This seems reasonable. They seem to be implementing this technology with hashes [1] and they are deleting the data within 30 days.
Some more things to consider:
- Walt Disney World has already been using fingerprints to verify access card and person match so you don’t share entrance passes for many years.
- You are already on private property in a setting with no expectation of privacy.
- Disney has been recording guests on security cameras since before the digital era. Your ride vehicle is always in sight of active video surveillance for ride safety purposes. You have been tracked in various ways inside the property for years and that’s not that crazy, again, considering you’re on private property.
- Universal Studios also uses entry photography likely for the exact same purpose
This is all not to say that these things being normalized doesn’t make them right but, still, I think it’s very not new stuff here. This in my opinion seems like the exact kind of environment where this kind of thing is reasonable.
They’ve basically been doing all of this already and the only difference now is that it’s used specifically for entrance gate purposes.
[1] from Disney’s statement linked within the article:
> These entrance lanes: (1) use images of your face taken by a camera at the entrance and the image of your face that was saved when you first used the ticket or pass; (2) employ biometric technology to convert those images into unique numerical values; (3) compare the numerical values to find a match; and (4) except in cases where data must be maintained for legal or fraud-prevention purposes, delete all numerical values within 30 days of creation. Participation is optional. Entrance lanes that do not employ facial recognition technology are also available.
"In a setting with no expectation of privacy"
This line of thinking is outdated. That sort of phrase was coined before the advent of data tracking agencies, ad agencies, digital cameras, unlimited video and audio retention.
I understand I cannot expect complete privacy from another individual on the street, although a random person seeing me and being recorded, tracked, analzyed and then targeted via ads and used in AI training is a different sort of privacy violation in my opinion. I don't see why we can't or shouldn't expect companies to not employe privacy raping technology just because we are out in "public".
"This in my opinion seems like the exact kind of environment where this kind of thing is reasonable."
Why? Disneyland first opening in 1955, for 50 years they ran fine without cameras, facial recognition, etc. Are we forgetting not too long ago we lived in a world without all of this and we were perfectly fine? The common cop outs like "crime" and "abuse" will occur if cameras didn't exist are stupid. Crime is significantly higher now, despite 24/7 surveillance and tracking. We are also kidding ourselves if we think they are ONLY using it for protection. All this data is fed straight into 900+ shell companies (many of which are ramps for the feds).
No expectation of privacy does not mean that I don't think privacy laws should protect visitors to that property. It just means that as a wide concept, you are on someone else's property and they're allowed to observe you with the exception of privacy spaces like restrooms.
I will remind us all Disneyland already operates in a state with relatively strong privacy laws and I imagine they are following CCPA.
What I mean by "no expectation of privacy" is that businesses are allowed to monitor their premises and, yeah, they're allowed to observe their customers and make business decisions based on those observations. There's nothing inherently morally or legally wrong with that.
If you come into my bakery I'm allowed to watch you and observe that you like buying more cinnamon rolls than donuts and write down that information. If you don't like that I do that, you have the choice to not visit my property.
> Are we forgetting not too long ago we lived in a world without all of this and we were perfectly fine?
Again this is private property. We're all free to not go there. My private property didn't have a security camera in 1995, but I chose to add one in 2026. It's irrelevant to you why I chose to do that or whether you feel like I was perfectly fine before I added it. It's my property. If you don't like it, stay off of it. If we were talking about the state government putting AI tracking cameras on the streets or peeking into homes I would have a much different stance (e.g., I am very much against Flock's business).
[flagged]
I'm confused.
Did everyone forget about the years they were wandering around with MagicBands with both short- and long-range RFID designed for Disney to customize experiences directly down to the personal level?
Unlike your face, the magic band can be removed when you leave the park.
Don't forget the Disneyland/Disney World apps. They're used for a whole lot of stuff in the park.
> You are already on private property in a setting with no expectation of privacy.
Ah yes, so let's double, triple and quadruple down on the invasive practices, then. That's sound logic.
Would it be invasive for you to be required to walk around naked? Because naturism resorts with those rules exist.
These examples, of course, does not bother you because you decide not to go to them if you don't want to go to them.
I am not advocating for a complete lack of privacy laws. Disney isn't allowed to put cameras in bathrooms. Disney is required to comply with CCPA in California. I'm just pointing out that private property owners are allowed to generally do this stuff, and pointing out that Disney seems to have some privacy measures in place (e.g., utilizing hashes, having a short retention window, etc).
What if tickets where given with devices; the device would hold the hash value of the facial recognition and zero data would be stored outside of the device. have open 3rd party reviews of these processes and made public so we keep our world safe but without the bullshit excuse that "privacy has to be given up for security".