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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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-c...
There isn't an opt out for things like facial tracking, and it doesn't bring benefit unless your goal is to be sold things based on being calculated. If they had a way to automatically track you for your benefit like emotional distress, lost kids, etc it is not adversarial.
My goal is to not be sold things I don't need or to add to their data, so I don't go to Disneyland.
Is there any benefit to the end user if they're not interested in being sold to? If I don't get one is adversarial and they are my enemy.
Some of their tracking is directly improving guest experiences in the parks though. Live data from magic bands helps with crowd control measures for example.
Sure, this is ultimately a business move, but it's not a manipulative tactic, it's actual product improvement. If you don't care for Disney to begin with that is fine, but I think the tracking absolutely can bring benefit to the entertainment value of the trip if you are a fan of the parks. I like having my ride photos automatically show up in my account and having my lunch pickup order come out with impeccable timing.
I'm not saying Disney doesn't also play psychological tricks to get you to buy more, and probably they are using personalized info for that. I'm just saying "it doesn't bring benefit unless your goal is to be sold things based on being calculated" is not entirely true either. It does improve things you are already paying for like how efficiently you can plan your activities each day in the parks.
Thanks I haven't been to Disneyland in a long time. I'm so used to seeing tracking with no benefits I didn't believe it could be used in a way that a customer like yourself defends it and says it has uses you benefit from.
Setting up a surveillance system to part you from your money sounds adversarial to me in the combative sense. That said, adversarial doesn't necessarily imply hostility, does it?
You're right. But I'm not doing that. I view the data collection and the use the data is put to as adversarial, not necessarily the efforts to sell me things.
Although that can be very adversarial, too, depending on how the sales effort is conducted.
I don't think Disney is really an adversary in this scenario (where an adversary is not purely economically transactional);
Club-33 and Disneys close, repeated ties with pedophiles (especially including the grooming of disney kids) indicate you are probably wrong, but I'll admit we are mostly working with inductive evidence on this.
What is your claim about Club 33? As far as I know, it’s a kind of cool elite thing for people with money to burn (I had the opportunity to have lunch there once in the 80s—I kind of wonder whether the tourist couple they turned away when our group checked in were cast members whose role was to help enhance the exclusive factor), but beyond being something that’s exclusive for rich people, what’s the harm you see with it?
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.