Let me start by stating that, whether we like it or not, Disney has the “right” to collect certain information about us. Disney can learn through legal means our gender, age, marital status, address, income bracket, etc. Furthermore, Disney has the “right” to collect information about our transactions with Disney, including park admission since this is part of a financial transaction. For practical reasons (so that FP can be evenly distributed), I personally accept that if we choose to use FP, Disney can collect that information too. Disney has the “right” to collect all this information and more, cross-reference it, and use it for legal business purposes. Hopefully, if we so choose, Disney won’t share this information with others but I even give companies leeway on this since, IMHO, these companies “own” information legally collected about us.
This type of information has been collected long before the information age by, for example, banking institutions. In general, any time we consciously interact with a system, the other party has the “right” to collect information about that transaction. IMHO, both parties should have equal access to information exchanged during a cognizant transaction and the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this to be the case, which is why the Financial Privacy Act was passed in the 1970s.
However, the “opt out” options provided by MyMagic+ do not prevent Disney from tracking us, only who might receive information collected by Disney during that tracking. As suggested by Iger’s letter, Disney intends to collect “location information” no matter which options we select. Disney indicates that we can be “tracked” with either the MagicBands or the card, although we can be tracked more effectively (i.e. with the long-range readers) if we use MagicBands.
Where I believe Disney crosses the line is in collecting this “location information” on individuals without those people actively engaging Disney’s system. When Disney follows our individual movements without our conscious knowledge, Disney is effectively stalking us. We have the “right” not to be stalked and there are laws in place to protect us against stalking.
As stated in Judge Samuel Alito in last year’s United States v. Jones Supreme Court ruling:
In the pre-computer age, the greatest protections of privacy were neither constitutional nor statutory, but practical. Traditional surveillance for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken. The surveillance at issue in this case — constant monitoring of the location of a vehicle for four weeks — would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance. Only an investigation of unusual importance could have justified such an expenditure of law enforcement resources. Devices like the one used in the present case, however, make long-term monitoring relatively easy and cheap. In circumstances involving dramatic technological change, the best solution to privacy concerns may be legislative.
In the past, our privacy was protected as a matter of practicality. It was impractical for government agencies and private corporations to follow us unless there was a reason for it. However, technology has reached the point where it has become cost-effective to "stalk" all of us all the time. I don’t want to be stalked. I want Disney to stop stalking us.
If a complete stranger followed us and our families for a week, 24 hours-per-day, we’d have a reasonable case of bringing up stalking charges against that person. Disney is a complete stranger and has the technology to track our movements throughout our entire vacation. Although Disney certainly would fail to meet the “credible threat” criteria necessary for aggravated stalking, a (weak) case could be made that Disney is engaged in simple stalking, usually a misdemeanor. The fact that Disney arm-twists us into accepting their “stalking terms” with the threat of having to wait in longer lines if we don’t agree, suggests we are not truly volunteering to be stalked by Disney. Legally, I am certain the case would be thrown out but, hopefully, this makes it a bit more apparent Disney intends to engage in a behavior that might end up landing an individual in jail. There are legal ways individuals can be tracked but, as suggested in Alito’s opinion, laws have not kept pace with technology.
Furthermore, I am greatly disturbed that Disney (with parents’ “permission” of course) intends to collect similar information on children. There are laws protecting children but, as I’ve suggested above and in other posts, this “permission” is a joke. If we fail to grant Disney permission to stalk our children, we will be “punished” at a minimum by not receiving FP+, standing in line many more hours each day as a result. We are putting ourselves and our families at significant disadvantages if we don’t “volunteer” to participate in MyMagic+. At what point does “volunteer” become coercion?
Beyond those points, Disney, like most corporations, tries to disclose as little possible when parents provide their “permission”. I strongly suspect more parents would “opt out” if they knew and understood the full extent of Disney’s MyMagic+ policies. I still believe most would give their permission but an appreciable percentage would be scared off by the invasive nature of MyMagic+. Disney does not want to scare these “guests” and so intentionally does not fully disclose, their disclosure agreements containing only the vaguest notions of Disney’s intentions.
Rep. Markey’s letter was an attempt to get Disney to fully disclose. Despite Iger’s protest to the contrary, Iger’s letter clearly contained new information that previously was unavailable from any official Disney source.