, though? Its not like these devices are in your home -- they are in a public space that is well known to be heavily surveiled. So I guess, even in the worst case scenario where these cameras were recording you, what is so different from the other 500x camera FOVs you step into during your journey? What am I missing?

bobthepanda 8y ago
An airport is a public space. A plane seat is semi-private or at least has always had that expectation. And given that it was placed there by the people owning the plane, it is well within the bounds of what passengers can expect to demand changed by said owners.
- xfitm3 8y ago
  I will never understand this mentality.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Understand what? That public vs. private is a spectrum and not a black and white area? Or that consumers can discover they don't like something about the product they're using and demand changes?
- kelnos 8y ago
  > A plane seat is semi-private or at least has always had that expectation. Really? I've never had that expectation. I consider it the same as sitting on a seat on a public transit bus or subway train. I still think the airline should disclose when and how they're recording me, but an expectation of privacy? Nah.
  - nacs 8y ago
    So when you're sitting next to your significant other and talking about personal issues, you have no problem with being audio/video recorded? Most people expect some level of privacy when sitting at their seat. This is not a general/overview cabin camera, this is literally a foot in front of you and pointed directly at your face.

DigiMortal 8y ago

You're in public on an airline, so whatever, they can have all the cameras they want on that airline.

peeters 8y ago

The overwhelming availability of gum in an airplane cabin might suggest a solution to the privacy-conscious.

madrox 8y ago

There's security cameras in every mass transit vehicle I've ever been in. Why is this a privacy issue?

sverige 8y ago
Then we have to hope that someone leaks a cell phone video of the incident as it plays on a screen in a security hut somewhere. No way any airline is going to publish video of airport security dragging a paying customer down the aisle of an aircraft.

dawnerd 8y ago

Actually surprised there's no cameras on planes (that I know of at least). Buses, subways, other mass transit have cameras. And I've seen no one complain about the cameras some food chains use in their table-side checkout systems. Red Robin is the first that comes to mind. It sits there your entire meal... Obviously it's to take your pic when you swipe your credit card (and apparently scan coupons and gift cards).

jackpirate 8y ago
Those kiosks have cameras in them? I've used them dozens of times and never realized, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  Yep https://www.ziosk.com/the-experience https://www.ziosk.com/the-experience "Scan coupons and gift cards with the built-in camera"
Balgair 8y ago
BART has cameras near every door. They recently updated them so that all of them work. Until mid 2016, only 23% of them did. Given that it's BART, I'd flip a coin to determine if any particular one still does work. https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2017/news20170628 https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2017/news20170628 https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-admits-77-percent-of-train-cameras-are-fake-6818459.php https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-admits-77-percent-...
JohnFen 8y ago
> Buses, subways, other mass transit have cameras. It was putting cameras in public transit that got me to stop using public transit.

jasonjei 8y ago

I think I remember reading Cathay Pacific has cameras in the first class cabin for a customer service reason—to attend to you when you were awake...

crazygringo 8y ago

I mean, I'm a big fan of privacy but I consider an airline cabin to be a pretty public place. I'm already used to security cameras in pretty much every public building I walk in... ...can anyone think of something nefarious that could be done with these cameras? The only possible "threat" I can think of would be to eavesdrop on someone's laptop/conversation for potential business secrets or otherwise, but the cameras are pointed at someone's face (not screen) and no mention is made of a microphone... although planes used to have those phones (obviously with a microphone) in them for many years. And in any case, a commercial flight is probably not the best place to be discussing top-secret info anyways.

trumped 8y ago
so you can think of only one nefarious purpose.... does it make it right?
bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
If Facebook paid the airlines a dollar per flight to be able to study your facial expressions during moments of turbulence, would that be considered nefarious?

adrianmonk 8y ago

Griping at and shaming companies who may or may not have a legitimate use case is a battle that will never end. You don't necessarily know which products have cameras, and you don't have a ton of leverage anyway. Instead, what would make sense to me is to have an across the board regulatory requirement that cameras, regardless of purpose, product type, etc.: (1) must be clearly marked (logo, wording, etc.), and (2) must have some kind of reliable, independent way to shut them down or defeat them (such as a plastic shutter to cover the camera, etc. -- not just a software controlled indicator light). That way there is considerably less need for complicated agree-to-disagree debates about whether a camera should or shouldn't exist in this or that context. Instead, there would be one thing that is clear cut, objective, and possible to enforce, and people would be empowered to do something about the cameras around them. (Except for security cameras, which would need to be a separate category.)

JohnFen 8y ago

Hmm. I guess I need to start carrying post-it notes when I fly.

andy-x 8y ago

Wait until they start embedding cameras in toilet seats. "For better passenger comfort".

sys_64738 8y ago

These cameras will eventually be enabled plus they're pointing at your face. This becomes especially important when facial recognition software gets to the point that it can, with high probability, capture your mood. If you look angry or aggressive then you are a risk to a safe flight. It might get to the point where you're escorted from the plane before it takes off due to you looking mad because you couldn't find an overhead bin. An extension of this would be for air marshals to Taser you inflight before you can causes an incident, all because you look drunk or look mad due to sneezing giving you a red face.

King-Aaron 8y ago

It's been about a year or so since I've flown, but from memory there were tablets on my last QANTAS flight that also had run of the mill hardware cameras on the tablets. They looked like any ol' chinese made tablet to be honest, I didn't think too much of it.