Slashdot Mirror
Supermarket Loyalty Cards Vs National ID Cards
john.wingfield writes "The BBC is running a story on a speech David Blunkett, the British Home Secretary, has given on ID cards and supermarket loyalty cards. He criticises the data protection arrangements for the loyalty cards whilst simultaneously (hypocritically?) promoting his own national ID card scheme, which is exempt from the Data Protection Act 1998. See also the UK Information Commissioner's (data protection and freedom of information watchdog) concerns about the ID card scheme."
The cards were not a panacea for everything but could help stop terrorists using multiple identities Because everyone KNOWS that terrorists can't fake ID cards! Hell, that's probably why GB is the terrorist haven that it is now, because they don't have a national ID card!
Geez, I thought that only America had to deal with this kind of insane rationalization. And no, I don't have and never will have a "loyalty" (i.e. "We want to track you") card.
as for the supermarket loyalty cards, they give the card, no one says you have to give them your address, they call me Mr Goatse at one store, one clerk figured it out and started laughing at my name. You can easily grab a handful of them, use one for every day of the week.
As opposed to national ID cards, loyalty card are optional. Sure you could say national ID cards are optional (you can move out of the country) but it is different. There is a much higher transaction cost in changing countries compared to changing supermarkets.
"brxref
I reluctantly applied for one a few years ago, since the discounts meant I'd save over $100/year. In reality, I was off by a factor of two, saving close to $200/yr. off of the store's artificially inflated prices.
There are actually two types of discount cards: the first requires a real name and address and proof of identity. This one affords the user check cashing privileges. Since I do my banking business at an actual bank, I opted for the second, which doesn't require a real identity. Being a properly paranoid Slashbot who doesn't want The Powers That Be to track my aluminum foil purchasing habits (for the hats, you see), I gave my name as John Doe, 1234 Main St., Anytown, USA.
I'd been using the card for over five years before I realized that the cashier sees your name come up on her terminal when you use the card. About a month ago, the cashier asked me if my name was really "John Doe".
"Yeah, and it's a real bitch when I check into a hotel," I replied.
About a year after I got the card, the supermarket (Stop and Shop in Massachusetts) launched a web site that integrated your purchasing data. You'd log in by entering the serial number on the card and get a history of your purchases and discounts, along with "healthy" alternatives (which was pretty brain dead, offering mayonnaise as a "healthy" alternative to mustard).
The beauty part was that after you logged in you were presented with the option of password protecting your data. However, that meant that anyone who hadn't logged in had their purchase data unprotected (albeit with no identity attached). I tested this by entering numbers at random and viewing the purchase histories of random strangers ("Grape soda and rice cakes? What were you thinking?" "Oooh! KY Warming Jelly! Party on, dude!"). I was tempted to enter passwords for some of these but I didn't.
The store pulled the web site after a couple of weeks, citing "security concerns".
Gotta go. I have a craving for grape soda and rice cakes.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
People ask me why I refuse to get one of these grocery store cards. I always first try to explain the privacy implications. That usually falls on deaf ears. However, I find that those ears open up when I tell them, "They aren't handing out those 'discount' cards because they LOSE money off of them." Thoughtful expressions ensue.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
But mainly it's a lack of trust. This is the government who wanted to open the criminal databases to local councils, and fire services, ambulance services and so on, for no apparently good reason. The proposed scheme a central database of your fingerprints, retina scans and facial pictures. Now why? If the card is simply to prove identity then all you need is this data encoded on the card and a unique card ID. The card ID is checked through a central database to show the card is valid, then the encoded biometrics can be checked locally. There's no need for a government database of fingerprints, but that's what they're pushing for.
Of course there's the lying about the security of biometrics, and the popularity of the idea. The government got caught out rejecting every single emailed objection, because they were emailed and not written.
Lets not forget the cost overun of every single large government IT project over the last 20 years as well.
And finally why the hell should I have to pay for something the government says I must have? If it's a must have, fund it yourself. Why should I pay for the government to take my fingerprints, store them and share them globally on demand? Blunkett said it won't cost the tax payer anything because it's self financing. Nice language, it will cost us to get it and we don't have a choice, but hey, it's not a tax. No siree!
So your Kroger card doesn't have your name associated with it. Big deal! You're still the one swiping it every time you buy groceries, so they can still track your buying patterns. For Kroger, the net effect is the same as if you had a "non-blank" card.
Why is it that everybody thinks the most evil thing about loyalty cards is that they can match your buying habits with your name? You think they really CARE what your name is?
Breakfast served all day!