Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

flynnibus

Premium Member
You yourself have said that we do not know enough about the system to come to certain conclusions or to make certain assumptions, so how can you then say that this is just an incremental change? Do you know everything they plan to track and collect and how they are going to use that information compared to what they collect and do with that information now? Your argument works both ways.

No - that's a logic fail. It's not flippable because we are excluding things, not making them equals. Understanding how radio and computers work.. and knowing what is feasible.. has nothing to do with acting definitively over what options the company will pursue (which is what Parentof4 is doing).He's ready to cry bloody murder because his options are taken away from him.. when he doesn't even know what the options are.

Again, when does a corporation cross that line of going too far with regard to tracking and collecting personal data?

I think that is a personal choice - but IMO, it has to do more with the company's actions rather than the data itself. Just like the company having my credit card info is not nefarious in itself, but in doing so they have the potential to abuse it. That hasn't made me believe they should never have my credit card info... even tho the risk exists.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Up to your MM+ modus operandi, aren't you? Attack the messenger. You still haven't put together a coherent defense of the use of RFID technology on humans. The best you can manage is the feeble "That's just the way it is."

Attack the messenger? Please.. if you think it's so freaking horrible.. do something about it. Pick up the phone and make the call. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. You haven't seen me attack the messenger...

As for 'RFID on humans' - your whole argument has been predicated on a court case cite you've misapplied from the very onset. Its not my fault you fail to continue to distinguish the importance of government vs private and the idea that protection under DUE PROCESS is the reasoning behind that case - not some human rights crap. So no - I'm not going to keep arguing over something because you don't get it. I can't force the horse to drink. It's why I put you on ignore.. arguing with a fool people might confuse me for one.

Slavery was the law of the land for centuries so no need to question it.

Segregation was the law of the land for another 100 years so no need to question it.

Women's suffrage wasn't fully realized until 1920 so no need to question it.

Companies that are spending millions on lobbyists in Washington are allowed to use RFID devices so no need to question it.

Throw in the Nazis so you can save yourself the effort later.. :rolleyes:

If you don't like what I write then simply use the Ignore button

You were on ignore.. and I now regret removing it.

In the meantime, as long as anyone tries to defend MM+'s invasion of our civil liberties, I'll question it.

My motives are based on my sense of freedom. I don't want my children living in a world where it's acceptable for them to be tracked.

What are your motives?

Motives? It's a discussion and I'm using reason and rational thinking. My motive is interest in my hobby of Disney. The martyr forum is three doors down on the left.
 

Figments Friend

Well-Known Member
-
The answer is hidden within this thread...but i will save you the trouble of looking for it...

The photo is of the *famous* HIdden 74 at DHS.
Fans can have fun trying to guess where this breaker box is......

:)
 

docnabox

Active Member
What alternative would you suggest? That all contact between a customer and company automatically stop anytime a privacy policy is required? How would you suggest necessary changes in policy be allowed and executed?

What is wrong with the current model, which generally is.. we change the terms.. we notify you.. you have the option to agree, or leave.

What change process would you prefer?

Don't confuse this with 'rules I don't think you should be allowed to make to begin with'. We are talking how to handle CHANGE here - not what they can do in the first place. What they can do or not is not relevant to the text in question.



Ok, what would you prefer to have happened differently? If you want to complain about process - lets be specific.

The story to date isn't how they are being compensated.. the story has been about the conditions on board the 'hardships' people have to deal with because they can't get somewhere on time.

If you want to harp on how they are being compensated for their experience.. that is a god awful slippery slope. The people are already having all their cruise fees refunded, new travel expenses covered, and credits for future trips.

Lost in all of this - is the fact that a major disaster was adverted and no one was hurt. Fire at sea is a deadly situation. Instead we focus on the inconvenience of having to in a bucket and not get the meals we desire.

Who do we sue for 'inconvenience' when natural disaster strikes and heaven forbid people don't get coddled.

I am not sure if you were just trying to be flippant about what these people on the Triumph just went through or if you are seriously out of touch. I think just about anyone would say that the passengers aboard that ship were more than just "inconvenienced," as you put it. They certainly weren't "coddled" and I don't think that expecting a corporation like Carnival to make significant restitution for what happened and what could have happened is unreasonable. I guess it will be up to the individual passenger to determine whether having their fares refunded and travel fees compensated is significant but I certainly don't think that offering me another trip free of charge with them would fly and I wonder just how many of those people will take them up on that offer.

These people were not just "ing in a bucket." Raw sewage was overflowing into the hallways as the ship listed. I hope you can recognize the health hazards that carries for everyone on board. Further, I don't think that anyone is focusing on the fact that people didn't get the food they "desired." From the reports I read, food was being rationed, so this is not a case of having to settle for baked alaska because they were fresh out of creme brulee.

Certainly, it is something to be thankful for that nobody was hurt when the fire started and I bet everyone of those passengers is happy to be alive. But what is lost in your response and what you and and anyone that might be considering a cruise should focus on is that this is the third such incident for Carnival over a couple of years. They also own Costa and I think everyone remembers what happened there last year when the Concordia capsized and later, the Allegra had an engine fire and was dead in the water. What's lost in this is why did the engine fire occur (and why have two Carnival owned ships had engine fires recenty) and why did it cause as much havoc as it did. What's lost in this is why was there not e better designed contingency plan in place because as you said, fire at sea is a deadly thing.

So, if you were being flippant, you shouldn't be so quick to be so. If you just didn't know the extent of all of this, maybe you should read up. And if I misunderstood your response, I apologize. But if you seriously think these passengers didn't just go through Hell and just think that they suffered a "hardship because they couldn't get somewhere on time," then you sound like a corporate apologist and are pretty insensitive.
 

thehowiet

Wilson King of Prussia
No - that's a logic fail. It's not flippable because we are excluding things, not making them equals. Understanding how radio and computers work.. and knowing what is feasible.. has nothing to do with acting definitively over what options the company will pursue (which is what Parentof4 is doing).He's ready to cry bloody murder because his options are taken away from him.. when he doesn't even know what the options are.

I still don't understand how it's any different for you to definitely say this new system is just an incremental add to what currently exists as far as tracking and data collection when you argued earlier that we don't know enough about the new system yet to come to any conclusions. Again, do you know for sure that the level of tracking and that the data collected from the new system is an "incremental add" when compared to the current system? Do you know exactly what they intend to track and where all the readers will be to say that for sure? If not, how can you say for sure that it's merely an incremental add?

It sure seems like a lot of trouble to go through and a lot of money to spend for just an incremental add....
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I still don't understand how it's any different for you to definitely say this new system is just an incremental add to what currently exists as far as tracking and data collection when you argued earlier that we don't know enough about the new system yet to come to any conclusions. Again, do you know for sure that the level of tracking and that the data collected from the new system is an "incremental add" when compared to the current system? Do you know exactly what they intend to track and where all the readers will be to say that for sure? If not, how can you say for sure that it's merely an incremental add?

It sure seems like a lot of trouble to go through and a lot of money to spend for just an incremental add....

I don't think anyone really knows what they will and will not do with this system. We could all just wait for the system to be fully implemented to comment, but then there would be no discussion. Assumptions are being made on both sides of the argument which is necessary since we still don't have all the facts and may never really know. Does anyone know for sure how much information Disney currently compiles on customers? They have the ability to track how much you are spending on park tickets, rooms, merchandise and food on vacation already using the current room keys and also what you are doing online with any Disney family site. They could be tracking and compiling some of this data already. If that is the case then Nextgen is taking this data mining to the next level.
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Flynn, you probably know this info, how long before they phase out the RFID Cards and require everyone to at least carry a magicband? The cards don't have the battery operated 2.4 GHz RF Transmitter. I am pretty sure they REALLY want everyone to have that RF Transmitter on them.
 

thehowiet

Wilson King of Prussia
I don't think anyone really knows what they will and will not do with this system. We could all just wait for the system to be fully implemented to comment, but then there would be no discussion. Assumptions are being made on both sides of the argument which is necessary since we still don't have all the facts and may never really know. Does anyone know for sure how much information Disney currently compiles on customers? They have the ability to track how much you are spending on park tickets, rooms, merchandise and food on vacation already using the current room keys and also what you are doing online with any Disney family site. They could be tracking and compiling some of this data already. If that is the case then Nextgen is taking this data mining to the next level.

I agree with what you're saying. The point I was trying to make in my discussion with flynn is that if we are to truly take a "let's wait and see" stance (but how fun would that really be?) then we also need to avoid calling the new system an incremental add. It may very well be an incremental add, but until we know for sure "let's wait and see" before we state that as fact.

Having said that, I still think this is an interesting topic to debate so I enjoy reading what others post, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Hence, why I am having a hard time taking a "let's wait and see" approach.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Flynn, you probably know this info, how long before they phase out the RFID Cards and require everyone to at least carry a magicband? The cards don't have the battery operated 2.4 GHz RF Transmitter. I am pretty sure they REALLY want everyone to have that RF Transmitter on them.

Of course I don't know that type of info - I only know what Disney has shared on their website. What we don't know is if the active radio will be used individually - or only 'en mass' meaning is it's purpose to simply increase range? Or is it's purpose to track entirely different concepts like crowd movement/tendencies. Is it purely for modeling, or is it tied to the personalization aspects? Those are all things that could influence the importance of the usage pickup of the bands. I would think if they were critical to the foundation - they would be rolled out quicker. But I don't think the bands are all that desirable to everyone. I expect future applications to drive demand for them.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I still don't understand how it's any different for you to definitely say this new system is just an incremental add to what currently exists as far as tracking and data collection when you argued earlier that we don't know enough about the new system yet to come to any conclusions

You are mixing and matched posts to draw a link that wasn't there. The posts about 'wait and see' have to do with Disney's choices in terms of what they offer.. be it what FP groups.. how many credits.. if they will hold back capacity for day of.. what opt outs will be available.. those are all implementation choices. What you are trying to connect that to (incorrectly).. is the discussion that they had the ability to track your interactions prior, vs what they have the ability to now. That statement does not hinge of unknown future choices - it's based on the simple facts that Disney customers have been running around with a token (their ticket or KTTW) all this time, volunteering that token to Disney's systems which offers an interaction for Disney to capture, and model from. Using credit cards, the reservation system, etc, all offer similar traceable interaction points.

Again, do you know for sure that the level of tracking and that the data collected from the new system is an "incremental add" when compared to the current system?

It's incremental because the core concept does not change. You carry a token, which allows your presence to be logged - the difference now is the precision of that system. Instead of disparent points, that not necessarily everyone is participating in, you get more granular points with greater participation. You increase the detail of the data - not change the concept of the data.

Do you know exactly what they intend to track and where all the readers will be to say that for sure? If not, how can you say for sure that it's merely an incremental add?

You don't need to know those details to understand the concepts. Their choices here are important in terms of how far they can go... but the core principles are the same. You are still being monitored within the concept of a theme park resort. If anything, the most radical changes are expanding the areas you can be followed where you might not have had much chance for previously... like a water park, or on resort properties. But we must also remember they are doing these things for a purpose.. so while someone may freak out and go 'they can watch me as I wander through the parking lot!!!' - sure, but there needs to be a reason for them to bother to do so. They aren't simply voyeurs.

It sure seems like a lot of trouble to go through and a lot of money to spend for just an incremental add....

Because it's not the 'addition of tracking' that is where all the value and necessarily the cost is... it's about what you DO with the data. What the big changes will be is how Disney will integrate and use the data - not that they have some new nefarious tracking capabilities that they never had before. So if you are freaking out over 'they are tracking me!!' then someone needs a reality check on the past. You should be more concerned with how the data will be applied. And this is the area we know the least about.. except when it comes to their plans to share it where they have stated they will comply with the privacy policies we've already seen.
 

trs518

Active Member
Not to defend what Disney is doing, because like it's been stated we don't know the full intentions yet, but let's try to compile a list of places and companies that track individuals. It should be interesting what we can come up with. Here is what I came up with.

1. Major retailers (via credit cards and checks)
2. Government (via taxes)
3. Libraries (via book check outs)
4. Schools (via attendance records)
5. Websites (via cookies)
6. Cell Phone Carriers (via phone location and phone calls made)
7. Employers (via badging in and out of locations)
8. Government (via toll road records)
9. Relatives/Friends (via "Where you at?", "Where are you going?",etc)
10. Buses/Planes (via tickets)
 

Lee

Adventurer
I am not sure if you were just trying to be flippant about what these people on the Triumph just went through or if you are seriously out of touch. I think just about anyone would say that the passengers aboard that ship were more than just "inconvenienced," as you put it. They certainly weren't "coddled" and I don't think that expecting a corporation like Carnival to make significant restitution for what happened and what could have happened is unreasonable. I guess it will be up to the individual passenger to determine whether having their fares refunded and travel fees compensated is significant but I certainly don't think that offering me another trip free of charge with them would fly and I wonder just how many of those people will take them up on that offer.

These people were not just "ing in a bucket." Raw sewage was overflowing into the hallways as the ship listed. I hope you can recognize the health hazards that carries for everyone on board. Further, I don't think that anyone is focusing on the fact that people didn't get the food they "desired." From the reports I read, food was being rationed, so this is not a case of having to settle for baked alaska because they were fresh out of creme brulee.

Certainly, it is something to be thankful for that nobody was hurt when the fire started and I bet everyone of those passengers is happy to be alive. But what is lost in your response and what you and and anyone that might be considering a cruise should focus on is that this is the third such incident for Carnival over a couple of years. They also own Costa and I think everyone remembers what happened there last year when the Concordia capsized and later, the Allegra had an engine fire and was dead in the water. What's lost in this is why did the engine fire occur (and why have two Carnival owned ships had engine fires recenty) and why did it cause as much havoc as it did. What's lost in this is why was there not e better designed contingency plan in place because as you said, fire at sea is a deadly thing.

So, if you were being flippant, you shouldn't be so quick to be so. If you just didn't know the extent of all of this, maybe you should read up. And if I misunderstood your response, I apologize. But if you seriously think these passengers didn't just go through Hell and just think that they suffered a "hardship because they couldn't get somewhere on time," then you sound like a corporate apologist and are pretty insensitive.
Great post.

If I had been a passenger, I would be furious that I was trapped on a mostly dead ship (no redundancies?) for the better part of five days, when Carnival could have has the ship docked in Mexico at least two days earlier.

But, hey...it would have been far less convenient and more expensive for Carnival. What's a couple more days spent in heat and filth when it makes it easier on Carnival, right?

Now I remember why I sail DCL and RCCL...
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I am not sure if you were just trying to be flippant about what these people on the Triumph just went through or if you are seriously out of touch. I think just about anyone would say that the passengers aboard that ship were more than just "inconvenienced," as you put it. They certainly weren't "coddled" and I don't think that expecting a corporation like Carnival to make significant restitution for what happened and what could have happened is unreasonable. I guess it will be up to the individual passenger to determine whether having their fares refunded and travel fees compensated is significant but I certainly don't think that offering me another trip free of charge with them would fly and I wonder just how many of those people will take them up on that offer.

Have people been in harms way? Are they at risk? Have there been any radical calls from the authorities that the boat needs to be evacuated? No

The reality is it's not enjoyable.. it stinks.. areas of the boat are soiled and disgusting.. but don't extrapolate that to mean people are being held on the edge of survival, they are all swimming in sewage 24/7, and that the passengers are being mistreated while the corporate execs just laugh and eat caviar.

It's a miserable existence because you are stuck there for days - but are they living on the edge? No. Stupid 24/7 news pounding this info everyone's face as if the world has ended.

Having to live around sewage is unpleasant - but when you stick to hygiene and watch your food supply - it's not gonna kill you. These people are not being tortured - they are being taken care of the best they can given the situation and conditions.

No it's not what you want to do on a cruise - but I hate to think anyone crying bloody murder over this ever travel to a third world country.. or have to do service in the military.

These people were not just "ing in a bucket." Raw sewage was overflowing into the hallways as the ship listed

Yes, but does that mean the entire boat was flooded with sewage? No.. as you said the boat listed and sewage backflows became a problem on the down side of the ship. Where there widespread problems? Yes - was the entire boat like that? No. Have people been walking through sewage for days? No.

Further, I don't think that anyone is focusing on the fact that people didn't get the food they "desired." From the reports I read, food was being rationed, so this is not a case of having to settle for baked alaska because they were fresh out of creme brulee.

Maybe everyone in the 40s should have sued the government because they had to suffer through rationing because that's what the situation called for. Boo @%@$%# hoo. They are in a disaster situation - people should own up to that reality. It's like having your car break down while out in the wilderness.. having to eat dry food because that's all you have.. and then crying to the state police that you didn't get three meals a day. Uhh.. reality check people? You're on a floating island with over 3000 other people in reduced conditions.

Certainly, it is something to be thankful for that nobody was hurt when the fire started and I bet everyone of those passengers is happy to be alive. But what is lost in your response and what you and and anyone that might be considering a cruise should focus on is that this is the third such incident for Carnival over a couple of years. They also own Costa and I think everyone remembers what happened there last year when the Concordia capsized and later, the Allegra had an engine fire and was dead in the water. What's lost in this is why did the engine fire occur (and why have two Carnival owned ships had engine fires recenty) and why did it cause as much havoc as it did. What's lost in this is why was there not e better designed contingency plan in place because as you said, fire at sea is a deadly thing.

One should be careful not to jump to conclusions. Three incidents in a short period - but is there a common thread or reason for it? I did not find any reports on the reason for the Allegra's fire except that the systems performed as expected in containing and extinquishing the fire. When you take out the generators.. and you're a floating island.. you can't just plug the boat in.

If you just didn't know the extent of all of this, maybe you should read up

I have been 'reading up' - and I can say I've seen similar conditions before, even had to live through them under FAR more stressful terms.. and I didn't feel the need for anyone to pay for my hardships. The saying 'we're all in the same boat' aptly applies here. If any of these people feel they've been through hell.. I suggest they sit down with someone in their family that served in a war zone or has been stranded with their life in danger and get educated on what real hell is.


But what does any of this have to do with the terms that people signed up for on the cruise...
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Great post.

If I had been a passenger, I would be furious that I was trapped on a mostly dead ship (no redundancies?) for the better part of five days, when Carnival could have has the ship docked in Mexico at least two days earlier.

But, hey...it would have been far less convenient and more expensive for Carnival. What's a couple more days spent in heat and filth when it makes it easier on Carnival, right?

BS

The reason they went to AL and changed plans was because the ship had already drifted enough that the paths were basically the same and by landing in the US it would be easier for PASSENGERS as they wouldn't have to deal with people who didn't plan with passports, etc.

And they did have redundancies - the problem is a boat is dependent on electricity - and there are no extension cords that reach it out there. They have power - just not enough power to supply the entire ship. They have power for their emergency systems.
 

thehowiet

Wilson King of Prussia
Have people been in harms way? Are they at risk? Have there been any radical calls from the authorities that the boat needs to be evacuated? No

The reality is it's not enjoyable.. it stinks.. areas of the boat are soiled and disgusting.. but don't extrapolate that to mean people are being held on the edge of survival, they are all swimming in sewage 24/7, and that the passengers are being mistreated by the corporate execs just laugh and eat caviar.

It's a miserable existence because you are stuck there for days - but are they living on the edge? No. Stupid 24/7 news pounding this info everyone's face as if the world has ended.

Having to live around sewage is unpleasant - but when you stick to hygiene and watch your food supply - it's not gonna kill you. These people are not being tortured - they are being taken care of the best they can given the situation and conditions.

No it's not what you want to do on a cruise - but I hate to think anyone crying bloody murder over this ever travel to a third world country.. or have to do service in the military.



Yes, but does that mean the entire boat was flooded with sewage? No.. as you said the boat listed and sewage backflows became a problem on the down side of the ship. Where there widespread problems? Yes - was the entire boat like that? No. Have people been walking through sewage for days? No.



Maybe everyone in the 40s should have sued the government because they had to suffer through rationing because that's what the situation called for. Boo @%@$%# hoo. They are in a disaster situation - people should own up to that reality. It's like having your car break down while out in the wilderness.. having to eat dry food because that's all you have.. and then crying to the state police that you didn't get three meals a day. Uhh.. reality check people? You're on a floating island with over 3000 other people in reduced conditions.



One should be careful not to jump to conclusions. Three incidents in a short period - but is there a common thread or reason for it? I did not find any reports on the reason for the Allegra's fire except that the systems performed as expected in containing and extinquishing the fire. When you take out the generators.. and you're a floating island.. you can't just plug the boat in.



I have been 'reading up' - and I can say I've seen similar conditions before, even had to live through them under FAR more stressful terms.. and I didn't feel the need for anyone to pay for my hardships. The saying 'we're all in the same boat' aptly applies here. If any of these people feel they've been through hell.. I suggest they sit down with someone in their family that served in a war zone or has been stranded with their life in danger and get educated on what real hell is.


But what does any of this have to do with the terms that people signed up for on the cruise...

Interesting perspective to say the least....

These hardships you speak of experiencing under far more stressful terms, did they happen to occur during a vacation you spent thousands of dollars on, or was this something you volunteered for or were paid to do? If they did occur during one of your vacations, you probably could have gotten a voucher to vacation again. Just saying, might want to look into that.
 

Lee

Adventurer
BS

The reason they went to AL and changed plans was because the ship had already drifted enough that the paths were basically the same and by landing in the US it would be easier for PASSENGERS as they wouldn't have to deal with people who didn't plan with passports, etc.

And they did have redundancies - the problem is a boat is dependent on electricity - and there are no extension cords that reach it out there. They have power - just not enough power to supply the entire ship. They have power for their emergency systems.
Conflicts with what I heard, but I won't argue the point.

As for compensation, $500 is weak and the promise of another Carnival cruise for free is very likely...umm...uninviting to those passengers.
Perhaps offering the cash equivalent in lieu of the free trip would be more appropriate.

Fact remains, once you sign your cruise documents you pretty much waive all rights to sue or collect any damages at all, no matter what happens. (Fire, capsize, riots, civil unrest, kraken, tidal wave, pirates...)
It's very one sided, to an extent that most people would be very surprised to learn of.
Wonder how it'd be different if the ships were US based and more subject to the US regulations...
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom