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?"

Comments

is it invasion?

[olorinpc]

Is it really invasion if the store where they signed up for this card notifies them of various things?

Re:is it invasion?

[questamor]

Is it really invasion if the store where they signed up for this card notifies them of various things?

I don't think so. Honestly, if I'd bought what was, say, 100% certain BSE infected beef that WOULD kill me by a slow horrific painful death, and the supermarket only had my name, and they then used the phone book, online tracking agencies, a private investigator or phoning my relatives to get hold of me, I would be fucking glad.

I'd be pissed at the situation, but this is something that'd save my life.

What next, five people asleep in a burning house and firemen must phone twice and knock before entering? There's points where the line of privacy can and should be crossed, I see this as one of them

Re:is it invasion?

[Alsee]

There's points where the line of privacy can and should be crossed

It's a total red herring even even talking about privacy issues in this case. The stores have already compiled all of this information on their customers. If it is a privacy problem then it is ALREADY a privacy problem. If there's nothing wrong with what they are already doing then using the data to benefit their customers certainly does not turn it into a problem.

It's pure Public Relations. As far as they are concerned avoiding "privacy problem" means keeping it hidden to avoid a problem of people complaining what they were already doing. They simply don't want anyone noticing/thinking-about what they already do.

-

Re:is it invasion?

[Doug Neal]

I may have given my name to a store, but that does NOT give them the right to contact me for ANYTHING unless I give my explicit permission to.

But I bet you'd be the first to sue if you ate some of the beef and subsequently found out about this, "as is your right" of course.

violation of privacy

[ajagci]

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.)

Re:violation of privacy

[plover]

By signing up for the card, you are voluntarily giving them this info. You are giving it up. You wrote your name and address on the application. There should be no expectation of privacy between you and the store.

The only reasonable expectation of privacy you should have with the card would be that the store would not give or sell their mailing list to others. That's the only gray area I can see with these cards. But in this particular case, the store itself contacted the customers because of meat they bought in the store. There is no third-party involvement. Thus, there was no breach of privacy.

Should be opt-in

[BobaFett]

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.

I think...

[AKAImBatman]

...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.

Unsolicited Commercial Mail

[Ray Radlein]

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."

Let's see...

[Fnkmaster]

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.

Customer Privacy need not be violated to warn them

[jamonterrell]

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

Choices

[lakmiseiru]

Well, when it comes down to it, you have two options:

1. Fill in a fake name and address on the card, and don't worry about being contacted.
2. 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.

How does sending you a msg violate your privacy?

[serutan]

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."

Clearly Ethics are on the Supermarkets' Side

[blackwizard]

... 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.

Letter from a food store..

[tuxedobob]

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

Strictly, no violation of privacy here

[out_to_lunch]

Having rtfm - unusual for /. I know - this is a complex example that neatly encapsulates the privacy dilemma.

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.

Re:Using Grocery Data to deny Benefits

[Simonetta]

"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."

It also might be a good idea, as our liberatarian friends like to remind us, to actually start taking better care of our health and to recognize our own resposibility for our future medical conditions. Maybe that second hambuger and third beer isn't such a good idea if there is going to be no Medicare for us in the future.

We should also start accepting the idea that the giant social, medical, and pension programs that we paid into all our lives will be gone by the time that we are old enough to need them. All them money that we put into these programs is being pissed away now to give the 'greatest generation' $80,000 hip replacements when they are 85 years old, or is being secretly looted to support the giant US government federal deficits incurred by cutting taxes while at the same time creating huge expensive endless wars.

Also the social climate among the young is changing. Anyone who tattoos their face and puts metal bolts into their body for cosmetic reasons when they are twenty can not seriously be expected to voluntarily support programs to assist the aged and disabled when they are fifty. Call me a bigot, but this just seems to be a realistic observation.