5 ms·

Why is it exactly economical for China, but not Disney? They already have the video. They can do it at any time. They have night vision and lots of other tech s

by graphe 4y ago

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

orangecat 4y ago
The Chinese government is particularly interested in identifying people who are trying to avoid being identified; Disney isn't.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- noirbot 4y ago
  Yea, the government is worried about you staging a riot or attack. Disney doesn't really have that risk profile.
genocidicbunny 4y ago
China isn't interested in it being economical. They have different goals with their systems. Notice I also said that its not economical _right now_. In the future it may very well become that. I'm not aware of the actual state of b2b offerings for this kind of tech, but I'd imagine that when someone starts offering a reasonably priced turnkey solution for this sort of thing, Disney will start using it; Along with everyone else.
- splitstud 4y ago
  [dead]
zdragnar 4y ago
I don't think Disney is really an adversary in this scenario (where an adversary is not purely economically transactional); the recognition is primarily geared towards (a) analyzing general patterns to optimize (b) selling you more things you would be interested in buying. Their motivation is entirely economical. These detection tools aren't perfect, and there is a diminishing return on getting that last few percent of people who slip through the cracks. At some point, it isn't worth the effort. China, on the other hand, is motivated by more than mere economics. It is also interested in analyzing general patterns- they are a partial-command society given the extensive centralized planning that goes into the economy and social behaviors. However, the people who attempt to go unseen are precisely the most important people to observe- the bad actors, the malcontents, those most likely to cause trouble (乱) to an otherwise harmonized society.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Their motivation is entirely economical. That doesn't mean it's not adversarial.
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    Viewing everyone trying to sell you things, particularly the ones who you are actively seeing out to buy entertainment from, as adversaries is a pretty self-defeating approach.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      Companies Wanting to sell people things isn't the problem. Using the most mundane details of our life to manipulate us, and to extract as much money from us as possible is a problem. So is failing to secure that data. https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/disney-responds-to-alleged-hack-we-have-found-no-evidence-of-a-security-breach https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/disney-responds-to-all... https://finance.yahoo.com/video/disney-responds-data-breach-thousands-202322416.html?guccounter=1 https://finance.yahoo.com/video/disney-responds-data-breach-... https://chipandco.com/the-walt-disney-world-dolphin-hotel-was-involved-in-a-data-breach-223459/ https://chipandco.com/the-walt-disney-world-dolphin-hotel-wa...
      - JonathonW 4y ago
        The first two reference something where there's no strong evidence showing that it actually happened (it's more likely that it was credential stuffing-- using data from other breaches to compromise Disney+ accounts using the same passwords), and the third was Starwood Hotels (now Marriott), not Disney.
        autoexec 4y ago
        My fault! One of those first two should have been about this: https://disneynewstoday.net/2016/07/31/disney-interactive-shuts-down-playdom-forums-over-data-breach/ https://disneynewstoday.net/2016/07/31/disney-interactive-sh... I wouldn't give Disney a pass on the credential stuffing. https://www.the-parallax.com/poor-security-password-reuse-disney-plus-breach/ https://www.the-parallax.com/poor-security-password-reuse-di... As for the hotel it's sort of a partnership deal, Disney owns the land, built it, leases the building to another company to run, takes a cut of the profits, and has them branded as part of their Walt Disney Collection of resorts. I think it's fair to give Disney the blame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Dolphin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Dolphin There's also this, which you could argue was outside of their control too, but I think once a company hands your data over to third parties they're on the hook for what happens as a result: https://threatpost.com/epsilon-data-breach-expands-include-capital-one-disney-others-040411/75100/ https://threatpost.com/epsilon-data-breach-expands-include-c...
pixl97 4y ago
To rephrase this another way What is the potential economical cost of a dissenter? For Disney it's not likely much. For a government it could be loss of control.
babypuncher 4y ago
Disney is profit-motivated. Doubling the cost and complexity of your surveillance system to capture 5% more data at best is probably not worth it.
p1necone 4y ago
Disney is just trying to manage their theme park more effectively, and sell you some stuffed animals and t-shirts. 99.99% of people are not going to any lengths to avoid the unsophisticated stuff they're already doing, so they gain nothing from spending any more effort on it. I imagine OP understands this though - they're opting out on principle, not out of practical reasons.
- caddemon 4y ago
  The majority of people I've seen at the parks have intentionally opted in to tracking measures for over a decade now. People literally pay extra to give Disney more information, because it makes the trip a lot smoother. It's part of the fun of Disney honestly, living in their bubble for a few days. Anyway, just seconding your point - not only do most park guests make no effort to avoid tracking, but many want to be tracked, because it helps Disney do a better job. Sure this might mean they spend a bit more, but if it also means the already expensive trip is a better experience it's worth it for a lot of folks.

by graphe 4y ago

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

orangecat 4y ago

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

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
noirbot 4y ago
Yea, the government is worried about you staging a riot or attack. Disney doesn't really have that risk profile.

genocidicbunny 4y ago

China isn't interested in it being economical. They have different goals with their systems. Notice I also said that its not economical _right now_. In the future it may very well become that. I'm not aware of the actual state of b2b offerings for this kind of tech, but I'd imagine that when someone starts offering a reasonably priced turnkey solution for this sort of thing, Disney will start using it; Along with everyone else.

splitstud 4y ago
[dead]

zdragnar 4y ago

I don't think Disney is really an adversary in this scenario (where an adversary is not purely economically transactional); the recognition is primarily geared towards (a) analyzing general patterns to optimize (b) selling you more things you would be interested in buying. Their motivation is entirely economical. These detection tools aren't perfect, and there is a diminishing return on getting that last few percent of people who slip through the cracks. At some point, it isn't worth the effort. China, on the other hand, is motivated by more than mere economics. It is also interested in analyzing general patterns- they are a partial-command society given the extensive centralized planning that goes into the economy and social behaviors. However, the people who attempt to go unseen are precisely the most important people to observe- the bad actors, the malcontents, those most likely to cause trouble (乱) to an otherwise harmonized society.

JohnFen 4y ago
> Their motivation is entirely economical. That doesn't mean it's not adversarial.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  Viewing everyone trying to sell you things, particularly the ones who you are actively seeing out to buy entertainment from, as adversaries is a pretty self-defeating approach.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Companies Wanting to sell people things isn't the problem. Using the most mundane details of our life to manipulate us, and to extract as much money from us as possible is a problem. So is failing to secure that data. https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/disney-responds-to-alleged-hack-we-have-found-no-evidence-of-a-security-breach https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/disney-responds-to-all... https://finance.yahoo.com/video/disney-responds-data-breach-thousands-202322416.html?guccounter=1 https://finance.yahoo.com/video/disney-responds-data-breach-... https://chipandco.com/the-walt-disney-world-dolphin-hotel-was-involved-in-a-data-breach-223459/ https://chipandco.com/the-walt-disney-world-dolphin-hotel-wa...
    - JonathonW 4y ago
      The first two reference something where there's no strong evidence showing that it actually happened (it's more likely that it was credential stuffing-- using data from other breaches to compromise Disney+ accounts using the same passwords), and the third was Starwood Hotels (now Marriott), not Disney.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        My fault! One of those first two should have been about this: https://disneynewstoday.net/2016/07/31/disney-interactive-shuts-down-playdom-forums-over-data-breach/ https://disneynewstoday.net/2016/07/31/disney-interactive-sh... I wouldn't give Disney a pass on the credential stuffing. https://www.the-parallax.com/poor-security-password-reuse-disney-plus-breach/ https://www.the-parallax.com/poor-security-password-reuse-di... As for the hotel it's sort of a partnership deal, Disney owns the land, built it, leases the building to another company to run, takes a cut of the profits, and has them branded as part of their Walt Disney Collection of resorts. I think it's fair to give Disney the blame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Dolphin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Dolphin There's also this, which you could argue was outside of their control too, but I think once a company hands your data over to third parties they're on the hook for what happens as a result: https://threatpost.com/epsilon-data-breach-expands-include-capital-one-disney-others-040411/75100/ https://threatpost.com/epsilon-data-breach-expands-include-c...

pixl97 4y ago

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

babypuncher 4y ago

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

p1necone 4y ago

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

caddemon 4y ago
The majority of people I've seen at the parks have intentionally opted in to tracking measures for over a decade now. People literally pay extra to give Disney more information, because it makes the trip a lot smoother. It's part of the fun of Disney honestly, living in their bubble for a few days. Anyway, just seconding your point - not only do most park guests make no effort to avoid tracking, but many want to be tracked, because it helps Disney do a better job. Sure this might mean they spend a bit more, but if it also means the already expensive trip is a better experience it's worth it for a lot of folks.