111–120 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously by AA or SQ. not yet Given the last 20 years of bad behavior from tech companies overall, and the steady erosion of privacy in nearly all quarters, I question your confidence and must ask "based on what ?"
AA isn’t a tech company. There revenue isn’t based on selling eyeballs.
Most of these are just COTS Android tablets. When they reboot the IFE, you sometimes see the Android soft home/menu button on the bottom. It's easy enough to repair, too -- just apply some opaque tape to the camera.
> Most of these are just COTS Android tablets This isn't quite true. They're not off-the-shelf (COTS) Android tablets - the hardware is custom, especially in terms of industrial design (although the chipset is pretty standard). IFE manufacturers aren't going to OEMs and re-purposing commercial tablet designs. You couldn't use off-the-shelf tablets anyway, because they have lithium batteries in them - and whilst the f…
Not any tablet - I refer you to the 18" Samsung Galaxy View.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using WiFi would be very surprising for most content, but it would be interesting to have live TV on aircraft.
How so? United's IFE is an app you install on your phone/tablet or website you use on your laptop to watch media and it's all wifi.
It's ironic that in the book 1984 all the citizens have hidden cameras in their TVs. Today, in 2019, all the citizens have non-hidden cameras and microphones in pretty much every electronic device they use. We also have the customary day of rage, where we all direct our collective rage at some political opponent. Don't get me started on the butchering of the English language...
It's ironic that in the book 1984 all the citizens have hidden cameras in their TVs. Today, in 2019, all the citizens have non-hidden cameras and microphones in pretty much every electronic device they use. We also have the customary day of rage, where we all direct our collective rage at some political opponent. Don't get me started on the butchering of the English language...
The problem there, and here, is people don't really care.
Most airplanes have built-in CCTV cameras whose explicit purpose is to record everyone in the cabin for the entire flight. So do MUNI buses. Instead people are raising the issue of a stock camera that's obviously not being used to record. There would be no way to keep that a secret, everything in an airplane has to be FAA approved.
A CCTV camera from an angle far(relatively) away at the front and back of the cabin isn't the same level as one in the device staring you in the face. How long until that camera gets enabled to do eyetracking for ad and premium services tracking. Whos to say its not already? Mixed it in with facial recognition so they can sell that data to other ad agencies and now you see the problem with allowing the camera to exis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously by AA or SQ. not yet Given the last 20 years of bad behavior from tech companies overall, and the steady erosion of privacy in nearly all quarters, I question your confidence and must ask "based on what ?"
AA isn’t a tech company. There revenue isn’t based on selling eyeballs.
To me this is just a distraction. Yes there's a hardware camera. I will bet some money that they have not been used nefariously by AA or SQ. Some are raging about the non-existant theoretical privacy violation (again, not 100% non-existant, but I will bet money there's no surveillance through this camera), meanwhile we are ignoring actual privacy violations being done by e.g. Facebook or Twitter, or the millions of a…
This is becoming a form of digital whataboutism and false equivalence. I can't read comments about seatback airline cameras without being reminded of these other "violations" as though they are related. Maybe the collective "we" are ignoring them because "we" don't consider them privacy violations or just don't care, despite the fact that those bombarding us want us to.
So I guess, even in the worst case scenario where these cameras were recording you, what is so different from the other 500x camera FOVs you step into during your journey? What am I missing?