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?"
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.
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.
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.
John
- 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."
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
... 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.
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.
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.