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.
> 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.
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.
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 5° next to you, but never to you?
If your stalker knew you were taking a flight and bought an airplane ticket just to get pass security and is currently right behind you — after you have opted into this — you’re in big trouble already.
If they're in the airport terminal looking at the same screen you are, can't they just watch which gate you use to board your flight? There's a big screen right by it that tells everyone who can see it where you're going.
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.
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).
But how would they know who is entering the viewing area without facial recognition? Eg if you go to the bathroom, come out, and walk to a viewing area
> 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.
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.
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.
I was replying to the parent, who asked why someone might be sensitive about these data points.
I don’t claim to know the fidelity of the targeting. If someone is walking behind you in the same line and can see the data, I can see feeling concerned. If it’s truly being beamed right to your eyeballs, not an issue.
Are we really going to stop progress in the name of your wife? She can just opt out of the feature. Perhaps she should opt in to a burka or a covid mask.
I think you’ve taken this to an extreme that I didn’t.
I’m explaining why women traveling alone might not want strange men to know their name and destination.
But if you want to debate the merits: It’s unclear to me that this particular technology constitutes progress in a meaningful way. Show me my flight info on my smart glasses, or play me a recording of my gate info over my earbuds. I’m not interested in some janky billboard I have to stand in front of to get a tiny bit of information that is in no way hard to find.
I certainly don’t believe the benefits of this tech justify any level of privacy loss. Again, if targeting is sufficiently good, maybe this is a non issue.
Generally I lean toward the view that the right amount of privacy to trade for technology is “none.” But I’m willing to make exceptions for particularly useful innovation.
Fair enough, I do think it's kind of cool if there's no loss of privacy and it's a direct beam-to-eyeballs. But there isn't much about the actual tech provided.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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 hypothetical system also broadcasts your credit card number while you're at it, and say that you would find this quite troubling indeed.
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.
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.
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.
They might know that Vlad is going to gate Los Angeles at gate A5. But, even assuming this display is not precise, how are they going to know that I'm Vlad?
They will know that someone around them matches that information, but airports are generally busy places. Especially with new technology that people would want to try out.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.