Slashdot Mirror
Stores Use Discount Cards To Notify Of Recall
crazyj writes "USA Today is one of many sources running a story about how some supermarkets used their "discount" shopping cards to notify customers of a beef recall. Interestingly, some stores did not use the information because they felt it violated the customer's privacy. I always use a fake name and address when I sign up for those, but do others feel that the stores were justified in 'violating' their privacy agreement?"
Is it really invasion if the store where they signed up for this card notifies them of various things?
The violation of privacy is that they collect and keep the personal information in the first place. Not using it to help consumers is then just a way of avoiding bad publicity and demonstrating to their customers that they actually have the data and can contact them. I.e., the concern is a PR concern, not a legal one. (Most likely, their agreement says that they can change it at any time anyway.)
1.) You die horrible death.
2.) You're privacy is infringed on.
pick one.
When I sign up for a supermarket card, I should be able to check a box which says "contact me if I bought a product under recall". Then they can call me or send me a postcard.
Violating privacy by sending a health warning to someone and commiting no other serious violation. Oh I'm absolutely furious.
Given that there is no moral reason for them not to contact the purchasers of the tainted beef, they would have been held liable had they not used every means at their disposal to contact the purchasers.
John
...it's perfectly fine. You voluntarily gave your contact information to establish a beneficial business relationship with your store. They already use that info to target you with coupons and special offers, so why shouldn't they use it to warn you of major health concerns?
If I receive a form letter in the mail saying "Such and such beef is tainted, please check your package before eating. If you are concerned, return the beef to the store for a free refund", I'm not going to think, "Those f***ers used my personal info to send me a form letter!" I'm actually going to go check my beef and hope like hell I haven't eaten it yet. I probably wouldn't give a second thought as to why or how I got the letter. It is sufficient that I received it and was properly warned.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
In terms of justification, I must admit that "By the way, we thought you might like to avoid an agonizing death" is a somewhat better reason to invade my privacy than "Here's a coupon for 50 cents off your next purchase of adult incontinence control products."
Die miserable painful death from bovine spongiform encephalopathy... or have my privacy invaded. For once, I think the invasion is justified. When it comes to my health and well-being, I'd prefer they let me know - my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness definitely trumps whatever the hell I said when I signed up for that grocery store card.
I'm not the only one who uses fake information on some of these cards, am I?
Does this mean Monday my cat's going to get a call from Safeway?
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
what you just ate wasn't chicken!
First I wanted to be a chef. Then I wanted to be Napoleon. My ambitions have continued to grow ever since.
I think the first thing you have to acknowledge is that the warning that you could have received tainted (mad cow) beef is more important than being trivially bothered with a notification of such. As long as the information was only used for this purpose, and the whole scenario is clearly documented and an explanation was sent with the notification, I see no problem with it. It's sometimes necessary to remove one's tin foil hat from their covering their eyes.
Jamon
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
I think there is a thin line you cross between invading privacy and simple concern for your customers. As far as I can tell in this case, the supermarkets are merely looking out for their customers health. It is cheaper for them to only the mention the recall information at the store than sending letters out to hundreds of customers.
I don't really see this as crossing that line.
--
The last digit of pi is four.
Leaving consumer protection to the market always seems to run the risk that serious problems will get viewed primarily as an opportunity to push through a new avenue for marketing.
There are less invasive ways and more effective ways to warn consumers about bad meat than junk mail based on spending surveillance.
I'm laughing at clouds.
One of our local supermarkets changed it's name and had a big facelift , with the result of raising prices across the board and SURPRISE ! Introducing a customer card that replaces coupons with swiping your card.
I don't think I'm getting anything in exchange for my information, since they raised prices at the same time they did this. So as far as they know , I'm a black mother of two.
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
I believe that for reasons such as public health, using readily accessible information to provide valuable notifications to those who need it should not only be done every once in a while, but should be routine.
The only thing I fear is a slippery slope...a few months from now, it's not just tainted meat or a toy recall, but a sale on your favorite brand of foot fungicide.
One solution would be a simple declaration of accepted usages for customer cards upon signup. For example,
[ ] I want to receive promotional notices
[ ] I want to know when my cow is mad
[ ] I want no notifications of any sort
We already see this regularly on the web, but I haven't seen it on those customer loyalty card applications. Perhaps it's time for this idea to be implemented. Instead of deciding what's best for the customer, let's try the novel idea of letting the customer decide what's best for themselves.
- Fill in a fake name and address on the card, and don't worry about being contacted.
- Fill in your real name and address on the card, and get warnings such as this one.
The form I filled out for my supermarket card had the usual "Check this box if you do not wish your name and information given out to qualified vendors, etc," but lacked a "Please do not contact me with further offers" box. However, I have yet to receive any mail from said business, including flyers.Truthfully, if they have your address, it was your decision, and you should be happy you received the warning. If they don't, that's just the price you pay for privacy. I'm certain somebody in the office or the neighborhood got the warning and would be perfectly willing to alert you in the future.
Access denied: Not enough clue for requested operation.
But I ate that last night....
:)(smile)
Choose one!
(1) Die from a brain disease.
(2) Let the store know where you live.
Complaining is about as silly as saying that: "the fire service violated my privacy when they crashed through the window and dragged my unconcious body away from the smoke and flames of my burning home."
Using the discount card information to recall a possibly fatal product is a very responsible and ethical use of that information - provided, of course - they don't use it as an excuse to start mailing advertising to the customers.
The real purpose of those cards is to track buying patterns - every item you buy is a data point in a trend. For example: If you always buy two of something, it would indicate that a larger packet would be more appropriate product to offer. If you often prefer a certain brand of food - you're more likely to be interested in other products in that brand's range - or that you might be interested in them discounting a competitor's version of the same product.
I don't know for sure that they do this, but it's what I would if I ran a supermarket chain - and over the past few years of grocery shopping I've noticed enough coincidences in new items, discounts and level of stock that would indicate that they do indeed play the trends.
My friend won the H2 Hummer for using their card. They wouldn't have had it if they didn't use thier real name and address. Personally, I just don't go to stores that have *the card*.
I can't think of a better reason to do it.
Don't bother me to let me know about your newest sale on face cream. But by all means if you discover that I have bought something that may KILL ME, please violate my privacy and tell me about the recall.
BTW, I never sign up for those cards.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Considering some of these companies sold out (well, not for money) all your information to the government back when the Patriot Act got passed, you really are behind on the times in terms of whining about their invasion of your privacy.
Simply sending a message to the owner of the card doesn't qualify as an invasion of privacy in my book. It would be a violation of privacy had these stores sent people's address information to a third party, but they didn't do that. Privacy means, "Keep my information confidential." It doesn't mean, "Never contact me."
I can vouch for the fact that supermarkets who use the loyalty cards can trace back your purchases up to when you signed up for the card. Most modern chains store a digital "copy" of the recipts of ALL orders indefinatly. The could even contact you via such information as your credit card.
im a vegetarian, you insensitive clod!
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
i worked as a checker-bot for a year at a local grocery chain, and i can safely say that maybe only a fraction of a percent of shoppers appreciate those stupid ass cards. i actively encouraged customers to just lie on the applications, and often if they were complaining i would just hand them a card and throw away the accompanying application. i think it is definitely an invasion of privacy if they are tracking what you are buying for any reason, and it is way beyond what they should be allowed to do.
Except in this hamburger here... urp.
GAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
yeah, they are no more than foodstamp recipients.
Pull the fuxers off the citizens cox, they have sukked us dry enough.
Once you use the store card, they already know what you purchased. Notifying a customer doesn't violate any privacy unless they use a third party to print the notices.
If you gave me your email password, you should already assume that I can see whatever messages you have received. If I choose to use the information I saw in your email to warn you about something (without disclosing anything to a third party), the fact that I give you that warning isn't a violation of your privacy.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Imagine if you were a customer of a store whom did not notify you of the recall, and you later fed that recalled food to your children.
Yeah, I'd say I would be pissed. It's against the law to kill someone too - but under certain circumstances it's ok. I most certainly would say when someone's life is in jeopardy that privacy concerns would be of little interest.
I couldn't possibly imagine a more horrible way to die then mad-cow disease.
I would certainly say they were justified in contacting their customers. I can't beleive anyone would put their personal interests in front of the well-being of another - especially when the only potential loss would be money.
Contacting those people shows there are real people running those establishments. What kind of creaton would deny their customers the knowledge that they purchased 'povably' infected beef.
That's like asking, if a girl was screaming rape from a car parked on a private lot - would you violate trespassing laws to help her... WTF.
Cowards.
Just smile nice and say you left your card at home and they'll pull a card from under the counter and run it for you. Yeah, Food Lion is ghetto, but it's cheap.
Privacy concerns be damned, what really steams me about this article, not discount cards could be an invasion of privacy, but that the convience of the information allows retail chains to use fear as a marketing tool.
Any scientist/expert will tell you the chance of any american/japanese/human contracting mad cow diesease because of these two cases of BSE are so astronmically small a 22 year old gym instructer is more likely to die of the flu in the middle of july.
The most shocking revelation is that this retail chain for all intensive purposes, intentional or not, used this oppertunity to falsely re-enforce the fears of a hypertensive public. To foster a more comforting branding in the public conscience.
And the public buys it. Information is becoming so readily avaliable uninformed neofites are weighing in on topics they known little about, passed off as learned experts to general populous.
This retail chain can easily notify customners of a "risk" that has been inflated by the media distortion field, when the customer recieves the notice they react with out thinking. They precieve that the effort is extensive on the store's part, and therefore the risk must be very great to warrent such actions. Which take a normally small local concern and expands it beyond anything imaginable.
Farmers are loseing their homes, over steers who were born before feed regulation was implemented years agao (97's in canada, 2003 US). There are an estimated 12-15 active cases of bse somewhere in north america. If the hype about bse is to believed people should be in sheer panic and there should be at least 2 - 3 deaths already. But its not and no expert is concerned because bse just happens to have the lucky distition of having public profile.
But depsite it the border remains closed,canadian farmers kill off entire herds,but ground beef costs the same and the front counter now sell a little post bse "security" plan.
If you can't fix it ask the 3 year old down the street.
I always considered what information I give someone or a company to be "public" information. If I didn't want them knowing what I bought, I wouldn't have taken the card. But you know, that's your payment to them for the discount. And if you think they haven't been traking your purchases all along you're very naive.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
This Week's Club Specials:
Red Peppers:
Regular Price: $12.95/lb
Your Club Price: $.95/lb
You Save: $12.00/lb !!
Toilet Paper:
Regular Price: $172.99 for 12 rolls
Your Club Price: $2.99 for 12 rolls
You Save: $170.00 !!
The Sham Store -- see how much you save by shopping here?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
you are right, americans have no balls, they like to be abused by their intellectual inferiors, maybe the have no spine?
Na, just S-T-U-P-I-D, or chicken-shit.
Interestingly, some stores did not use the information because they felt it violated the customer's privacy. ... and it would cost them more money to do so.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Recently, I've been helping clean up the legal mess left behind by a woman who was leading a 'criminal lifestyle" (Crack whore), until she OD'ed. (Ive been helping with this on behalf of her daughter, whom a close relative is adopting). What does this have to do with the story?
We found that this woman gave obviously false information to everyone she ever got a card from. In a small town of about 10,000 people, where all the streets are named according to an obvious pattern, she still listed made up addresses such as "anytime place" or "1313 Mockingbird lane" on every grocery discount card, blockbuster type movie rental or whatever she got, going back 8 or 9 years. In a town with only one set of numbers for the first three digits of the local phone number, she entered what are apparently completely random strings, and sometimes mixxed letters and numbers, again without anyone apparently looking at them. On one, she listed her work address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. Guess what her job description was?
Not a single business evidently looked at the information she filled in on those forms, and she had over 30 such cards, literally including one for every grocery store in town. She ripped off several of the movie rental places for tapes, was wanted for bad checks and other crimes where an address might particularly matter at various times, and still, no one noticed any of this.
We weren't too surprised that some pharmacies had ignored forged perscriptions and fraudulent signatures, or that she had pawned things with tickets in obviously false names (Her favorites when buying drugs seemed to be astronaut's names, and David Bowman). What we are surprised by is how many business that DIDNT have an incentive to look the other way obviously did so. Many of these lost money from their unconcern rather than made any.
At first glance, it's like this whole system is built to work only for criminals. Still, if only the crooks were doing this, stores are not going to be dumb enough to keep getting stung with bad checks and such. Ergo, lots of otherwise honest people must be filling these things out with just as spurious information.
Who is John Cabal?
Because people don't actually realize how much information they are actually giving away. Most people think in terms of "why would they remember all the stuff I bought in the last six months anyway, that's nonsense".
A warning like this will be a cold shower to them when they will suddenly comprehend how detailed and accurate the information kept is.
Remember that cluster of e. coli cases in Pennsylvania last year? Contaminated green onions from Mexico supplied to a restaurant chain, but could have just as easily been supplied to a supermarket.
If I voluntarily hand over my real contact information (customer-initiated opt-in) to a business, I would EXPECT them to notify me of product recalls, regardless of their privacy policy. I would be upset if they didn't.
Things aren't recalled just because they don't work - they are recalled for safety reasons. Recalls are always bad publicity, so no cpmpany in their right mind does one unless they are directed by the government, or feel they will be soon.
... that is, if, and only if they do everything at their disposal to contant you immediately about the situation. I, for one, welcome our new supermarket-management overlords. *ducks*
Seriously, though, I think I'll take a very Kant-like view on this (if I remember my Philosophy class correctly). I'll argue that since the supermarkets have this information at their disposal, it is their duty to notify their customers. The article quotes Katherine Albrecht, the founder of an organization called the the "Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering", as saying "Sure it would be useful to have someone contact me if I bought something tainted, but at what cost? A total food-supply surveillance network?" The fatal flaw in this argument is that the supermarkets already have what she calls the "A total food-supply surveillance network". That's why you get the discounts; they are paying you for this data. Now, since they have this data, they can save your life by calling you on the phone and telling you not to eat a piece of meat you bought at their store. I believe that the ethical use of this customer data demands that at the very least they give you a call on the phone, and/or do whatever it takes to inform you that the product they sold you may put your life in danger.
Not that it would have helped me. I put a false name and number on the form when I signed up for my supermarket discount card(s). (Not that they care, as this still probably generates useful demographic data of some kind for them.) Good thing I don't eat meat.
What about the guy without the frequent shopper card? Does he die the horrible painful death because he didn't sign up and therefore wasn't able to be warned? Where are his rights?
Dear Valued Customer,
Our records show that on 1/6/04 you purchased 2.5 pounds of beef at our store in Seattle. It has come to our attention that this beef may have come from a suspect supplier, and there's a chance it may have mad cow disease. You are welcome to return your purchase to the store for store credit, whereupon it will be destroyed.
We obtained your contact information from your "frequent shopper" card. If you feel this is a violation of privacy, please disregard this notice.
Signed,
Some Supermarket Chain
This BSD crap is going too far. We might know what causes it (these protein fragments labeled 'prions'), but then again, we're not really sure. Prions could be a symptom, not a cause (though they are more than likely the culprit thus far). The only way to find out if someone has this is either wait for them to start exibiting symptoms and make an educated guess, but the only true way to know is to kill them and analyze the brain and spinal tissue. We also know that the incubation period is probably somewhere between 5 years and a few decades. Fact remains that I can't donate blood because I lived on Zaragoza AFB, in Spain, for 3 and a half years because of the BSD scare. (And yes, I ate at British Burger Kings a couple of times when I was in England) That was over a decade ago, I'm not exibiting any symptoms, we don't even know if it can be transmitted by blood alone, so why the restrictions? Because the media has blown everything out of proportion and scared everybody.
So, in my opinion, the violation of privacy is not qualified because the threat is not proven. (Then again, the grocery store isn't going through a 3rd party or handing the info over to the government, but you asked not to be contacted at all, you shouldn't be contacted at all...what if you already ate the hamburger? Then you're just being scared out of your wits 'cause you wouldn't know better) Now, if it was something else, something with a better foundation in science, by all means, save me from certain death...but BSD is not one of those things.
Say you are a regular non-denominational guy who married a devout Hindu woman. Say you promised her to go vegan in a big way. Say she was out of town for a week and you got the beef cravings bad. So you bought some meat, with your discount card, and since it has been like two years since you've had any beef, you used it to make yourself the best damn tasting hamburger you've ever had.
Now, your wifey is back in town and she gets a phone call from the market telling her that the meat you bought might be contaminated. You are going to be in the dog house, if not a motel, when you get home from work that day.
Just an example...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No it is not. But would make people realize just how well the store knows them, probably better than they know themselves (anways in terms of when they are going to buy stuff and what).
Hey,
Do not ride the coattails of the wonderous new darryl troll with your mind numbing lameness.
sad news on the news
*shakes head and walks away*
QFC supermarkets posted a sign saying concerned shoppers could call to find out if they had bought suspect meat via their id.
Then, if and only if the customer called, QFC only told the shopper. Not any third parties.
I wouldn't want to catch the gruesome mad cow disease, so full ethical marks to QFC for offering customers an informed opportunity to consent.
As interesting are the dogs that didn't bark, bureaucracies hiding behind a privacy comfort blanket: giant Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons chains said they have no plans to take such a step. Perish the thought - publicise they have poisoned me ?
Katherine Albrecht, founder of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, hit the nail on the head at the end of the story. rtfm.
"Congress - the best democracy money can buy"
The point isn't that the store has your name and address. That isn't what the privacy issue is about. You gave them that information, of course they know! The issue is about the store tracking what you buy. Signing a card for discounts isn't an acknowledgement that they will be tracking your purchases. In fact, they don't need this at all. You're in their store, and they can watch what you buy if they like. I mean they've always done this with credit card numbers.
Is it an invasion of privacy because the bar tender remembers what drink you ordered last time? Isn't it the same thing?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
"i always use a fake name" so no way they can find you? Do you always use cash to pay for groceries?
I feel that all of the people that say this is justified, are the people envisioned when certain framers of the U.S. Constitution said "Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither." There are hundreds of ways for the producers and distributors to let people know of possible health issues that neither violate privacy concerns, or contract law. How many other peoples live and/or rights would you be willing to trade for your ability to make sure you dont get VCJD? That's right. No one is as important as you.
People these days will sell their souls for conveniance.
or the dildos, or the anal beads, or the chocolate flavored condoms....
Law always is a weight between the Civil Liberties of an individual versus the safety of the public.
There are many scenarios where Civil Liberties being violated may or may not be justified:
To me, this is nowhere as serious and imminent a threat, as Mad Cow can't be transmitted from person to person (last I remember). Still, a customer has a right to know whether he or she may have bought infected meat. This right to know outweighs the loss of privacy that is at hand.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I use cash to pay for everything except my rent and other stuff the IRS already expects me to be paying. duh.
Ahh! There are lots of excellent card games you can play with those consumer tracking cards from your local supermarket. Here are some of my favorite:
1) Collect All n Cards! For example, collect cards in the names of all the world leaders. Or try a variant, where you assign points for how well recognized the world leader's name is. For example, leaders of major western powers, and other leaders commonly in the news, who are still in office might be worth seven points (Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, Pervez Musharraf etc), former major world leaders would be worth 5 points (Benito Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek, Theodore Roosevelt, etc), and three point for lesser-known world leaders (Luiz Da Silva, Thaksin Shinawatra, etc). Extra Bonus: George Bush is worth ten points. Then swap them with your friends to get a complete set! (NOTE: there are innumerable variations on this game. Collect authors, your pet's names, vulgar names, etc...)
2) Swap them at parties as introduction cards.
3) If the store lets you use your phone number in place of your actual card, give the main switchboard number of any large business in your area. Then get your friends to do the same thing. This is extra devious because it must absolutely **** with the store's consumer preference tracking database. (This isn't strictly a game with the cards, but it's a game made possible by the cards, and can be a helluva lot of fun, especially if you get some reward for every x dollars spent -- if enough other people are playing the game, you'll randomly get rewards!)
4) Worry young cashiers by first acquiring a large number of cards, then open your wallet, take them out, and spend a minute or so pawing through them until you find one you like. Make sure you finally choose one along the lines of "Uri Fuckov" to get an extra chuckle as the clerk tells you to "have a good evening Mr. Fuckov."
5) Invent your own games! The only limit is your creativity.
I used to shop at Albertson's that is a few hundred yards from my house, but when they started having a card program I switched. I know Walmart is a very evil company but I'd rather shop at an evil company with great prices and no damn card. So sue me. Oh wait, you don't know who I am because I didn't get one of your cards.
The important question here, is not if it was a violation of the privacy policy. This beef was potentially fatal. If you have a list of the people that bought it, and how to contact them, the only reason not to contact them is lawyers. Is anyone gonna be pissed you potentially saved their life? And even if they are, does it really matter? This isnt using their info to send them advertizements or to tell them your concerned they are eating to many junk foods. If the supermarket didnt contact me using any means possible, I'd be furious. The privacy policy has it's place, and if the company actually adheres to it, good for them. But this is obviously a situation that supercedes the condition the policy was meant to cover. It's not like not telling the customer is going to make the fact you have a list of the names of the people who bought the tainted meat dissappear. I think you need to rearrange your priorities if, after discovering you sold customers a potentially fatal product, instead of thinkinh "I need to warn these people as fast as possible", you think "I better go ask the lawyers if I'm allowed to do this.". Any food vendor is morally responsible for the safety of his food. If someone wants to give themselves a heart attack eating at your restaraunt, that's their problem, but when you put a product up for sale, you are responsible to make sure it has been handled in proper and sanitary coniditions. Putting up a disclaimer or pointing to a privacy policy doesnt magically make your responsibility go away.
"but do others feel that the stores were justified in 'violating' their privacy agreement?"
Althhough the article mentions some supermarkets might find using the information a violation of privacy, nothing in the article mentions any prior agreements.
I can just see the new ad campain for the Direct Marketing Association...
"Want privacy? You must be mad as a cow!"
one day you get a recall notice for something someone else purchased.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Loyalty cards, membership cards.. whatever they care to call them. JUST SAY NO!
For christ sakes, at least credit card issuers are required to provide a privacy statment to it's clients allowing them to opt out. Isn't that envasive enough?
I NEVER use ANY loyalty card. Ever. If they want to profile me (or my statistical type) they can PAY me. Not visa versa. And a "discount" doesn't fuqin count!
When they first started the 2 tier pricing, I'd check out.
Cashier: Got your bonus card
buyer: no, scan the store card (they never hear that)
Cashier: your total is XXXX
Buyer: let me ask you.. do you get paid more when you charge more?
cashier: ?????
buyer: then why the @#*( wouldn't you apply the discount all the time?
cashier: ???????
They don't get it. Here's the deal.. NEVER PARTICIPATE. You gain NOTHING?
Here's the moral I wish more people grocked:
If you want to profile me you can PAY ME.
You don't pay me with a discount, cause I won't buy without one.
I've never been refused a discount due to the fact I dont have a profile account.
I can't beleive how stupid the consumer is.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Hopefully your wife would rather not you be dead.
I would mind someone bursting into my bedroom to tell me my house was on fire, either.
From the story: "I always use a fake name and address when I sign up for those...".
This only makes a difference if you NEVER use a credit card. If you use a credit card once, they have your true name and address, and they associate it with the discount card.
now that is true funny
I never realized I was filling out a form with my personal information that was going to be used to track my purchases in exchange for a discount on said purchases.
There are laws who oblige you to act when someone is in danger. There are other laws that protect someone's privacy. The first flavor takes precedence.
Imagine a house is in fire. You know somebody is inside. You enter to get him out. Are you trespassing? No, because you were forced by the circumstances to act. In western law, the fact that another human is in danger is a circumstance which forces you to act.
Now, if you could easily (with little risk) go there and save the person, and you did not--perhaps thinking to avoid trespassing--and, say, he dies, you commited a crime.
Thus, if the stores sold harmful beef, and they learned they did, and had the means to prevent harm, but didn't act to prevent it for whatever reason, and people eat the beef and die or get ill, the people who didn't act to prevent the harm commited a crime. Even the strongest privacy law does not imply `let people die in defence of their privacy' no matter how they are formulated.
It was hepatitis A from the green onions (I live near where it happened.)
Better luck next time, dumbass.
...because I put a mini-discount card thing on my keychain, so if I lose my keys, there's a chance that someone who finds it will take it to the nearest Albertson's (as the little card says to) and a cashier can just scan the barcode and they know where to return my keys to.
I belong to the ______ generation.
So did I (Barlo Mung) :)
But when I pay with my credit or debit card they always thank me by name because it pops up on their screen or print out.
If I was designing that database I'd have it populate the empty fields with the known info when someone pays by card. Such as name, address, phone number etc.
Anyone know if they do this?
I've been a shopper of Stop & Shop, a local but rather large and conglomorate supermarket. They're very cool though, they have everything (including a Dunkin Donuts and a bank built in) and have automated checkouts.
The people there are great. I've met the managers at all of the local stores and they are very nice people, and have helped my grandmother on many occasions.
Their receipts always tell me how much I've saved this visit, and year-to-date. They've printed out customized coupons numerous times that I've actually used, wheras I throw out all others. They've also sent me (and I presume thousands of others) customized mailers, some with bonuses based on my shopping. I've never had a problem with this. In fact, I find it an incredible demonstration of how technology makes things good. I've never received a plain-old weekly flyer from them, they know I don't want it. Instead, I only get what I do want.
I've always been aware of the fact, from day one, that they associate my purchases with my identity. If they want to also warn me of potential health hazards, not knowing I'm highly intelligent and knew about it before them, that's wonderful, and I really hope they do. If not for my sake, for the sake of people like my grandmother, who eat beef pretty much raw.
I also love Microsoft, and develop software with their tools for their platform, and encourage people to stick with it. So you may want to take my opinion with a grain (or ton) of salt.
These cards are also tied to your debit or check card information that you use to purchase goods. So a fake name will only work if you only ever use cash.
Are you friggin kidding me? This is the most bizarre example I've read in a long time. Sure it can happen, maybe even a couple of times, but you know what, its pretty unlikely
Shop somewhere else. It's that fucking easy. No one is holding a fucking gun to your head forcing you to shop there. Quit being such a tool ya hippy communist.
>>feel that the stores were justified in 'violating' their privacy agreement?
Doesn't that depend on what the privacy agreement states??
And anyway, whats the point in asking for (or giving) contact info if you never indent on contacting??
Wouldn't providing someone with your contact info imply they have your permission to contact you?
I don't see what the big deal is.
-tellurion
If notifying customers about the possibility that something they bought can harm them is against the privacy policy, I think the privacy policy needs to be updated.
As long as they don't use the card information to sell to advertisers, or to laugh at my purchase of 16 rolls of toilet paper, I wouldn't have a problem.
looks like we might be having more busts...
1888 Franklin St.
The invasion of privacy is having a "pre-approved" credit card sent to the address I provided for get discounts on food, that is what I consider an invasion of privacy. What they seem to be saying is that it is ok to invade my privacy when it is done in the name of American Express. But when they have to identify themselves directly for the purpose of saving my life instead of the indirect invasion of junk mail... well, then that is just too much invasion for their taste. Or, put another way, too much trouble. After all, the current system of let them figure out it is tainted on their own is "working fine."
And, btw, shortly after applying for a store preferred card, I got both the preferred card and an American Express pre-approved card with the same exact typo in my name. I guess it goes to the bottom line, they get money from American Express and they don't get any additional money for warning me. They also seem to bank on that I won't put two and two together that the American Express offer is related to the preferred card. If they can pro-actively sign me up for credit, then they really damn well better be able to pro-actively call me about a recall. I hope that the CEO of a food chain gets charged with murder due to criminal negligence during one of these cases. Then we will see if they consider the current system to be "working."
nothing to see here
The most impressive site I've seen about this stuff is
Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering
They've been tracking all manner of invasive (and, unfortunately, pervasive) supermarket marketing techniques for quite a while now.
go eat shit and die
The stores not using their databases to notify consumers are taking an interesting stance. They're saying that they don't want customers to think that their privacy rights can be abused by the discount card data collection.
/. knows that the data collected by the cards can be abused. It's almost as if the stores are trying to admit to the great unwashed that they're actually collecting data down to the UPC, location, and timestamp level. We all know they are, they're not saying they're not, but they don't want to announce it that loudly... seems like a state of denial to me.
But, anybody who reads
Any retail or wholesale discount card that is not a line of credit, nor an instrument of debt (e.g, debit card) cannot require the consumer to disclose ANY information. They cannot even require you to provide your name! They cannot tie the use of a financial instrument (such as a credit, debit or check) back to the discount card account. Lastly, any consumer may lend or give their discount card to anyone else. You can use your discount card, hand it to the next person in line and apply for a new card the next time you come into the store if you wish.
At my California supermarket, at the bottom of the form there was a small box that says "I decline to provide any information". When I received my discount card application I quickly went to the very bottom, checked the box and immediately handed it back to the clerk. They clerk was clearly puzzled, but with a little prompting I managed to convince them I and completed the form and so I got my first card. Then to demonstrate the anonymity, I gave my card to the next person in line who didn't have a card. I'm currently using a card that I friend from out of town picked up (who also checked the box) and gave to me.
Some supermarkets have been slow to update their application forms, even thought the California law started 1-Jan-2001. I have had to help a friend deal with a supermarket who didn't want to give him a anonymous discount card. A call to the HQ of that supermarket cleared up the matter. (BTW: The store's excuse was that they had printed too many of the old forms that required comsumer information to toss them. Lame!) Perhaps the California law needs to be changed to prohibit the stores from even asking for such data?
So I won't be notified of a beef recall anytime soon. Not that I care. I'm a vegitarian. :-)
chongo (was here)
Yes, I would feel inclined to sue the stores if they had the information and didn't notify me.
Here in the UK we have loyalty cards too, and we have chosen not to have them. This story has alerted me to the only argument I can see in favour of the cards. I am surprised that the stores are not more alert to this.
That some stores did not use the information to the benefit of their customers tells me that they have a guilty agenda.
Do you have your Shopper's Card today?
{Card scanned}
We are glad to see you well. Have you eaten any of the beef you bought last week?
CUSTOMER: Um, yes. At dinner last night. Was good.
{Pushing red button alerting 911}
We would like to inform you that the beef you bought last week has a 90% chance of making you very ill and a 23% chance of killing you. We are providing an ambulance to the hospital as a free service. We'll move your cart to the freezer so you can recover it if you survive. Thank you for shopping and please follow the EMTs.
---
Mailing postcards would be bad because they are not secure. Letters may be ignored by people assuming they are advertisements. (How many credit card applications have "Urgent" written on the envelope? How many people throw any mail with "Urgent" written on it directly into the shredder?)
Most people shop for food once a week. Notifying them at the cash register may be faster than mailing them anything.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
You are indeed correct, and as soon as I read your reply I slapped my forehead. I was thinking e. coli because I'd read a report that the use of human waste as fertilizer was implicated as a likely cause, and both Hep-A and e. coli can spread by that vector.
There goes my "wife dies of mad cow, I sue Supermarket chain and get rich" plan. What a travesty that our values have eroded so much we can't even have privacy at the supermarket!
This reminds me of why the Canadians turned off their stationary radar units mounted over their highways. Apparently, several politicians received photo-tickets of them speeding with ther "girlfriends" in the car when they were married. Enough of this, and it kills the system.
On the flip side, the stores can ask for an e-mail address, or a cellphone number to contact in case of such an emergency, and the consumer can choose the method of contact if they are worried about it. Or they can take a risk and give their home info. If you are doing "bad" things, then using a private means of contact will probably help keep such things from happening.
Supermarket product recalls are a completely new phenonemon to me. Until I placed a few online orders with Coles Online I'd never heard of them. Now I do, and even for products I have never purchased. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to look at the stuff I've bought from them before and *only* notify me if I've purchased the offending item(s). If I've bought beef with added mad cow then fine, spam me as much as you like. Otherwise leave me alone, as per our agreement.
I've also gotten cards as "Illegible scrawl" at some stores, depending on their procedures for trading the card for the paper.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Here in Vancouver (Canada) I don't know if we have any such law, but I simply asked "I want the discounts, but don't want to give my name and phone number and stuff. What can I do?"
I was given a form, told to leave most of the stuff blank, and given a numbered card.
I've had similar experiences at other stores (most of which ask for information but don't use cards). As far as I can recall, I've only ever encountered resistance to my anonymity twice, once getting my hair cut(!) and another time returning an item at The Bay. In both cases I got what I wanted without giving my information, though I had to be insistent about it. Even then it still took me less time than giving the information would have.
The bottom line is, the businesses want your business more than they want your personal information. When asked, just refuse. It takes a while to get used to saying "I don't want to provide that information" when your natural instinct is to just fall in to line, but it's worth it. Even if you don't care about anonymity, consider the time you'll save not having to fill out forms or recite your phone number.
As I recall, the guy lost the suit.
Well. it doesnt affect me since I have not shopped at the local supermarket that has one of those cards (ralphs) since the strike started... (4 months now)... so HAH!
Too late, you already ate the meat last week. No known cure for CJD.
If you are infected, it might take upwards of 10 years before any symptoms show up.
It really isn't so bizzare. Pretty much the same reason why STD clinics will not leave test results on an answering machine or any other intermediary. Positive or negative, that kind of info could bring on all kinds of trouble if spread to others.
What the grocery ought to have done was to send a generic mailing with the warning to everybody they have addresses for. That kills two birds with one stone - it is generic so gives the recipient plausible deniability if needed and for the people who bought the beef but forgot their customer-tracking-device that day, they still get alerted. Never mind the people who never use customer-tracking-devices, their SOL either way.
Interestingly, some stores did not use the information because they felt it violated the customer's privacy
BS!... What probably happened was that the lawyers got the list of the people that MAY be affected by the issue and decided that it would be cheaper to pay "real" claims as they come in rather than lose customers and invite "frivolous" litigation due to a possible scare.
--
Time is on my side
I always use fake info...doesn't everyone?
name: ima dork
address: 2600 AltaVista Ave. San Francisco CA
phone: (415) 105-4321
email: ima_dork@albertsons.com
works every time. ask the albertson's people if they care...
Hmmm....
We had this beef scare in Britain a few years ago. I can't remember the number of humans who have contracted CJD in Britain, but it's phenomenonally low. You're about a million times more likely to die in a car crash.
(I know that wasn't really your point, but decided to say it anyway).
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
We might know what causes it (these protein fragments labeled 'prions'), but then again, we're not really sure. Prions could be a symptom, not a cause (though they are more than likely the culprit thus far).
Most certainly wrong. The prions has been injected into cattle, that then latter develop BSE. Likewise, the same of scrappies for sheep, and CWD for Elk/Deer. If you think that this is total crap, You are welcome to self inoculate yourself with any of the above or better yet, try CJD.
Personally, I do think that it would be useful to cross inoculate from CWD+ deer/elk to cattle and see what happens. That may have implications for transmission to humans. Here in the US, CWD is spreading and W denied funds to Colorado to do further studying of it (he is burying his head in the sand the same way that reagan did over aids).
I find it interesting that a number of ppl are finding this an invasion of privacy when this is a matter of your direct health and was done by the store. Yet, I suspect that a number here have no issue with the fact that the US government can access the same DB via pat. act 2 for whatever purpose (it is about a criminal or terrorism).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I always use a fake name and address when I sign up for those
...but, have you ever used a credit card to pay at checkout? I would imagine the stores could justify to themselves sending out recall notices to any addresses of credit cards used by holders of the discount cards.
Just when you thought you'd seen it all Slashdot publishes this whiny fuckhead news article. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with you people? This is the most USELESS STUPID and WHINY piece of shit story ever. How about this fuck you you shits and fuck your privacy it's a fucken grocery store not the government taking your dna and cloning you.
DUMB FUCKS
Painting "MAD COW HOUSE" on the side of your house for all your neighbors to see is a slight violation.
The supermarket's lawyer uses the Chewbacca Defense....
You know how if you don't have a discount card, grocery stores will just swipe a generic card and give you the discount anyway? I was in line at Clemens Markets in Downingtown, PA. I stood there for 1-2 minutes as one guy searched desperately for his card while the cashier stood there. 1-2 minutes is a long time to wait for someone to search his wallet Finally, the person in front of me let him use her card.
I didn't have a card, and it happened to be that the things I bought were all "bogus discount" items. (A bottle of soda, $.99, but without the card, $1.59!) I told them that if they charged me the extra $3.XX, it would be the last $3 they got from me, and I'd make sure that nobody I knew would shop there again. Nope, got charged the extra $3. I wonder what genius manager thought of that policy.
In conclusion, "value cards" are basically a system of charging you more money for your right to privacy and please don't shop at Clemens Markets.
The occurrence of these kinds of events appears to be increasing and we should plan a better system of notification. Using the discount card is not bad since grocer can probably tell who bought what, and that works fine for those people with a card. However, many people don't want the card and don't sign up for them, and some stores don't have these cards. So what then? It will dampen the anticipation one has when choosing the fish, beef, pork for dinner if a large sign hanging over the counter urges you to complete or update a notification card or key in into the store's computer terminal so you can be promptly notified should it become necessary, but it may be a start at a better system. Many problems attend such a simple minded approach - keeping addresses updated, having the store maintain the database, different languages, how persistent the effort to notify, and on and on. In intent notification concerning tainted food is very much like a product recall for a defective infant car seat. But tainted food usually has an acute consequence and a built in time limitation whereas a defective car seat has only a potential consequence. So a system similar to what is triggered when a child's toy is found to be potentially dangerous is probably inadequate.
"Sure it would be useful to have someone contact me if I bought something tainted," Katherine Albrecht, founder of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, said from Boston. "But at what cost? A total food-supply surveillance network?"
What next? "Give me privacy, or give me death"?
Interesting. Shows the advantages of distributed decision taking - someone within the community might get it right. Rather like linux.... Or does Kroger use QFC to road test ideas ?
"Congress - the best democracy money can buy"
When you meet someone who has privacy right concerns, offer to exchage store-cards with them. Rinse lather repeat.
ideally you will only use any one card four or five times before you end up trading with another person. All your shopping habits get co-mingled.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Rob Cockerham has made a little sticker for your shopper card, making you one of his Safeway clones. All over North America, people are sticking this UPC code over the one on their card. As a result, he appears to buy a lot of stuff.
This bring an interesting wrinkle to his experiment.
I'm sure that to many privacy advocates, this would be a huge mis-use of information. I am not one of those people.
I honestly don't think that the information was any mis-use of privacy invasion and honestly, who wouldn't want such a miniscule invasion of privacy compared to the very real possibility that they could get sick or die from bad beef?
Some people just need to calm down or re-evaluate their sense of self importance.
Most stores rely on you sending in a card with your information, I just don't send the cards in:
I wrote a thought on it a while back here and also here.
The company I work for uses those cards for many uses other than the usual. Employees have been fired because the were scaning the same coupon multiple times getting their total down to a few cents. This showed up on the computers and they got canned.
"The universe is my dwelling place and my house is my only clothes! Why are you entering into my pants?" - Liu Ling
Sorry it isn't your choice.
When I make an agreement with someone, particularly disclosing personal information, they MUST respect the agreement.
I hope companies that just ignore their own policies like this get in trouble.
The other point is that unless you were eating cow brain or spinal material from an infected cow, you don't even have a CHANCE of getting the diesease.
I don't think it violates your privacy at all. You left your name and contact info so they could contact you regarding various things. Even if it does violate your privacy, in this case the ends most definately justify the means.
The only reasonable expectation of privacy is that laid out in the privacy policy you agreed to when getting the card.
Any actions involving the information provided which are not explicity documented in the privacy policy are definately not permitted.
From a privacy statement of [store-name].
... [store name] may disclose personally identifying information in response to a subpoena, court order or a specific request by a law enforcement agency, or as required by law."
"[store name] does not sell or lease personally-identifying information to any other company, person or agency.
The key word is OTHER. There was no other (third party) involved - just [store name] and yourself - so there was no violation of the privacy statement.
Issues about whether it was publicity or following the voluntary recall request of the goverment etc, have nothing to do with violation of privacy (the subject) given the privacy statement of [store name].
I'm always considered the possibility that in twenty or thirty years from now when the USA Medicaid program is bankrupt, that the data gathered from these supermarket cards will be used as a justification to deny medical benefits to people. Whent the system is broke, the administrators have to do something to ration what few medical benefits that will remain and food purchase data seems the best reason because they can blame it all on the users.
"I sorry ma'am but your request for perscription drug benefits has been denied because our records show that for ten years between 2000 and 2010 you consumed an average of 0.5 kilos of beef a week. Your present medical condition is a result of your own negligence."
This would seem absurd except for the fact that the government is using twenty year old marijuana misdemonor convictions to deny current benefits like housing assistance and graduate student loans presently.
Before you tell me how absurd and paranoid I am, remember that people would have labeled paranoid anyone who said twenty years ago that everybody would have to pee in a bottle to test for heroin in order to get a simple job like selling shoes.
It's probably a good idea to keep out of corporate data bases as much as possible because unknown people can simply and arbitrarily destroy your life on a whim by using this data. This can be done either by delibrate malicious intent by identity thieves and zealous prosecutors or just corporate mandate.
Millions of jobs are disappearing in the US due to bad political and corporate decisions. Any justification to pin the blame on the worker themselves will be eagerly sought out and used against them. Expect this type of data mining for blame-the-victim tactics to increase in the future in the USA.
To be calling this a privacy violation, when the whole point of the grocery store discount card is to track what you buy so they can target specific marketing at you? Come on, people, nobody thinks their information is going to be kept private when they sign up for these things.
"If McDonald's offered three free Big Macs for a DNA sample, there'd be lines around the block"
Fools, you can trust no one, especially the abattoirs. That's why we butcher our own, beef that is.
But seriously, FFN seemed like FUD to me, and yes I did read, most of, it.
The entire BSE thing is suffering from some serious media sensationalism. Compared to SARS, hell compared to influenza, BSE has done nothing.
Every time I go shopping, the cashier asks me for my discount card. When I say, "I don't have one," they just open their drawer and take a new one out for me, which I refuse.
They're always puzzled: "Don't you want to know how much you could save?"
I could try to explain to them:
-My anonymity is worth more to me than a few extra dollars in my pocket.
-If the store were interested only in saving me money, they'd do away with the expense of printing pretty plastic discount cards for everyone and apply the cost savings to their inventory, to lower the prices of everything in the store, for everyone.
-It's not about saving me money, it's about The Man gathering ever more data on my spending habits and favored products to enable the store to smother me with more and more targeted advertisements.
But why bother? The minimum-wage cashier wouldn't understand or care, and if they did would just consider me some kind of Conspiracy Nut.
So I just say, "No, thanks," and pay cash, and savor what's left of my sweet, sweet anonynmity before Mr. Ashcroft erodes it away completely and we wind up having to live like the characters in Gattaca.
Dixie Normus.
Dick Hertz.
Mike Hunt.
Dick Gozinya.
Funny, after awhile, "Dixie Normus" became "valued Safeway customer" on the receipt.
Your neighbor recieves this message, addressed to you, but sent to them by accident:
Dear Valued Customer,
Our records show that on 1/6/04 you purchased 14 bottles of AstroGlide at our store in Portland. It has come to our attention that these bottles of AstroGlide may have come from a suspect supplier, and there's a chance they may have been tainted with shards of glass. You are welcome to return your purchase to the store for store credit, whereupon it will be destroyed.
Additionally, our records show that on the same date, you purchased a 1 large green cucumber. It has come to our attention that this product may be tainted with e.coli.
Sincerely,
Cause if they know what I eat then they can .... uh .... they can ..... um, help me out a little here. Those bastards, wanting to give me a discount just so they can improve their business model and stock more items that I like! How dare they try to improve anything.
btw, I have one of the discount cards, but it's not in my name. And normally if I forget my card, the cashier will just ask the next person inline if I can use theirs. Noone has refused yet.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
That's very interesting - the government is using twenty year old marijuana misdemonor convictions to deny current benefits like housing assistance and graduate student loans presently - and makes a great Big Brother illustration. Can you please point to a url for an independent source ? Thanks.
"Congress - the best democracy money can buy"
But in this instance, you had to ask them to notify you.
I suspect you are right about the other stores. Altruism is rarely their strong point. The dilemma is that one store has used their data responsibly. What privacy advocates need is an out and out example of abuse. Before it is too late....
"Congress - the best democracy money can buy"
The problem with using a fake name on a card ends up being that they ultimately know who you are (at least your name) if you pay by credit card. You'd have to pay for everything in cash to be really safe. And though I use a fake name too, I just don't carry enough cash around to handle all my purchases.
The violation of privacy comes where they are collecting and storing this information in the first place. In the story, the stores (and maybe the reporter) are trying to spin this as people objecting to giving out the information to the owner of the cards. This is absurd. Who would object to giving out information to those who already know it? The problem is they may use this information in questionable ways (like discriminatory pricing) or give it to people who shouldn't have it (such as the government--why should they know every little thing you buy? It can only lead to fascism.)
Take for example Ephedra. The FDA apparently banned it because some people are too stupid to read directions.[1] I'm sure there are countless people who use it correctly and get significant value in their lives because of it. the store's data collection gives them an easy way to find people who are stockpiling it.
(OT Rant:) The dumbfucks don't even care if someone might need a medication to function or even survive. At this point, the FDA probably kills and incapacitates more people than they save. Some people do have legitimate illnesses where certain drugs would help greatly. FDA bans them anyway. They won't even let you have it with a prescription! Why should power hungry bureaucrats be allowed to take away things which people absolutely need. They obviously don't care about those people, they just want to tell everyone what they can and can't have.
Now let's fast forward several months into the future. A lot of people have stockpiled Ephedra, and the FDA is pissed about it, so they manage to convince the DEA to try and find the "illegal drugs." (With how wacko the government is, I don't think this is far fetched.) So they subpoena all the grocery store chains with discount cards and have a big list of people who bought lots of the drug. They raid houses, destroy property, and arrest a bunch of people.
Do you really want the fascist out of control government agencies to be able to do this? Take away products and harass people just because a few are too incompetent to accept the risks and conseqences (or even read the label) for using a given product? Everything carries risks. What is this? Preschool? It isn't, and when you take something away, the people who need it will suffer. We should not just hand over tools which allow "teacher" to "keep us safe."
[1] I haven't followed this story too closely, but it does appear to be one of the many idiotic decisions made by the FDA. I chose it because it is big in the news right now.
No, it was more like addresses and/or personal accounts they may know of. It had nothing to do with what you bought, rather with what info you gave them.
you must look at every situation. Here there was a possible threat to the customer's health/life. If a store knew that they sold me a defective/dangerous product I expect them to notify me. This has gone on for years in other areas.
Car manufactures are required to notify customers of a defect in their product. You will get a letter in the mail informing you. I know these two products are extremely different but I believe safety often trumps privacy.
What you're missing is that nvCJD, and BSE, has an extraordinarily long incubation period. In humans it can incubate for up to 40 years. In Pigs it can incubate longer than the average commercial pig life span. You can get a .PDF copy of Mad Cow USA here . It goes into great detail about the history and possible futures of Mad Cow Disease.
Also Please don't believe the FDA. They lie for the Beef Industry.
all the organs in which infectious prions occur were removed at slaughter and did not enter the food supply. Muscle meat is not a source of infectious prions....None of this material left the control of the companies and entered commercial distribution.
This is not true. Prions occur in ALL nerve tissue, including the nerves that run through all muscle and bone(basic biology here); while removing the brain and the spinal chord and varius sundry organs does minimize the threat of contracting nvCJD it does not eliminate it.
To sum up, expect some deaths in the US within the next 10 years. Hopefully not to many.
A blog about stuff.
Albertsons, the supermarket I go to, doesn't require you to fill out anything on the form except to check the "I choose not to fill out any information" box. And you can get the card discount applied on the first order you sign up for the card on. I sign up for a card every time I shop there, and dispose of it on the way out.
I hate knowing that they are storing all my buying habits and I hate juggling 10 different cards in my wallet for different store. So this is what I do:
Sign up with fake-everything, except that I use my office phone number. (Or another number you can remember) Throw those cards out, and each time you check out, tell them you don't have your card. They will either use a generic store card, or ask for your phone number.
This way, I get the discounts, and they get nothing, save for a random, easy to remember phone number.
Witold
www.witold.org
witold.org
Besides being a bigot, the parent is quite offtopic.
Oh... too bad you're wrong. Do you know what all cattle offal(remains which can't be eaten) is put in? Here's a hint, altoids have it. Unless you're a vegan, you can get it.
A blog about stuff.
Well the good news is if you get CJD, you won't remember or care that your wife hates you.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
He got what he deserved. People should NOT cheat on their wives or husbands!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
If you don't eat meat, then you can't get mad cow, and don't have to worry about recalls and associated privacy violations.
Yeah, because the only disease spread through food products can only be spread through meat.
G Washington at 1600 Penn Ave; Attila T. Hun, Berlin Germany, and J H Christ, Bethleham PA. I assume mr. S Claus' mail will get through as well - couldn't have kids get bad beef for Christmas.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
This is the first time I have ever heard a convincing argument for a store to collect data on it's customers as such. I for one would not feel my privacy invaded at all if a store called to alert me to the possiblity I had purchased bad meat, especially if this situation was life-threatening such as this.
Now if only they wouldn't sell my name to junk mail lists, I'd be happy to give them real information when I sign up for a card.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
A few easy steps to throw a wrench into the StoreCard machine, and get free crap while you're at it.
Step 1. Sign up for a card, use the stores phone number and address. Make your name the store name (e.g. Safe Way). Now they get all the mail and phone calls.
Step 2. Since most stores let you enter a phone number, give the stores phone number out to as many people as you can. Or ask the clerk the stores number and enter it if you can't remember.
Step 3. Get free crap. Safeway has those little "You have purchased X of 10 towards a free Bagel". Well now you will have lots of people using the same card and next time you buy a "bagel" or whatever you might get it free.
Now...spread this number nationwide via a high-traffic website (hmmmm, which one?) and you can possibly have hundreds of people using one card. Which increases your odds of getting "free crap". And all the while avoiding calls and junk mail.
Attention Safeway shoppers...you can use this stores phone number: 360-457-1461
If they gave me separate check boxes:
[x] Notify of product recalls.
[ ] Spam you with special offers.
[ ] Give your data to our hundreds of affiliates.
[ ] Sell your data to spammers.
[ ] Give your data to the government upon request.
[x] Lose your data if the government demands it.
[x] Destroy your data rather than giving it to the our successors in a merger (unless the "merger" is US eating some small fry).
[x] Destroy your data rather than auctioning it off in a bankruptcy.
there wouldn't be a question of whether they had permission, would there?
Of course there WOULD still be the question of whether they'd actually DO WHAT THEY SAID they'd do.
Personally I'm not too concerned about product recalls. It's nice that they notified the customers. But for things like fresh food products (especially food products with mad cow contamination) there's not much that can be done. By the time they find out where it went, it's already been eaten.
"I'm sorry, Mr & Mrs consumer. That meat you ate last month may have been contaminated with mad cow disease. Maybe you're infected and in the next couple decades your brain will turn into a sponge as you suffer horribly and there's nothing that can be done." Yeah, that will sure do a lot of good.
Ditto something more immediate in fresh food. If you get food poisoning you'll know it within hours - and again by the time they figure out what was contaminated
Now for canned, bottled, or frozen food, or fresh food the customer froze and hasn't eaten yet, it might make a difference. But as long as such incidents are rare and newsworthy, the media flap is more likely to be effective at notifying you of a problem than hoping your store's database is up to date and you pick up your voicemail in time.
But belt and suspenders.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
oh no! an invasion of my privacy! now everyone will know my secret love of sugary cereals! NOOOOOO! my life is over!
serously, does anyone really care about this? im just glad that companies actually give a shit to let their customers know about something that can adversly affect thier health. why is this even an issue?
and the tivo thing as well: my god, someone knows i like watching a-team reruns! disaster!
Errrrmmmmm....
;)
Actually, I all I was aiming for was some smug satisfaction at inserting some frivolous data in to the record, and maybe that someday some slightly amused analyst might note that the President of Pakistan has the same phone number as General Motors corporate headquarters and annually purchases $85,000 worth of groceries at the local Safeway...or even the simple amusement at noticing the person giving out a card has apparently never heard of Jacques Chirac.
Of course I don't usually play these games because it's just too damned expensive to shop at these kinds of stores! It turns out the cards are a red flag for stores that charge 20% to 30% more than others, although I assume this is only a correlative association, not necessarily a causative relation.
As for your free time, it's only limited by your creativity.
I have worked at a grocery store last year. When you sign up for the card, there is a box you can check to not have your information used or mail sent to you. You don't actually even need to put in your name/address/phone nunber, all you need to do is check the box.
So the grocery stores are not abusing private info, the permission was given for them to use the info when people signed up. If you don't want your info used, you don't have to give it to them.
PS - I worked for Albertson's.
I myself find this an acceptable use of the discount cards.
However, I can see some suit-happy people suing for the store selling adulterated meat. Others would sue for *not* being notified. The only way I see out of the conundrum is for a consumer opt-in to receive recall & product safety notices.
Hmmm. What if the store put the info on their website, secured by the discount card number and the holder's zip code? That way consumers could see what they've purchased over the past 90 days or so, and if any of it was covered by a product safety notice. The stores could also use it to do collaborative filtering: "People who bought Captain Crunch also bought milk!"
Chip H.
Wouldn't it be considered negligence if a supermarket had this customer information and decided *not* to use it to notify customers when there is a safety concern?
ok let's think about this: do I agree to be notified if my car could explode under normal driving conditions? Hmm, well I'd have to say sure, contact me.
"how about calling all the authorized mechanics in town, and telling them your name and number. You know, so they can fix it for you."
hmm... well, if it means those mechanics might contact me sooner, which could prevent me from dying when my car explodes, sure that's fine with me.
" they should probably tell the police your name, #, address, and licence plate #. So they can pull you over and tell you if you don't already know."
So, what you're saying is my car could explode if I take a sharp left turn, and would I be ok if the police pulled me over to warn me of this fact in an attempt to save my life? Sounds fine to me.
Your example sucks ass. If my car might explode I don't care who tells me I want to be told ASAP! What the hell am I going to do with privacy when I'm dead? Get a private casket?? You mean to tell me if your car might explode you wouldn't want everyone telling you because it would be an invasion of your precious privacy? I'm all for privacy but that's just dumb.
Now if my tail light was burnt out and all those people would notified then I'd be a little peeved, but you're talking about something that could kill me, of course I want to be notified by any means necessary!
I think this entire story is stupid. "Patriot" Act has far worst invasions of privacy, yet /. is whining about people being warned that the food they bought could kill them.
Let's put it another way: if you just bought a candy bar would you want to be told if it contained poison or razor blades? DUH! Of course you would! Would you care if your privacy was invaded?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
...try and send a recall to "Mike Rotch" who lives on 666 South 69th street.
Working at a food store, I get all sorts of people's cards every day, and I know from all these discussions I've had with my bosses etc. that we collect the data to not be linked with the consumer's name and only to track general trends and market data. Only this and nothing more.
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
Good thing we have you to tell us that. Maybe you should change your name to Moses.
Welcome to Slashdot.
First lesson: Always post in "Plain Old Text" (which, despite its name, does still let you use HTML tags) unless you are posting code or ASCII art, in which case you want to use "Code" mode. HTML mode just messes things up. For example, if you want to put a blank line in your comment,
like that one, to delineate paragraphs, Text mode lets you do that easily. With HTML mode it runs it all together unless you manually insert <p> tags.
As far as links, just use the standard <a href="URL">link text</a> which yields a link like this.