Slashdot Mirror
Retailers Deploy Databases Against Customers
A couple of people submitted this piece about retailers using databases to crack down on sub-optimal customers, such as those who return too many purchases to the store. Also has a few tidbits about other database blacklists that are available to companies. Customers avoid intrusive practices; although this story was written by the Washington Post and I have the URL to the original story available, I declined to link to washingtonpost.com because of their intrusive registration.
Best Buy has been accused of doing this.
As a good customer you should seek alternate sources of the same product.
SF Gate Article
Google News search
those of you who like science fiction, kurt vonnegut or are worried about these types of situations should read PLAYER PIANO by kurt vonnegut. It was written in 1952 (!) i think, and is about computers making decisions about which jobs are important, and which jobs are unnecessary. Yeah, it's a worst case scenario, but computers and databases are just going to become more and more prevelant in our lives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6423422/
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
I think a lot of retail sales workers will cheer for this. I used to work in retail (admittedly a long time ago) at Radio Shack, and I can't count the number of times people borrowed TVs and speakers. Superbowl time was the worst, people would buy a TV to watch the game and then return it a couple of days later. They didn't even have the decency to lie about it, either, they admitted that they only wanted it long enough to watch the game, but Radio Shack policy was to take it back, no questions asked.
Actually, the NYT provides a way of linking directly to stories so that readers of blogs and the like can bypass the registration system. You go to this page and enter the URL of the story you want to link to. When you click "Go", it returns a link to the NYT archives that bypasses registration.
Heres the story:
get a userid and password:
Lastone i tried that worked was:
Userid: sad@day.com
Password: sadday
Thankfully the UK's "Data Protection Act" will prevent this coming here :-)
info on data protection act: http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
The store did not back off of its own stated return policy.
Better solution, take your business elsewhere.
-B
This should work without any registration:
Some Shoppers Find Fewer Happy Returns
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
Pay with a credit card and if the store refuses the return, you're still stuck with defective merchandise, regardless of what the store thinks about the legitimacy of your return. Just call the credit card company and tell them that you attempted to return the CD and that the store refused to accept it. That's grounds for getting your credit card credited, anyway. Enough chargebacks against that merchant and they'll quit this silly practise. (Of course, we don't know whether Best Buy/Circuit City/Fry's/FYE/whoever is doing this right now, either.)
Not that I really think enough people are doing the CD thing for it to matter anyway...
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
People have had their homeowner's coverage dropped for making small claims and for even asking whether something was covered. This has been going on for several years. In essence, this represents a stealth conversion of policies to catastrophic coverage only. You might as well raise your deductable to $5000.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I hate to state this but it depends on where your credit card is issued and who the issuer is. I work for a major credit card company, and basically there is still a lot of "Buyer Beware" out there. If a store makes plain clear and simple what their return policy is and they deny a return because of it being out of policy then as long as there is documentation that can be provided that proves the customer was aware of this then a credit card company may well back them up and not issue you a credit. But often stores do not make clear their return policy and then rely on a small sign in the store as their defence.
Before working for this major credit card company, I worked for two main retail chains in the UK. PC World just had a statement that they accept returns within your statutory rights (i.e. they stick to the letter of UK law which btw is much more liberal than US sales law anywhere). I only worked there a few months because my wife dragged me Stateside. But UK credit cards tend to back you up more than US ones in the case of store returns. Before that I worked in Burtons - the menswear store. They had a great big sign at the cash register which clearly stated in big print what the return policy is (simply said: unhappy with your purchase for any reason, then please return your unworn merchandise within 30 days for full refund). They also had it printed on the back of the till receipt. This way, since anyone who made a purchase was given a receipt, hey presto they had a copy of the stores' return policy.
If The Limited print on the back of their receipts what the policy is and have it in big bold type at the register then customers do not have a leg to stand on when making a return because that would be the sales contract that they entered into. I don't know what their policy is because I don't shop there. I hate to say this I'm more of a Wal Mart shopper.
Mark.
Nope! That's *not* discrimination. You can discriminate all you want -- for example, only boys are allowed in Boy Scouts, which is completely legal even though it discriminates against the girls. In fact, the Boy Scouts went through a whole gay discrimination thing with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the Scouts can discriminate against gay men being leaders.
There is a very short list of prohibited discriminations, and then only in certain situations (getting a loan for a house, getting Social Security, etc). But outside of those very narrow restrictions, you can discriminate whomever you darn well please.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
There's a valid question of what constitutes excessive. That's done on a case by case basis. When we do draw the line, we accept that one last return and then say, "OK buddy, we're cutting you off."
You are roughly correct as to what the UCC is, but not that it is a violation of it. It is for returns on an item that "is not suitable for its intended purpose". It is not for items that the customer changed their mind and doesn't want anymore, it is not for items that the customer realizes they already own one of. It is for items that don't do what they say they do, whether due to misleading advertising, or damage or defect. So, the store must accept returns if the item says it has a feature, but it doesn't. (Anything an item's package claims it can do is obviously an intended purpose). It must also accept returns on any item demaged or defective in such a way as to render the item non-functional. For example, a TV with a smashed in tube must be accepted for return. However, if the case is cracked, but the TV still works, they do not have to accept the return, as the item is still fit for its intended purpose. But if you found it cheaper somewhere else, or you realized you already bought one yesterday, then its completely up to the store, they don't have to take it back if they don't want to.
And no, you can't say "But the intent of the purchace was to have a NEW sweater, not the same one again!" Because the law ISN'T about "Intended purpose for purchace," as you have written. Intended purpose means whether or not the item can do what it is intended for. A sweater is for wearing, not for being stylish and unique. If you BOUGHT it to be stylish and unique, and it isn't, that's tough luck for you, its intended purpose is to be worn, and it still can be.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Yeah, Walmart goes nuts when this happens. I like the idea. No damage to anything and it helps the employees see that a union might help them. Hurting the management while helping the workers.
I worked at a Walmart for a few months, a long time ago, and you should see the anti-union stuff they make new hires watch. If anything scares Walmart, it's unions.
Check out "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenreich. She got a whole chapter about working at walmart and describes what you're talking about.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > 506
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.-- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
Release date: 2004-08-06
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
zosxavius photography
I had a friend buy several computer parts from Newegg. He returned his graphics card about 3 different times - once because it didn't work, another because it didn't work well enough, and I forget the other reason. He still ended up with a graphics card from Newegg, it was just that it took him three tries to get one that worked, and that he liked. I don't see a problem with this.
Just the same, I believe that retailers have every right to limit their dealings with abusive customers. I knew one guy who purchased a leather couch (probably over $1500), and got a young cat shortly thereafter. The cat took to sharpening its claws on the back corner, so after he discovered this, he got rid of the cat, and returned the couch, telling them that the damage there when he received it.
After seeing this and other similar incidents, I firmly believe that most true-blooded Americans will avoid taking responsibility when they can get away with it, and try to get whatever they can without paying for it (not just monetarily, either). There's no reason retailers should have to fund this nonsense.
To REFUSE business of such customers. If system knows Mrs ForgetMyWardrobe has 53% chance to return what she tries to buy, DO NOT SELL IT TO HER. Explain why, say how sorry you are, escort her off. Store can refuse selling to anyone -- that's their right. But this situation is way more honest, than trying to sell something to the customer and then refuse taking it back, even though you claim you would.
Hyperom.com