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.
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.
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."
Except in this hamburger here... urp.
GAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
... 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"
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.
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)
"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.