[HN Gopher] Detroit's new personalized flight information board ...
___________________________________________________________________
Detroit's new personalized flight information board is straight out
of sci-fi
Author : notacoward
Score : 79 points
Date : 2022-07-16 18:36 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thepointsguy.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thepointsguy.com)
| PaulMest wrote:
| I was just in the DTW airport a few weeks ago and experienced
| this firsthand!
|
| The representative said there can be up to 100 people in this
| large-ish rectangular area and each person can only see their
| details and nobody else's (even as everybody moves around).
| Everybody outside of the rectangle sees generic information.
|
| I'm generally pretty good with figuring out how things work. I
| could figure out the tracking piece, but I definitely didn't
| figure out how they could so accurately make sure that I could
| read my info everywhere within that box. There are some other
| comments here that describe how it works -- pretty cool!
|
| I was definitely amazed at how well this actually worked with
| about 10 other people also testing it out. Privacy issues aside,
| this is an amazing experience to be able to be on-the-move and
| see a giant arrow that points you to exactly where you need to go
| in an airport you're unfamiliar with.
| myself248 wrote:
| Privacy issues being what they are...
|
| ...I also LOVE the idea that the sign could tell ME which way to
| go, instead of presenting 60 ways to go and I have to figure out
| which one applies to me. Airports are confusing monsters and
| there's always an element of time pressure. This is brilliant.
|
| Except the time until it gets used for something much more
| dystopian is probably measured in hours now.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| One thing I don't really get is why they don't take advantage
| of the screen that everyone already has in their pockets - and
| which has built-in tracking to boot. All they need is an app.
|
| And this way it would be totally opt-in by installing the app.
|
| I know this tech is also opt-in, however, the facial
| recognition itself is seeing everyone, even the people who
| haven't opted in, and is probably tracking them. Just doesn't
| know who they are.
| chrischen wrote:
| It tracks via motion detectors, not facial recognition. I'm
| not totally sure but it seems the facial recognition is just
| part of the initial authorization step.
|
| So it's not reading your face in front of the display to
| determine what to show, but rather you scan your pass and
| verify your identity, then walk around the airport where it
| tracks your position to keep track of who you are and where,
| and when you then stand in front of this display it knows
| where you are relative to the display which can deliver a
| directionally targeted image to your eyes.
| eastbound wrote:
| Because the next step is to show personalized ads before the
| flight number.
| Insanity wrote:
| Would work on the phone app as well.
| DrTung wrote:
| I remember as a kid reading Foundation by Asimov, when you
| arrived in Trantor, you had a boarding pass with a glowing arrow
| pointing which way to go. Almost there now.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Once a customer logs in, they are identified by the motion
| sensors as a specific moving object tied to a specific customer
| record_
|
| Dislike. Also, I think this will have deleterious effects on the
| general level of mental health.
|
| Misapplied science, indeed.
| awiesenhofer wrote:
| "Customers enrolled in Delta's biometric digital identity program
| need only show their faces to a camera at the kiosk."
|
| That sentence reminds me of sci-fi way more than the actual
| board. Could be "straight out" of a 90ies Neal Stephenson novel
| like Snow Crash, and kinda reads equally dystopian.
| GoOnThenDoTell wrote:
| I cant imaging anyone actually wants this
| gumby wrote:
| I can get that info by glancing at my watch, which already
| provides a private, personalized experience.
|
| Far more useful would be making the effort to have the watch
| guide me to the proper gate than personalizing the public display
| of something I probably already know.
|
| It's like the punchline of a joke about management consultants.
| simonh wrote:
| Because of course everyone who goes through every airport knows
| which app to get for each airport, and thinks to install it in
| advance. My mother can barely use her phone as it is, just as a
| phone. Not everyone lives in the smart phone/watch power user
| tech bubble.
| gumby wrote:
| She probably carries a paper boarding pass with all the info
| she needs, and probably hasn't registered her face with the
| airline either.
|
| Start with the early adopters and then broaden into the early
| majority...your mum will be at the other end of that bell
| curve. This is classic Crossing the Chasm stuff.
| simonh wrote:
| A paper pass won't tell her when the plane is ready to
| board, or whether to go left or right. Registering for the
| display board is done at the airport, they offer you the
| option and you scan your pass and look at the camera.
| That's it.
|
| I'm not saying don't offer an app, but it baffles me that
| you think they should not offer this.
| gumby wrote:
| Your mother has a workflow that she's presumably used for
| many decades. (I used to use it too): paper boarding pass
| and look up your flight(/train whatever) on the schedule
| board. That system will continue to work (for her and for
| me).
|
| So when introducing a new feature set consider who your
| adopter audience will be. When think of my own mother she
| wouldn't bother to register her face (but does demand a
| paper BP). She doesn't want to change her work flow,
| though she does use her phone for more than calling.
|
| I on the other hand, am willing (even interested) in
| changing to make my life simpler. Im not saying "make
| gumby's life better" specifically, but that effort would
| be better spent on infrastructure.
|
| BTW though I wasn't clear, I wasn't thinking of an
| airline-specific app, but on in-terminal localization
| that would interact with my map software in a privacy-
| protecting way. Delta's gimmick is not privacy protecting
| (what happens to that face registration?)
| simonh wrote:
| In reality my mothers work flow at an airport is, do what
| the nice airport staff say. If that's scan your pass here
| and look at the camera there, that's what she'll do.
| These are familiar things to do anyway, you have to scan
| passports and passes already, and immigration control
| takes your camera, so they're things she already knows
| how to do and there are people right there to help.
| modeless wrote:
| > after more than five years in what he described as "stealth
| mode," the company worked out a propriety [sic] method of getting
| the pixels of a display board to send different content to each
| viewer.
|
| Um, lenticular lenses? Those aren't proprietary. Children's toys
| have lenticular lenses on them. They were patented in _1912_. The
| idea of using them to display different images to different
| viewers is also not remotely new.
|
| Cool concept to use it for personalized airport signage, but the
| face recognition required for it to work well is going to be hard
| to swallow in the current privacy climate. Better not install one
| of these in Illinois!
| fortran77 wrote:
| > Um, lenticular lenses? Those aren't proprietary. Children's
| toys have lenticular lenses on them. They were patented in
| 1912. The idea of using them to display different images to
| different viewers is also not remotely new.
|
| That's absolutely not what this is.
|
| Imagine each pixel is a high-resolution projector.
| modeless wrote:
| > Imagine each pixel is a high-resolution projector.
|
| ... that describes a lenticular lens array. Each lens takes a
| section of the screen and projects it out just as a projector
| does. A lenticular array of cylindrical lenses does it in
| only one dimension. It's possible they are using a microlens
| array to do it in two dimensions instead of one, but the
| concept is very similar and also not unique.
| davesque wrote:
| I don't want to be a naysayer, but my reaction to this is not
| positive. First of all, I wouldn't want random people in the
| airport to see my personal information. I guess the display can
| show different information depending on where you're standing,
| but I don't imagine this works perfectly. Second, facial
| recognition is creepy. Some comments are arguing that this isn't
| a problem because you're already being tracked anyway by other
| cameras around the airport. But just because it's already
| happening doesn't make it okay. Third, it seems technically
| impractical. It takes the relatively simple task of picking a
| flight out of a list and turns it into something brittle and
| error prone.
|
| I get that the technology is impressive in a way. And my first
| two points are perhaps less concerning since the Delta program is
| opt in. But overall it seems to cost more than it's worth. Maybe
| that makes this more of a marketing gimmick than anything.
| chrischen wrote:
| I'm not sure why they mention facial recognition as it doesn't
| seem necessary. The system works by identifying yOu after
| scanning your boarding pass and then tracking you physically
| via motion sensors. So it doesn't rely on detecting your face.
| They probably do that just to verify your identity initially in
| the same way that CLEAR does (and saves having to have the TSA
| person check your face).
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > First of all, I wouldn't want random people in the airport to
| see my personal info
|
| If I understand the tech, they have to be right on top of you
| to see what you see. Each display is supposed to be able to
| show 100 feeds to 100 different people at the same time.
|
| Totally agree with you on the creepiness though.
| davesque wrote:
| Yeah, who knows? Maybe the positional display tech works
| better than I imagine. I guess if it could narrow the viewing
| angle down to the eyes on a person's face, there wouldn't be
| much of a concern. But I have so many other questions. For
| example, does standing further away from it effectively
| broaden the viewing angle for a specific view? Maybe that
| could lead again to privacy issues.
|
| But I should admit that the viewing angle tech is pretty
| neat. Maybe there could be other interesting applications for
| it.
| eastbound wrote:
| And if the system is not properly re-tuned some of the
| time, like most tech that requires precision, could it
| happen that it shows the information exactly 5deg next to
| you, but never to you?
| GrumpyNl wrote:
| The video shows otherwise, i don't know if it is manipulated,
| but its filmed from behind the person looking at the board.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Oh good point, I didn't watch that yet.
|
| You're right, it seems to be pretty wide, especially when
| she walks away.
|
| I wonder how they manage to do 100 simultaneous feeds with
| such poor accuracy though. But perhaps this is a "best case
| scenario".
| Findecanor wrote:
| If someone else is too close to me, couldn't that person's
| feed block mine? What about groups of people travelling
| together, standing together? Which person's feed gets
| priority?
|
| Also, there's the chance that I'll meet up with someone I
| know that I usually keep polite relations with, but which I
| may not want to share my itinerary with. It is not reasonable
| that I should be avoiding them on the floor just to keep them
| away from reading my feed.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > I wouldn't want random people in the airport to see my
| personal information.
|
| Why not? I'm as much a privacy advocate as anyone, but I don't
| see the big deal here.
|
| The board seems to display your first name, your gate number,
| your destination city, and your departure time. Why is it a
| concern that strangers potentially standing next to you might
| see this? You already see tons of boarding passes while waiting
| in various airport lines.
|
| My point is that people don't typically care about these four
| data points, so why is it a concern that they're displayed on
| this board (which ostensibly only you or someone directly in
| your space can see), especially when someone can go to a random
| gate, and ask your name, and now they all the same data points.
| davesque wrote:
| Maybe it's just embarrassing. And if someone were to ask why,
| would that really be a fair question? In this particular
| case, I don't have a complicated argument about security. I
| just generally expect to be able to remain anonymous in
| public. I guess that's why I wouldn't opt into this program.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| I'm genuinely not understanding the embarrassment. If
| you're saying you're embarrassed about going to a
| particular destination, do you not sit in the designated
| gate area? Do you sit elsewhere? What do you do when it's
| actually time to board? This seems like a personal neurosis
| that would far surpass any potential issues with this
| technology.
|
| Anyone will know the same points of information about you
| that are on the board: your gate number, your departure
| time, and your destination city - without having to occupy
| the same spatial coordinates as you, as they would to see
| your custom display. At that point, all they'll be missing
| is your first name, which they can ask you for.
|
| If the board displayed information like your confirmation
| or ticket number, then I agree there would be cause for
| concern regarding exposure of personal information. But I
| don't see how destination city/departure time/gate
| number/first name constitute a privacy concern.
| davesque wrote:
| I think you don't understand the embarrassment because
| you're trying to pick this apart too surgically. First of
| all, I should call out that I think our conversation is
| really about a hypothetical situation in which a display
| like this was operating in an airport for all passengers,
| whether they opted in or not.
|
| That being said, I think it would be totally fair for a
| person to feel embarrassed about _any_ personal
| information being displayed publicly on a monitor without
| their consent. Sure, all of this information could in
| theory be gleaned from other sources, but I don 't think
| people are bothered by this because they know it would
| take some particular effort by someone who was
| interested. That falls under the average threshold of
| concern. What's more, it's just a fact of life. I don't
| think people expect water tight personal information
| security. But I do think people have an expectation of
| _privacy_. The example you gave is illustrative. You said
| someone can ask you for your first name. If they 're an
| airline employee, fine. That's necessary for them to run
| their business properly. But if they're a stranger on the
| street, you're perfectly entitled to tell them to get
| lost. Now let's consider that a hypothetical, non-opt-in
| PI display in an airport would be rather like a stranger
| walking up and asking you for your first name. Yes,
| there's not much actual threat in giving it. But who
| would want to do that? No one. I'm not sure I could say
| why, but I don't think it's fair to ask why and I don't
| disagree with the instinct not to hand out one's first
| name on demand.
|
| I think it's important to take into account these kinds
| of "first-person" concerns that have a sort of common
| sense to them. You might be able to diffuse them from a
| strictly logical point of view. But that doesn't do away
| with the fact that an average person would still have the
| concern. And maybe there's an unseen logic in the common
| sense viewpoint.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > That being said, I think it would be totally fair for a
| person to feel embarrassed about any personal information
| being displayed publicly on a monitor without their
| consent.
|
| OK, but this is a pure fantasy, if not outright delusion.
| The way this display works is 1) it requires your
| consent, and 2) the information is only visible to a
| person standing in specific coordinates, i.e. you.
| davesque wrote:
| Please reread my comment. I laid out my assumptions in
| the second sentence:
|
| > First of all, I should call out that I think our
| conversation is really about a hypothetical situation in
| which a display like this was operating in an airport for
| all passengers, whether they opted in or not.
|
| You should try and engage me on the argument I'm making.
| Also, characterizing my comment as "pure fantasy" or
| "outright delusion" doesn't do much to make me more
| receptive to your viewpoint.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| Sorry, I have zero interest in discussing some
| nonexistent hypothetical. Obviously, a technology that 1)
| was not opt-in, but universal, and 2) broadcast your
| information to not just you but everyone, would be
| problematic. You might as well add that this hypotethical
| system also broadcasts your credit card number while
| you're at it, and say that you would find this quite
| troubling indeed.
| chrischen wrote:
| Strictly speaking he's right in that you are still
| leaking a little extra information that a targeted
| attacker could use against you in an attack. This is your
| first legal name, and which gate you may be heading
| towards in the future. It's not much information but it
| is still extra information.
| davesque wrote:
| To clarify, my concern is much more about the privacy
| aspect than the security one. I agree that there's
| technically not much threat in giving up your first name.
| From a security standpoint, it doesn't really expose much
| more threat surface than what already existed. I'm more
| talking about the general creepiness factor; the
| expectation of public privacy. This is more subjective,
| but I think there's a logic to it that is worth
| questioning.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| If an attacker is targeting your first name, there are
| any number of ways they can extract it from you in ways
| that are far, far easier than having to more or less
| literally sit on your shoulders so that they're in the
| same spatial coordinates as you to be able to see the
| custom display. They could catch your name on your
| boarding pass, unless you never display it inadvertently.
| They could read it from a luggage tag. They could catch
| your name off an order at an airport restaurant or cafe,
| unless you never give out your real name. They could also
| just ask you at the gate, unless you always give a fake
| name when introducing yourself to people as well.
|
| The point being that 'guarding my first name at an
| airport' seems like an extremely niche concern, that far
| surpasses this particularly technology.
| chrischen wrote:
| Yea, and this is basically just yet another way for them
| to extract that information. Add it to the list... but
| having one more option does make it easier in case the
| person doesn't have a luggage tag, opted for a digital
| boarding pass, or reasonably refuses to give their first
| name when asked. Just because there are other ways to do
| something doesn't make extra ways moot. If you have
| multiple authentication methods your security is only as
| strong as the weakest one, and the same concept applies
| here in terms of the information being leaked. Having
| more attack surfaces increases the attack surface.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| You likely have that information on a card in your hand
| anyway. It's a minor increase in the ability for this
| information to leak, but it's hardly private information.
| chrischen wrote:
| You are telling me that if a random guy walks up to you
| and hits on you by addressing you by your first name that
| it would not be creepy and unexpected? Your first name is
| definitely not public information that is associated with
| your face. There is also no reasonable expectation that
| you have to hold up your boarding pass for everyone to
| see, which is what is implied by a big screen.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > hold up your boarding pass for everyone to see, which
| is what is implied by a big screen.
|
| I feel like you missed the part where only the person
| standing at specific coordinates can see your name, i.e.
| you. That's the whole point of this tech.
| yojo wrote:
| I could imagine a woman prone to being harassed being put off
| by this technology.
|
| My wife flies for business and (occasionally) gets hit on by
| strange men. Not all the time, and usually not very icky, but
| there's been at least one that veered into creepy territory.
|
| If I were her, I would be unhappy about a weirdo being able
| to covertly snag her name and destination and using it
| disingenuously - e.g. pretend to be an old acquaintance that
| you must have forgot.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| This seems unrealistic. Especially because, as I pointed
| out in another comment, there are tons of other far easier
| ways for someone to get someone's first name at the
| airport. I think perhaps people are misunderstanding how
| this tech works: you need to be standing in specific
| coordinates for the information to be visible to you.
| lucideer wrote:
| So... someone watched Minority Report and didn't get that it was
| intended to be dystopian...
|
| Or didn't care
| fourthark wrote:
| Sure, we shouldn't expect privacy from cameras and biometrics.
|
| But doesn't this mean that 20 people behind you see where you are
| going, your flier points, etc?
|
| I'd find that embarrassing, personally.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| In fairness people can already see where you're going at an
| airport. Almost everyone sits at the gate for their flight if
| they're not waiting in a lounge. And it's not points but
| frequent flyer status. Minor distinction sure.
| ghaff wrote:
| >frequent flyer status
|
| Which they also already more or less see (modulo credit cards
| and other ways you can board early).
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Exactly. This isn't privacy preserving but it's also opt-in
| and shows stuff that's already fairly obvious to people at
| the airport.
| bronco21016 wrote:
| Isn't the idea of the tech that only the intended person sees
| it? When I've walked by I haven't caught a glimpse of anyone's
| info. I haven't walked up close to a person viewing it though.
| It must have some FOV that allows "spying".
| hadleybelter wrote:
| The point of this technology is that the 20 people behind
| cannot see the same thing you do. This isn't just "Jane is
| walking past, let's display Jane's information on the TV now".
| The point is that this technology has pixels that selectively
| beam Jane's information to Jane and only Jane, while
| simultaneously beaming OtherPerson's information to OtherPerson
| and only OtherPerson.
|
| It's very cool technology. The one thing I don't see any
| information on is how precise it can be (like if I'm standing
| directly next to Jane rather than 15 feet away, will I see
| Jane's info?).
| jkestner wrote:
| Since we don't see any details on the precision, it's hard to
| make the statement that others can't see your information. If
| this is a lenticular display, then anyone standing in your
| line of sight will see what you see.
|
| I'm more concerned about protecting my privacy from
| organizations, but I think privacy concerns regarding other
| viewers can be addressed by not displaying anything
| personally tied to you. The name is cute for a demo, but I
| don't need to see my name, just my flight. I'll know it's
| mine.
| fourthark wrote:
| Interesting, thanks. I wonder how narrow the angle of
| personalized viewing is.
| bmitc wrote:
| This is me just completely guessing, but I would assume
| it's probably pretty close to how close someone would need
| to be standing next to you to see the same information on
| the phone.
| bri3d wrote:
| System is described in US Patent 10778962.
|
| The claims are actually written pretty well. It's like looking
| through a bunch of magnifying glasses at an LCD. Depending on
| what angle and distance you look through the magnifying glass
| from, you see a magnified image of one specific area (a diffuser
| is employed so you don't end up peeping the sub-pixels, which is
| also why the color depth is very limited). With detailed tracking
| of your location, the software can switch the pixels underneath
| the magnifying glasses you're looking through to produce a
| coherent image at a subsampled resolution.
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US10778962B2/en?oq=1077896...
| tpmx wrote:
| Their first prototype used a grid of off-the-shelf portable
| "pico projectors" (half a million pixels per projector was
| mentioned, so perhaps each pixel had 800x600 "rays").
|
| https://youtu.be/p1b3wEsFlCY?t=913 (2018)
| bri3d wrote:
| The patent mentions this system a few times, and it sounds
| like they moved away from this model due to mainly
| cost/benefit and scale up reasons. Laser pico projectors are
| certainly an easy way to do this, they're literally just a
| laser aimed using a mirror and you can steer a beam exactly
| where you want it. I'm surprised they're not hacked on more
| as they're probably one of the coolest gadgets around
| technology wise.
| technothrasher wrote:
| This seems more like a dystopian technology demo than a useful
| advancement in airport signage.
| aerovistae wrote:
| Disagree, I think it's incredibly cool.
| pbourke wrote:
| How is it adding utility vs the usual ways that you can
| access this information? (Paper boarding pass, mobile phone,
| public flights board)
| pessimizer wrote:
| It adds the utility of normalizing controversial uses of
| technology and tracking that are usually hidden behind the
| scenes out of fear of upsetting people.
|
| Now, if laws on facial recognition are proposeded that keep
| this from working, there will be an army of millions of
| commenters protesting _the government overreach that is
| restraining innovation_.
| aerovistae wrote:
| I'm not arguing that it's crucial, but I think it's a neat
| convenience. Everyone has spent time scanning through that
| list trying to find their flight to see what gate it's at
| and whether it's leaving on time, information that can
| change and may not be up to date on the boarding pass.
| okennedy wrote:
| A technology demo can be both incredibly cool, while still
| having significant negative implications. 16-year old me
| dreamed about this sort of tech. Current me has seen Minority
| Report and is not comfortable with faceless corporations
| unilaterally deciding they want an intimate, personal
| relationship with me.
|
| Technology is a tool, neither intrinsically good nor evil.
| Unfortunately the tech industry has, as a whole, shown a
| stark disrespect for the needs or desires of individuals.
| Tech culture values monetization over individual autonomy,
| and that shows little sign of changing. Unfortunately,
| without a dramatic culture shift, it will continue to be the
| case that otherwise amazingly incredibly cool tech like this
| gets subverted to force more "personal" interactions.
| knoke wrote:
| I guess these are the relevant patents:
| https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Albert+Han+Ng
| headcanon wrote:
| I actually tried this last week. The way they advertised it
| sounded like some kind of AR technology but it was pretty vague.
| I wasn't in a rush to my gate and there wasn't anybody else using
| it, so I thought "why not?" and scanned my boarding pass, and
| sure enough, my info appeared on the screen in big letters. I
| didn't know about the unique properties of the screen, which I
| suppose are interesting, but it was otherwise pretty
| underwhelming given it didn't display anything different than
| what was already on my Delta app. Beyond that, I wasn't
| personally concerned at any privacy implications at that time
| (especially given there wasn't anybody around, and if there were
| they didn't care), but I can definitely understand why others
| would be put off.
|
| It's at best an expensive gimmick. McNamara terminal at DTW is a
| Delta-only hub so it makes sense Delta would put it there as a
| marketing stunt.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Cool tech, I have to say.
|
| But... Clearly it opens up a big can of privacy worms. I suppose
| at an airport this will work because nobody really has any
| expectation of privacy there anymore.
|
| The question is more about what's next. I'm walking through the
| local high street and the signs try to point me to the local Ecco
| shop because I bought my shoes more than a year ago?
| 13of40 wrote:
| I traveled internationally for the first time since 2019
| recently. Coming back to Seattle, I was prepared for an hour of
| queuing up at kiosks, getting body scanned, getting facially
| recognized, etc. to get back into the country. To my surprise,
| I just had one guy ask me 3 questions and point what looked
| like a cheap webcam at my face. On the one hand, that's
| convenient. On the other hand it probably means they've gotten
| so good in the last couple of years they can know everything
| about you by pointing a cheap webcam at your face, and all that
| other stuff is just redundant now.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yeah it makes you wonder...
|
| I think a lot of efforts have been refocused on Corona
| prevention over the last two years. And a lot of security
| workers were laid off during this time. In the Netherlands
| (and several other EU countries) the airports are in total
| chaos now because they are so understaffed.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if some formalities that were always
| of questionable effectiveness (often known as security
| theater) were just toned down a bit.
|
| Also, your passport photo is probably in a database somewhere
| already :) They're supposed to delete it after issuing the
| passport, but there have been several incidents noted by
| privacy watchdogs where the government 'forgot' to actually
| do this (and the fingerprints too).
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| What I'd be concerned isn't improved ads, but lack of such tech
| in healthcare and civil services.
|
| All these cameras should be able to predict heart attack, let
| alone calling ambulance and immediately knowing your entire
| health history and next best action...
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Even if it's used 'for good' I'd have a problem with that.
|
| And not just me, in the Netherlands we had a huge public
| discussion about a central health register, and the end
| result was an opt-in which many people didn't do.
|
| As far as I know it's still opt-in. I never opted in, though
| I don't live there anymore. And here in Spain I don't have a
| choice, they're not as privacy-conscious here.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Go to a private clinic and you'll have your privacy
|
| If healthcare is socialise IMO it's worth contributing your
| data, not only taxes.
| duxup wrote:
| Can't I just scan a boarding pass and get the info and not do a
| bunch of biometric stuff?
| wrycoder wrote:
| I need one of those displays.
| tjr225 wrote:
| Did they ever stop to consider that everyone is already carrying
| a screen that only they can see in their pockets?
| a-dub wrote:
| interesting. kinda like 5g beam forming for light rays.
|
| i wonder what the pixels are? something that looks like
| repurposed mems projector elements maybe? one hundred rays per
| pixel is pretty impressive.
|
| it would be fun to try and confuse the head tracking/labeling.
| mmaunder wrote:
| The underlying tech is pretty cool:
| https://www.misappliedsciences.com/home/technology.html
|
| Those concerned about privacy should consider that you're already
| on camera being captured and having algorithms applied to your
| likeness. The only change with this implementation is that you're
| aware of it, and directly benefit from facial recognition and
| location tracking.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| The old adage that "what you don't know can't hurt you" refers
| only to problems of the mind. For all that I do believe you
| have no expectation of privacy in public, I believe that
| enables undirected actions, like you being photographed in the
| back of someone's photo, or even some amount of directed
| action, like someone taking a picture of you because you look
| funny and they're gonna laugh at you. I do believe that
| omnidirectional actions like "Have map of what everyone is
| doing in the public space" are actually quite different and
| open for debate.
|
| I don't have a problem with this technology being applied at
| Amazon Go stores - a specific contract exists between you and
| Amazon that they're tracking you inside their private space. I
| don't have a problem with Walmart installing the same
| technology, but I would choose not to patronize Walmart because
| of it. I do have a problem with Walmart installing it looking
| out onto the street and then selling the data to anyone who
| wants to know positions of passerbys in New York.
|
| Ultimately, there is some power imbalance here, and technology
| should act as agents for humanity, not as it's overlord.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Gotta love the name of the company
| akira2501 wrote:
| > and directly benefit from facial recognition and location
| tracking.
|
| A fixed board in a fixed location with fixed information inside
| of a giant terminal? While I'm walking around with a computer
| in my pocket that also doubles as a telephone? And in the
| video, this is apparently the same phone I just used to check
| in?
|
| This feels like there's zero actual benefit to me. It's maybe a
| great benefit to whoever makes the boards and whoever at the
| airport is getting the kickback.
| lattalayta wrote:
| Yeah I would much rather use the new live notifications that
| auto-update in iOS than something like this
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > While I'm walking around with a computer in my pocket that
| also doubles as a telephone? And in the video, this is
| apparently the same phone I just used to check in?
|
| This indeed seems like a glaring oversight
|
| > It's maybe a great benefit to whoever makes the boards and
| whoever at the airport is getting the kickback.
|
| Bingo :) Follow the money.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| It'd be great for trains in countries where they only
| announce the platform shortly before boarding.
|
| It's such a hassle to find the departure on a giant board and
| monitor it closely among a sea of boarding times.
|
| This is especially bad when you're running late and suddenly
| you have to stop your frantic race to the gate to
| methodically peruse the board.
| kortex wrote:
| Exactly this. Why should anyone be able to potentially see
| any of my personal info? (I doubt whatever parallax effect or
| whatnot magic tech is perfect - it's gonna eventually leak).
|
| I'm already glued to my phone at the airport because that's
| where my flight info is, and it's not a static location, it's
| always with me.
|
| Who is this for? The subset of people without smartphones but
| comfortable with Minority Report-esque targeted display
| boards?
| Group_B wrote:
| They already have normal info screens at the terminal,
| might as well make it fancy
| helipad wrote:
| I know there are privacy concerns with this kind of thing but I
| think it's a nice use of technology.
|
| I recently came back into the US as a Global Entry member and
| didn't even have to get my passport out of my pocket. I'm not
| even a US national. Face scan as the e-gate and straight through.
| The scanner didn't even have a lag, it probably already predicted
| I was walking up before I did. No awkwardly scanning to get the
| right angle, or putting my passport in multiple times to scan. No
| human in the loop. Are there terrifying ways that could be bad?
| Absolutely. Technically impressive and convenient? Yep.
| drblast wrote:
| This seems like the first step to implementing personalized ads
| everywhere.
|
| Opt out? You get the most annoying ones.
| nmeagent wrote:
| At this point any personalized ads I see are effectively ads
| for a competing product (possibly the always competitive
| _nothing_ product). I 'm personally already pissed off by
| Internet surveillance capitalism; if tone deaf ad firms want to
| try and bring personalized psychological manipulation into
| public spaces as well, I doubt it will have quite the reaction
| that they expect.
| JorgeGT wrote:
| Straight from the Minority Report 2002 movie. Add a beamforming
| loudspeaker array for personalized audio and that's it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiDMlFycNrw
| mgraczyk wrote:
| The photo and initial description are more dystopian than
| reality. I found this video showing the screen at the airport.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ECXBi2w9kZU
|
| People who are concerned about things like privacy should
| remember that humans are incredibly adaptable socially. We
| quickly learn and socialize norms around new technology. For
| example, people will learn to avoid crowding when viewing screens
| like this. The amount of space and privacy people give one
| another will depend on the customs and personal boundaries that
| already exist in the local culture.
|
| It's already culturally unacceptable in some places to read a
| newspaper over a stranger's shoulder. People will learn the same
| behaviors for this.
|
| Also, it's opt-in.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| And here comes the politically incorrect angle-- the US has a
| lot of immigrants coming from cultures where personal
| boundaries aren't quite respected and don't make an effort to
| adopt US norms around it. Granted, a subset of Americans don't
| respect personal space either.
|
| This is a tricky problem to tackle because, fundamentally,
| things that rely on particular social behavior to work may not
| work as intended. It's analogous to how in certain parts of the
| country you could leave your door unlocked and farm stands
| would have boxes you could put money in and no one would steal
| it. Try doing that in San Francisco...
|
| In all likelihood, that will be the crux of making something
| like this viable everywhere.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Painting every immigrant in the US with one broad brush? And
| somehow connecting bad behavior (or behavior you don't like)
| with their immigration status? Can you provide any evidence
| for this incredible claim?
|
| I regularly interact with many immigrants from many cultures,
| and have for many years in many places. I've been to the
| countries many immigrants come from. I see none of this. They
| aren't animals, they are people as smart as you and me; even
| when they are used to different norms, they are intelligent
| social human beings, they can see what's going on, and they
| adjust - just like you do. Perhaps the cultures where they
| come from are better behaved than what you were raised in.
|
| Everyone in the US, with few exceptions, comes from
| immigrants. There is no one 'culture' in the US; it changes
| by space and time, even from me to my housemate to my
| neighbor. Drive across the country and see. Look how US
| culture has changed in just the last 6 years.
|
| > Try doing that in San Francisco...
|
| What on earth does that have to do with immigrants?
| mgraczyk wrote:
| I don't really agree with this. I think immigrants to the US
| integrate surprisingly well in all the ways that matter.
| Nearly all invasions of my personal space that happen in San
| Francisco are from people who are clearly not immigrants. If
| anything I think immigrants tend to be more cautious when
| interacting with non-immigrants.
| sixothree wrote:
| I wonder if this could be used on smaller devices to correct
| vision issues? Maybe it could recognize I don't have my glasses
| and adjust accordingly.
| kosyblysk666 wrote:
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is a neat idea.
|
| Privacy is important, but at the airport we assume we've
| basically signed up to be poked, prodded, probed, scanned, and
| tracked, right? Might as well do some neat magic tricks as a side
| effect. For me at least, this will remain novel and impressive,
| because try to minimize the amount of time I spend at the airport
| (I don't actually _want_ to be poked, prodded, scanned, and
| tracked).
| Group_B wrote:
| Helped assemble the lenses and lcd's for these. Currently working
| on the next version which will have bigger lenses and LCD's.
| Better pixel resolution.
| munchler wrote:
| I assume that somewhere in the fine print, you are agreeing to
| have your location data shared with their commercial "partners"?
| yucky wrote:
| Well of course, but if you have nothing to hide why would that
| bother you?
|
| /s
| mleonhard wrote:
| This company will bring personalized ads to the highway, bus
| stops, malls, and restaurants. They will make a lot of money and
| use most of it to record what we look at and how long, and store
| it forever.
|
| I predict that these ads will eventually be like Tiktok. Every
| moment that your eyes pause on an ad will be recorded. They will
| use the data to pick videos that are better at holding your
| attention. The videos will be super interesting or shocking, with
| ads interspersed.
|
| Eventually, the system will use deepfake tech to insert ad
| content into your tailored videos. As you walk past a shoe store,
| your eyes linger for a second on a particular shoe style. Half a
| block later, the bus stop ad shows the latest Tiktok fad video
| but the people are wearing the shoe style you looked at.
|
| Eventually, the video ads will cause a lot of vehicle accidents
| and will get banned on roads. Then the billboards will show
| static ads, but still personalized and still recording your gaze
| as you drive by.
|
| Some people will die from exposure after standing in front of ads
| for too long. There will be lawsuits. School districts will sue
| to have the adboards removed from near schools. Vending machines
| will let you pay by watching ads.
|
| The ad companies will categorize people as desirable and
| undesirable. When an undesirable is standing in front of a
| billboard, the system will show a blank screen or a disgusting
| video to make them leave.
|
| With so much face & eyeball data, the billboards can pick audio
| or a video+audio tracks to maximize their income. A group of
| teenagers are watching a music video on the board. The audio
| suddenly switches to an ad for expensive men's clothing, just as
| a wealthy man walks around the corner in earshot of the board.
|
| Directional audio tech will add personalized audio to the
| adboards. Adboards will increase volume to reach people across
| the street. Cities will get much louder. Vandals will use spray
| glue to damage directional audio systems.
|
| Personally, I don't want my physical movements and eye gaze
| recorded. Only regulation can prevent it. We need regulation now,
| before the companies get too powerful.
| pizzathyme wrote:
| This started out very insightful and turned into a weird fan
| fiction right around "vehicle accidents".
|
| I think most of the things you predict prior to that will be
| accurate.
| nairboon wrote:
| Sounds like a black mirror episode
| blantonl wrote:
| This sounds freaking awesome.
|
| Wait. Actually... no it doesn't.
|
| The more I think about it, this sounds freaking terrifying.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| It sounds terrific... in both the original (terror-inducing)
| and modern (amazing) senses of the word.
| post_break wrote:
| This makes me think of the Nintendo 3Ds. It tracks your head and
| makes the image 3D. Only this is much more of a privacy screen
| style 3D. Nifty.
| dgudkov wrote:
| What exactly problem does it solve?
| cmroanirgo wrote:
| > _Delta passengers can opt in to the experience by scanning
| their boarding pass once they are through the security checkpoint
| in Concourse A of DTW's McNamara Terminal. Customers enrolled in
| Delta's biometric digital identity program need only show their
| faces to a camera at the kiosk._
|
| At this point, despite the apparent good use case in this
| instance, we technologists should be exceedingly mindful of the
| dystopian future we're giving our overlords. I know many here on
| HN are aware of the great social responsibility, but all too many
| of us are willing to implement this stuff for the lolz or the
| money alone. Do I want cameras recording me and going through an
| increasingly disproportionate number if ML systems? What about
| the data? Where does it go? Who is in control of any one singular
| ML system running these things? What happens when that company
| starts failing? My data, my biometrics... all sold to the highest
| bidder.
| [deleted]
| riedel wrote:
| For a research prototype we just used a mobile phones
| acceleration sensors to couple a phone (who uses printed
| boarding passes) with the tracker. No biometrics needed.
| Tracking does not survive the camera context.
|
| Considering that there are alternatives you really wonder why
| they care about biometrics. You could probably also generate
| other types of markers that are stable without needing sth you
| have to stick with for the rest of your life...
| matt123456789 wrote:
| Sounds like wasted effort. When's the last time you heard about
| a technology not being invented because developers decided it
| shouldn't be invented? As long as there's a legal business
| case, you'll find someone who can and will build it for you.
| But I agree with the sentiment. I think that the right place to
| concentrate your efforts if you don't like a technology is
| through the legal system. Regulations and laws.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >we technologists should be exceedingly mindful of the
| dystopian future we're giving our overlords
|
| Look, at this point, you know it is inevitable that this
| dystopian future you speak of is going to happen. Why not just
| embrace it now and live worry free since you will no longer
| need to be concerned about it happening. You're less productive
| to the overloards when you're stressed. /s
| rbanffy wrote:
| It's out of sci-fi, in the sense sci-fi's job is to prevent the
| future more than predict it.
|
| Nice job everyone.
| mLuby wrote:
| > CEO of Misapplied Sciences, the company that created the
| product
|
| Name is spot on. Facial recognition is too creepy to live.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-16 23:01 UTC)