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.)
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.
...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 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.
- 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.
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 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.
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.
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
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..."
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
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.
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.