Slashdot Mirror


Retail Stores Plan Elaborate Ways To Track You

Velcroman1 writes "Retailers are experimenting with a variety of new ways to track you, so that when you pick up a shirt, you might get a message about the matching shorts. Or pick up golf shoes at a sports store and you see a discount for a new set of clubs. New technologies like magnetic field detection, Bluetooth Low Energy, sonic pulses, and even transmissions from the in-store lights can tell when you enter a store, where you go, and how you shop. Just last year, tracking was only accurate within 100 feet. Starting this year, they can track within a few feet. ByteLight makes the lighting tech, which transmits a unique signal that the camera in your phone can read. The store can then track your location within about 3 feet — and it's already in use at the Museum of Science in Boston."

195 comments

  1. Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...leave Bluetooth turned on? Seems like a pointless way to run your battery down...

    1. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that everyone who uses a Bluetooth headset leaves Bluetooth turned on.

    2. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do, for my Pebble watch. Regardless, many people now carry wifi capable devices, and most will reveal their MAC address if asked nicely.

    3. Re:Does anyone actually... by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Which means, this is just another good reason not to use a Bluetooth headset! Really, I can imagine a headset being of use in, say, a car--where you need to focus on the road/wheel and holding something up to your ear is just dumb (but let's face it--humans won't stop being morons until they're all dead). But outside of a car setting, I really don't see what the point is in having such a system--and even then, what's wrong with speakerphone? In a store, maybe you get some minor convenience being able to look at shit and bullshit at the same time while having two free hands, but in that case why didn't you drag the person on the other end of the phone line in the store with you to begin with? And I'm having a hard time even thinking of a reason that these two uses--car and stores--are valid alternatives to just waiting to call later.

      So... save your battery, fuck Bluetooth, and fuck these stores' tracking. With years of fighting the scumbags and assholes in the web/online advertisement industry and more recently the extreme backlash on the U.S. government for their mass surveillance programs, you'd think these dipshits would eventually get the fucking point. But no--they never do, because they will stop at nothing to get even more from you.

    4. Re:Does anyone actually... by MollyB · · Score: 1

      Ahem. Geeks age too, or die trying. Bluetooth is a popular feature in hearing aids, although I don't use 'em yet, but will before 2050.

    5. Re:Does anyone actually... by icebike · · Score: 2

      Good gawd, Rage Much?

      You seriously can't be proposing a speaker phone as a replacement for a bluetooth!??

      Why do you think everyone around you needs to hear BOTH sides of your pathetic the conversation about picking up a dozen eggs, and when are you going to clean up your room?

      There is nothing wrong with bluetooth, its very handy, you can answer a phone call without taking the phone out of your pocket and exposing it to snatch-and-run artists, or having to do something as douche bag as turning on the speaker phone in public.

      And explain how I am going to drag the person on the other end of the phone into the store with me when they are 3 states away, and stuck in their office?

      http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35oy7g/

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Does anyone actually... by MindPhlux · · Score: 1

      lol, you're letting the terrorists win

      I use bluetooth in my car, it connects to my audio system automatically. I also drive a manual, so I couldn't use a phone without it in the car even if I wanted to. I've done it a few times, the results were hilarious, if almost hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk is your version of hilarious.

      anyways, the correct response to 'oh no target and walmart are going to be tracking me' is not 'ok well let me infringe on my personal liberties to fight back at the man'.

      the correct response is just not to shop at megastores that do things like this. you probably shouldn't have been shopping there to begin with anyways. go find a farmer's market or non-chain drugstore.

    7. Re:Does anyone actually... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I use Bluetooth headphones on the bus all the time - it's a lot more convenient than corded earpieces when the bus is jammed (which it usually is).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:Does anyone actually... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      There was a TV show called Century City about future lawyers. One of the cases involved a woman who had a dick implant, though still fully functional female. Rather interesting episode, definitely an interesting show. Too bad it got cancelled out so fast (only 9 episodes were filmed).

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    9. Re:Does anyone actually... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Only as long as I'm listening to my headset. I love bluetooth for this, but as soon as I'm not wanting to listen to music, it comes off. Still, I can listen for hours to the music playing on my phone w/my headset.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    10. Re:Does anyone actually... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      She could have made bucks in the futanari world.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    11. Re:Does anyone actually... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'll be 98 in 2050, I'm sure I'll need them. Or maybe not, dead men don't need hearing aids. As to the tracking, as long as it's on their own property, why not? They know what I buy at their store anyway, unless I pay in cash.

    12. Re:Does anyone actually... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Studies show that hands-free phones aren't any safer while driving than holding it up to your ear. Everyone assumes the dangers of driving on the phone come from just having one hand, but it's the distraction factor, not the having one hand. When this is brought up, everyone says "then what's the difference between talking to a passenger and a phone?" The answer is "your brain for some reason treats the two different, and the passenger has their own eyes to compensate or add attention to the road."

      So your rage against bluetooth while driving should be equally directed at using speakerphone while driving.

    13. Re:Does anyone actually... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I've done it a few times, the results were hilarious, if almost hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk is your version of hilarious.

      Maybe it's the reefer, but I laughed for a long time about that. Thank you, sir!

    14. Re:Does anyone actually... by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      So your rage against bluetooth while driving should be equally directed at using speakerphone while driving.

      I honestly think using a phone in the car is a very bad idea no matter what, speakerphone or not. But I would think if you just crank the volume and set the phone down with the speaker facing you, there are two less likely things to cause a distraction/accident:

      1. You can't drop it, because it's not in your hand, and
      2. It won't fall out of your ear leaving you scrambling to catch it like a headset.

      No doubt though, I fully agree that talking on a phone while driving is just dumb. I think it's equally dumb to be fiddling with a cigarette getting your drug fix behind the wheel, but I'm always seeing inconsiderate assholes flicking their lit butts out the window as well. The bottom line is, the only thing a person should be doing while behind the wheel is driving and focusing on maneuvering the vehicle... there are no exceptions. Unless it is in park on the side of a road or in a slot in a parking lot.

    15. Re:Does anyone actually... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, what is this about cash not being tracked? When are we going to get out of the dead tree age with money and replace it with smart cars, like what is happening with license plates.

    16. Re:Does anyone actually... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I'll be 98 in 2050

      And I'll be 93. They won't need any fancy technology to know I'm looking for Depends, Geritol*, and "Get Off My Lawn" signs.

      *Do they even make Geritol anymore?

    17. Re:Does anyone actually... by sjames · · Score: 1

      if almost hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk is your version of hilarious.

      If only the cellphone hadn't been distracting you you could have scored enough points to enter the big race.

    18. Re:Does anyone actually... by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      I'm extremely skeptical of that. If "distraction" were the case, then it would be just as dangerous (if not more) to talk with a passenger while you drive.

    19. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people I ever see with those stupid things are low class, ghetto fabulous types.

    20. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the guy who flicks my cigarette out on your car, knowing that there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

    21. Re:Does anyone actually... by Kangburra · · Score: 1

      If you are about to hit something a passenger will shut up, or better yet, warn you. The person on the phone will not do either.

      --
      Common sense is not so common
    22. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I really wanted to be a dick back, I could always jot down your license plate number and file a report, and note any other erratic or other behavior to mention as well.

    23. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I really wanted to be a dick back, I could always jot down your license plate number and file a report, and note any other erratic or other behavior to mention as well.

      Fuck "filing a report". There's not a damn thing I can do about it???? look up the cigarette flicker's license plate on a site like publicdata.com and find out where he lives. Absolute heartfelt hilarity ensues.

    24. Re:Does anyone actually... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      "your brain for some reason treats the two different" [citation needed]

      "and the passenger has their own eyes to compensate or add attention to the road" This is generally only the case if the passenger happens to also regularly drive. or otherwise do not place any implicit trust on the driver.

    25. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contents of your post and your sig combine into a weird mental image. Don't change. It's perfect.

    26. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the OP but I read about the distraction effect recently.
      "Drivers who used hands-free technology were found to have a slower reaction time and compromised brain functions"
      Here you go:
      http://news.yahoo.com/hands-free-texting-found-more-dangerous-making-phone-014522742.html

    27. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also a neat way to use your wireless headset...

    28. Re:Does anyone actually... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      If you are about to hit something a passenger will shut up, or better yet, warn you.

      Depends on the passenger. You don't know my sister-in-law, who is totally oblivious of anything except what she is talking about - usually her shopping experiences from the previous day. I reckon she would still be talking about it after the crash.

    29. Re:Does anyone actually... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      "and the passenger has their own eyes to compensate or add attention to the road" This is generally only the case if the passenger happens to also regularly drive. or otherwise do not place any implicit trust on the driver.

      Children are an obvious example of this. I see mums driving along while remonstrating with thier children because they are fighting each other or something. I would not rate the concentration on the road very high for either driver or passengers in those scenarios.

    30. Re:Does anyone actually... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      When are we going to get out of the dead tree age with money and replace it with smart cars

      Your future vision then :- bartering for everything with a car ! What will we use for loose change? Bikes? Toy cars?

    31. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using bluetooth headphones removes that major (for me) annoyance of the headphone cord snagging on something and often pulling my phone (or mp3 player) out of my pocket, I could trail the cord inside my shirt to help prevent this but doing that every time I remove/insert the phone into my pocket is annoying in itself and it also makes it difficult to charge while listening to something and even then it can sometime still snag on something at the point where the cord goes from my shirt/t-shirt to my pocket. And using bluetooth headphones also prevent wear and tear damage to the phones headphone socket and greatly reduce that of the headphone cord itself.

      You might not give a damn about this use of bluetooth, but do you really want to argue that for me and people like me not using bluetooth is superior?

    32. Re:Does anyone actually... by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      It's not just the driver's brain treating a person on the phone and a passenger differently, it's also who the driver is talking to. On the phone, people expect immediate responses, while, as you say, a passenger can realize that maybe they shouldn't expect a response straight away. And so the person on the phone will be going, "are you still there?" because you've stopped talking to navigate around a large truck or whatever.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    33. Re:Does anyone actually... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There are people who cannot walk and talk at the same time. These same people cannot drive and talk either. There are other people who can talk and drive, and completely shut out the conversation if the driving situation calls for it (that would mean the conversation suffers) Unfortunately, trends indicate the first set seems to dominate.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    34. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only as long as I'm listening to my headset. I love bluetooth for this, but as soon as I'm not wanting to listen to music, it comes off.

      I'm talking about people who use their phones like, you know, a phone, not a music player.

      Not that I have a problem with that. Just that your scenario is not the one I was talking about.

    35. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly think using a phone in the car is a very bad idea no matter what, speakerphone or not.

      Agreed. When my state tried to ban cell phone use by drivers, it just got whittled down to 'no texting or web-surfing and such'. Kind of lame.

    36. Re:Does anyone actually... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That's kind of my point.... I'd be willing to bet that there's a negligible statistically significant difference between talking with somebody who isn't in the car and talking with somebody who you can't see, and is otherwise not concerned with what else may be going on outside the vehicle.

      For myself, although I realize that this evidence is anecdotal, I find no difference at all between using my car's speaker that connects wirelessly to my cell phone and talking to somebody next to me. I realize that I might take the task of driving more seriously than most, but I won't engage in conversation with anyone, at all, if I find that traffic is sufficiently unpredictable. If I'm on my cell phone at such times, that generally amounts to blurting out something to the effect of "I'm in some heavy traffic, I'll call you later", and letting them hang up to disconnect the call. I would no more be able to conduct a coherent conversation with a person in the car at such times either. Ordinarily, however, traffic outside the vehicle is sufficiently spaced and exhibiting predictable enough behavior that this is not the case and conversation is usually possible. I find I'm about equally willing to completely mentally disconnect from either kind of conversation the instant something happens outside the car which requires any additional concentration, so I really can't see any difference between the two, given that a person has actually mentally delegated the task of driving as their primary attentive duty in the first place, as I always strive to do.

    37. Re:Does anyone actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first group can kill both groups and more if you let them.

      So if we want allow people to drive and use phones at the same time, there has to be a very tough test to pass (e.g. being required to answer difficult questions within a time limit while being required to drive in difficult traffic conditions in a simulator within a time limit). If you don't pass it, you're not licensed to do so. And even if you pass it and get the special license, if you do crash while using a phone and it's your fault you still get the same penalties. And you need to be retested every few years to renew the license.

      I'd be fine with such drivers on the road even if they are on the phone. I'd be more likely to kill them than them kill me ;).

      I'd be very impressed if someone passes the "texting" version!

    38. Re:Does anyone actually... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've done it a few times, the results were hilarious, if almost hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk is your version of hilarious.

      you need to work on your aim. Play Carmageddon, GTA and similar a bit more.

      --
    39. Re:Does anyone actually... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      I also drive a manual, so I couldn't use a phone without it in the car even if I wanted to. I've done it a few times, the results were hilarious, if almost hitting pedestrians on the sidewalk is your version of hilarious.

      Hey now, it's not that hard. Both of my cars are manual, but only one has Bluetooth. Hold the phone in your left hand (presuming you're in a LHD country) and plan your shifts to avoid needing them mid-corner (which is something you should be doing anyways.

      That said the Bluetooth is a lot nicer. I don't talk and drive often (unlike apparently most I pay more attention to the road than the other party, requiring a lot of repeated information and usually resulting in them deciding to call back later). I'd be all for requiring hands-free whenever driving, but I'm not sure how many cell phone related accidents actually involved the phone in the hand being a factor rather than the driver spacing out on their driving while they focus on the call.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    40. Re:Does anyone actually... by edcalaban · · Score: 1

      I do, and it doesn't seem to have impacted my battery life much at all.

      I leave it on because it works with my car radio, and I use that (plus an app) to trigger various things, like turning off my WiFi when I leave in the morning. It also lets me play music on long trips and I can do bluetooth calls (in my car, not a headset).

    41. Re:Does anyone actually... by ArcadeX · · Score: 1

      anyways, the correct response to 'oh no target and walmart are going to be tracking me' is not 'ok well let me infringe on my personal liberties to fight back at the man'.

      the correct response is just not to shop at megastores that do things like this. you probably shouldn't have been shopping there to begin with anyways. go find a farmer's market or non-chain drugstore.

      friend of mine wrote a db program for target about 15 years ago that matches purchses to checks / debit / credit cards. unless you pay cash, target already has reports for if you're overdue to buy toothpaste, so this isn't exactly a big step for them.

      --
      An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
    42. Re:Does anyone actually... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Smoking at the wheel doesn't use your attention, and is even somewhat beneficial next to suffering from withdrawal symptom. It's not more dangerous than using a stick shift, which is legal. Of course people are assholes, or are too dumb to figure out they should open the ashtray before smoking and put the butt into ashtray.

      By your reasoning fiddling with radio, A/C controls should not be done and I agree it's kind of dangerous (esp. if unfamiliar with the controls) and hell, merely listening to talk shows, radio news etc. is a problem, moreso than smoking at the wheel.

    43. Re:Does anyone actually... by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever sat beside a fiending lifetime tobacco smoker who's scrambling behind the wheel with both hands, trying to grab his pack of cigarettes and lighter, and then pull one out and try to light it? If you truly think that there is no attention involved in that, then sorry, but you're full of shit. And let me remind you how many hands it takes to do each of these steps: both of them. So not only is your mind and focus on getting that cigarette lit and in your mouth, you've really got no hand available to actually--you know--drive. And that alone--not having free hands to steer--is dangerous itself. Not to mention fucking stupid.

    44. Re:Does anyone actually... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I don't know what's wrong with these people. I can light a cigarette with one hand, watch a movie with one hand etc.

  2. Shopping for clothes . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Are you looking for something in particular, sir . . . ?"

    "Yeah, you got any tinfoil clothes . . . ?"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Shopping for clothes . . . by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      You, sir, have won the thread.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Shopping for clothes . . . by gagol · · Score: 1

      Only hats... sorry.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    3. Re:Shopping for clothes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I saw this article my first thought was, "heck, even dumpster diving sounds like a superior, less distasteful shopping exerience, even if the local rats aren't wearing ID badges." I see your into recycling too.

      Wonder if they should incorporate a fashion show into Black Hat?

    4. Re:Shopping for clothes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course we do.

      Do you prefer strong focusing or ultra-strong focusing*?

      __
      * Tin-foil hats have been found to actually *enhance* the ability to "read your mind", etc. A bit like a focused antenna, with your brain in the center. Which makes sense, seeing as it's a parabolic reflective surface.

    5. Re:Shopping for clothes . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I shall buy all my stuff via the inter tubes, they can't track me there muwahwa.

  3. Unlikely by luckytroll · · Score: 2

    I find it unlikely that the Salvation army or Value Village would bother with this technology, let alone actually be able to offer clothes that match.

    Just sayin....

    1. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your profile is going to look strange when salvation army starts selling previously rfid tagged clothing.

    2. Re:Unlikely by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...let alone actually be able to offer clothes that match.

      Clothes that match? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

    3. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What matches dirty jeans and a three wolf moon tshirt?

    4. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully the previous owners of your clothing have nothing that would taint your reputation. Now that they are often seen with you.

    5. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. An article about retail shopping, in a physical store, is just a massive collective WHOOSH on this site.

    6. Re:Unlikely by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, let's start with the primer, and once you've mastered the basics we'll move on to lesson #2. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Unlikely by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Over a decade ago on Slashdot there was a story about PDAs being given to waiters in restaurants to take orders and beam them directly to the kitchen. Someone made pretty much the same comment as you - it would never take off in low cost establishments, it wouldn't be worth giving them to minimum wage staff etc.

      About five years ago I was in a cheap chain restaurant in Osaka and the young waitress took my order on a little PDA. A few second later the chef shouted "hai, katsu desu!" from the kitchen.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Unlikely by hjf · · Score: 1

      You were in JAPAN, dude. What did you expect?

  4. Going to the leave the phone at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shopping will be an event to put on facial makeup. Black lines for beneath the eyes and above the eyebrows (I think a tube of black lipstick will do nicely).

    1. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also some adjustable leg braces to change the way I walk. In the short run you might get a savings but in the longer term the analysis will be used to rob you of your money in many small and imperceptible ways.

    2. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shopping will be an event to put on facial makeup. Black lines for beneath the eyes and above the eyebrows (I think a tube of black lipstick will do nicely).

      Why inconvenience yourself by leaving your phone at home, when you can just avoid those store that use this tech?

      If I get a text message when I walk into a store I will never set foot in that store again. There are plenty of on-line
      shops that sell the same thing. I don't like busybody sales clerks hovering over my shoulder while I shop and I sure
      as hell don't expect to put up with some computer doing the same thing.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most stores will be less obvious about this. You will get ads through other venues and in other places. The ads might show up on your phone at another time (while browsing). The phone and other biometrics will be used to tie you into a larger profile that will include other devices and identifiers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

    4. Re: Going to the leave the phone at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, just keep it in your pocket

    5. Re: Going to the leave the phone at home by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      or leave your phone at home.. it is possible to survive without one for a few hours..

    6. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      That only works as long as there are stores that don't do this.. Inevitably this will become cheap enough that every store will have it. what then?

    7. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 2

      Outlaw the practice as an invasion of privacy or DMCA violation?
      Pass opt in laws?
      Demand phones that won't reveal any personal information?
      Apps that sense attempt and block them, or spoof random mac addresses?
      Personal jammers?
      Shop online?
      Picket the store?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. good luck getting laws passed that actually protect citizen rights
      2. ditto
      3. ditto
      4. good luck enforcing this consistently
      5. might work.. better off just not carrying a phone, period.
      6. that invites its own form of tracking...ala amazon's custom pricing schemes etc.
      7. if you're actually successful enough to affect its bottom line, the cops get called and you get labeled a terrorist.

    9. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      How about this scenario.

      You've browsed a store online. Added something to your cart but didn't buy. Now you are at the store and you get a message that the item you were looking at is available with a 15% discount.

      Another: you go to a store and look at stuff then leave. Later at home you see an email with a discount code for that item at the online store.

      The goal isn't to track you. The goal is to sell you something and keep you from buying it on Amazon from a grey market middle man who got ahold of a lot of merchandise from a wholesaler who dumped it for a small margin.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    10. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 1

      I'll go with Amazon every time, as well as their so called gray market dumpers, thank you very much.

      Any retailers making enough profit to fund the type of tracking you posit are gouging too deeply anyway.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by wwphx · · Score: 1

      First go to the store manager and show him the text message, then tell him you're leaving and canceling your store credit card, regardless of whether you have one or not.

      And I totally agree. Though I am considering keeping a Faraday bag in my car for shopping expeditions.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    12. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone love to throw out the Faraday solution for devices that have OFF switches?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    13. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by hjf · · Score: 1

      I run a shop. Some customers expect you to be over their shoulders all the time, and they actually get offended if you don't. I usually greet them and tell them to look around, and ask if they have any doubts. They look lost, get scared, and go away without even saying goodbye. A while later you hear from them saying "the service there is really bad".

      You can't please everybody.

    14. Re: Going to the leave the phone at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because sometimes off is not off.

      Sometimes "off" can even be "silently operated microphone".

    15. Re:Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 1

      It takes about a week for the average "hired off the street" sales staff to learn which customers need hand holding and which don't.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re: Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 1

      Name one phone where off is not in fact OFF.

      That would be illegal in the US.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re: Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 1

      Again, stupid idea.

      Its your phone. Why let some Robber Barron scare you away from using it?

      Deprive the assholes of your patronage.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    18. Re: Going to the leave the phone at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, except it's known that there is a backdoor, de FBI used it to get evidence on some mobster several years back now.

      end result:
      - the mobsters now leave their phones out of the meeting room
      - everyone else is carrying around a potential bug willingly

    19. Re: Going to the leave the phone at home by icebike · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you are wrong.
      Said mobster story was debunked years ago. His phone had been tampered with.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  5. Minority Report by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like that movie, Minority Report, when Tom Cruise went into that store with his new eyes and the hologram asked him "How are those Dockers working out for you?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:Minority Report by mendax · · Score: 1

      Any store like this would be one that I would not shop in. A Minority Report-type world makes me want to live off the grid.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    2. Re:Minority Report by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Any store like this would be one that I would not shop in. A Minority Report-type world makes me want to live off the grid.

      So where do you shop? Online? Where every retailer online is getting analytics data already? This is offline retailers gathering analytics.

      And yes, online retailers ALL capture analytics. Even if you don't order anything, they're tracking what you looked at, what you clicked more information on, what you clicked add to cart, what else you looked for, etc.

      No, when I say "you" I don't mean YOU you. I mean "a shopper" - most of the analytics they get online and off are only for a shopping session and unless you let them, most end up treating it an an anonymous shopper because they cannot link it to an actual person, just someone shopped for A, B and C. Someone else shopped for A, B, C and D.

      It's how places like Amazon gather the "shoppers also looked at" style things on every item page. Or "frequently bought together".

      Not all this information needs to be personally identifiable to be useful - just figuring out what people get together is useful enough. Even figuring out what people buy on major events is valuable for store displays and placement of items.

      Of course, making it personally identifiable makes it even more valuable, like how Target identifies parents who are expecting so can use it to give them coupons. It can be freaky too - like the father who got angry when Target sent his daughter coupons for baby stuff, only to learn that yes, his daughter WAS pregnant and expecting. Or like how Google detected the Chinese car scammers.

      If you want to avoid analytics, then when you're in a store, make sure you walk all aisles in a simple pattern (up one, down the adjacent, etc) and stop at random items. Online, do the same thing - click around at random items.

      Just that in the retail world, it's easier to be anonymous - you can do all your shopping and generate all the analytical data, and pay cash in the end so they won't even be able to associate a name with it.

    3. Re:Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And yes, online retailers ALL capture analytics. Even if you don't order anything, they're tracking

      Someone should build a browser extension that destroys such analysis by traversing the page in the background at random.

    4. Re:Minority Report by peragrin · · Score: 1

      You are quite correct that all stores are collecting analytics on your movements

      The problem is they have no clue as to what to do with them. Take amazon. They have a record of everything I have purchased from them for the last 15 years yet they still can't send me advertising that is relevant to my interests. Why?

      if I buy something I generally don't need it again, exceptions are food and clothes. Clothes change styles so buying the same clothes 10 years later is worthless.

      Styles, life, everything changes. Maybe I buy a something special for a significant other. we breakup 2 years later. why would i want that something special for the next significant other?

      The worst thing is all this targeted advertising does is show me what I have already purchased, not what is new. Because advertisers don't know how to use analytics and are generally morons.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it's very important that when browsing online you look at:

      alarm clocks
      mayonnaise
      garden hoses
      very high heeled shoes
      adjustable wrenches
      bed socks
      wart treatment
      biographies of faded celebrities
      and
      Hannah Montana picnicware

      try and profile that!

    6. Re:Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you could have some fun gaming Amazon: look at some Disney "family" vids then go look at sex toys.

    7. Re:Minority Report by wwphx · · Score: 1

      I wonder if an IR LED baseball cap would over-expose and foil retina cameras? I don't remember the time frame but there was a Slashdot article (IIRC) in the last year or so that cited a study that showed that our retina patterns change over time. Polarized wrap-around glasses would take care of that and might also fox facial recognition cameras.

      Of course, this is only one metric that can be used for tracking. This ByteLight thing where the LEDs interact with your phone's camera requires an app, so it's not a passive biometric that requires foxing. If you don't load and run the app, you don't get the messages that say X is on sale. http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2013/01/bytelight-indoor-mapping/

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    8. Re:Minority Report by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      You are quite correct that all stores are collecting analytics on your movements

      The problem is they have no clue as to what to do with them. Take amazon. They have a record of everything I have purchased from them for the last 15 years yet they still can't send me advertising that is relevant to my interests. Why?

      if I buy something I generally don't need it again, exceptions are food and clothes. Clothes change styles so buying the same clothes 10 years later is worthless.

      That's not the useful part of analytics - it's not useful to know what you bought so it can be suggested again.

      It's useful to know what you however looked at, and bought. Lets say you bought a book from Amazon. Amazon knows they can't really suggest the book to you again, but they can see you bought the book, then see what else you bought nearby (either in the same cart or perhaps a few days before and after). Compare it with others who bought the same book and then recommend those items, or if someone else goes and looks it up, offers suggestions on those items.

      Identification is useful, but not required for analytics. Perhaps a store notices that people are searching for a title suddenly - the analytical engine would be wise to bump that item to the front page. Or in a supermarket, where products are positioned is important as well. If the store notices chips and dip sales spike near superbowl day, well, the store will put out premium chips and dip near the checkout area so time-pressed people will just buy and go, spending more because they bought the expensive stuff. Likewise, they'll see sales of what kind of chips and dip are popular, and know to not put them on sale.

      Oh, and there's always a very good chance analytics screws up - everyone is different and some people's tastes vary tremendously. If you're Amazon, you want to become the dominant online store people go to in order to capture an overall feel of a person's interests, rather than slices (e.g., some people go to Amazon for books and music, Newegg for computer parts, Dell for PCs, some electronics dealer for other stuff, etc - these stores get only partial analytics about you. But if you used Amazon to look up a lot of that stuff, even if you didn't buy, they build up a more complete profile). Like right now, Amazon.ca has a very incomplete profile on me because until recently, books, movies, music and games was all they sold, and I tended to purchase retail (it doesn't help that prices generally aren't better online for me).

      I wonder if an IR LED baseball cap would over-expose and foil retina cameras? I don't remember the time frame but there was a Slashdot article (IIRC) in the last year or so that cited a study that showed that our retina patterns change over time. Polarized wrap-around glasses would take care of that and might also fox facial recognition cameras.

      Except now they track you as the funny guy with the funny hate that specked the camera. They don't care about your identity. They care about what you do in the store. Do you walk straight to the item? Do you look at other items? Do you compare items? Do you ask for help? Do you have a hard time finding help? (Yes, people do leave if they can't find help and uncontrolled observation can see that).

      And yes, analytical engines are hard.

    9. Re:Minority Report by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That is the point. I have 15 years worth of books and movies for them to go by. And they only show me things by artists, studios I have already watched, listened or read. Okay maybe a new book comes out by a regular author that I don't know about. but the other 15 ads are the previous 15 books that I have already read and amazon knows that. I can't even give them the benefit of doubt and say it was a reprint, or new cover art but the exact same fucking books. That is what all this targeted advertising gets is even worse advertising. As it only shows what you have already seen.

      The thing is all that data doesn't go to the people who need to know, and who can UNDERSTAND what it means. Advertisers are marketing people which means they are to stupid to understand what the information being collected means.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  6. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " which transmits a unique signal that the camera in your phone can read."

    Assuming everyone has a smartphone... or bring it with them. I'd basically be invisible to them.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Agent+ME · · Score: 1

      And assuming that your phone does something with that signal useful to the retail store. I'm at a complete loss at what they're going at there.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by icebike · · Score: 1

      And assuming the phone isn't in your pocket or purse.

      OTOH, if I want directions to the shoe department at some big box store, being able to follow an arrow
      on my phone is probably more useful than asking some snooty clerk. But I'll be damned if I'm installing
      one app per store, so they better get their act together and find one opt-in solution.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or simple signage to the different departments, like there has always been.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      And moreover, I assume you must install an app that use that signal. Except if there is a collusion between retail sotres and mobile vendors/operators.

    5. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, this is just hard for me to even imagine. I've been in some large stores around the country. Directions to the shoe department? Why? Just raise the focus of your eyes, and there are signs in every store that I've ever been in. Why are people always looking down, and never look up? There are aisles and aisle and aisles between me and whichever department I might be looking for. But, if I just look up, I can see the signs. Electronics. Boys. Women. Girls. Jewelry. The signs are there, floating just above everything else except maybe the outdoor sporting stuff like kayaks and bicycles.

    6. Re:Nothing to see here by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      And assuming that your phone does something with that signal useful to the retail store. I'm at a complete loss at what they're going at there.

      well.. museums seem like the obvious only reasonable use case for the stuff.
      extra info, multimedia etc links.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you find it hard to locate whole entire departments in a store, I imagine you would have a hard time using a smartphone. Do you have a Jitterbug? .

    8. Re:Nothing to see here by icebike · · Score: 1

      Small town kids are so cute.

      Let me know when you save up enough money to visit the big city son, I'll take you to some stores you'll have to dial 911 just to get out of.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing.. You are talking about something that everyone does, walks around department store. This is not something unique or special, it's not like you are trying to explain to someone what it's like to climb a big mountain, be under the water on a submarine for months or biking across the country. You are talking about finding your way around a store? See all of those other people next to you in that big store? They are doing it too as are tens of thousand other people every day. Please explain to me your experience and how is is different than anyone else's or how it is something I have never experienced before? I'll compare your reply to any number of pizza deliver people and see how it compares.

    10. Re:Nothing to see here by plover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is what Shopkick is. The users earn points called "kicks" for entering the participating stores. One app, many stores.

      It's certainly not my cup of tea, but there are lots of people who voluntarily install these kinds of apps, especially when they get free stuff for doing so.

      --
      John
    11. Re:Nothing to see here by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      " which transmits a unique signal that the camera in your phone can read."

      Assuming everyone has a smartphone...

      Don't worry, it is only aimed at those iPhone fanbois who wave their phone around to show they've got one. Anyone sensible keeps their phone in their pocket, for all sorts of reasons.

    12. Re:Nothing to see here by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      OTOH, if I want directions to the shoe department at some big box store, being able to follow an arrow on my phone is probably more useful than asking some snooty clerk.

      IKEA have that sorted for you already. Their stores are laid out like a linear FPS, where you must walk past every item in the place between entering and leaving. A sales guy in the Bristol (UK) IKEA told me it was nearly a mile walk through there. So keep walking, you will find your shit eventually.

    13. Re:Nothing to see here by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      How about ratings and reviews for products? DIY projects for tools at the home improvement store? Fashion tips? Behind the scenes making of info? Get Satisfaction links? Instruction manuals?

      This could be useful.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    14. Re:Nothing to see here by hjf · · Score: 1

      I was at this mall in Buenos Aires. The shops are arranged in a labyrinth fashion! All the floors look the same, and it's hard to find the bathrooms. Once you get out of the bathroom, it's complicated to find your way back. Because stairs going up are accessed from one side of the mall, and the ones going down are accessed through another side. Yes. It's very possible to get lost even in a small shopping mall.

      This other mall has different sets of levels you access through different sets of stairs. You can't go from level 1 to level 2, you have to take the stairs from level 1 to 3, then go downstairs to level 2... complicated and tricky! Designed to get lost in there.

    15. Re:Nothing to see here by icebike · · Score: 1

      Apparently they don't have Fire Marshalls in Argentina. I can't think of a single place in North America where that would be legal.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re:Nothing to see here by hjf · · Score: 1

      There are emergency exits and all, but if you're looking for a store... good luck.

      Also, casinos in Las Vegas are like that too. Designed to hide the exits so you can't even tell if it's day or night.

    17. Re:Nothing to see here by icebike · · Score: 1

      Well you won't find a clock in Vegas or many windows, but you will see exit signs everywhere.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  7. Not allways a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Orwellian aspects of such tracking are scary, but there are two sides to the coin.

    On a recent shopping expedition I had to go to four stores to find a single pair of shoes in my size. I also had a tough time finding a shirt that was actually in my size. Maybe if they did a little tracking of their customers, they would stock something in the sizes or styles this customer actually wants.

    Just sayin'...

    1. Re:Not allways a bad idea by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 2

      If they can't do their job properly to begin with--stocking the shelves with what people want--then what makes you think that tracking you will change anything? They are supposed to keep track of inventory, and if they just don't carry something, then that kind of is up to the customer to either look elsewhere or ask a manager if they can get it in. Automatic tracking will not solve anything... all it will do is violate your privacy even further. But hey, it's not like they don't have dozens or even hundreds of cameras spread all throughout their perimeter, both inside and out, spying on you. What's a bit more going to hurt, other than your own battery power in this case?

    2. Re:Not allways a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a larger than 12 or 13 shoe chances are you have had that for a while. You should already know that not many stores stock 13+ and selection about 12 is very limited. I wear a 15 and stopped looking for shoes in stores about 10 years ago when I crossed through 13.
      If you have the average shoe which is a 10.5-11 and you could not find them, you went to some crappy stores considering they are loaded up with stock now because of back to school shoppers.

    3. Re:Not allways a bad idea by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Maybe if they did a little tracking of their customers, they would stock something in the sizes or styles this customer actually wants.

      Last week I was trying to buy medium size trousers (US =pants) in the Bristol Cribbs Causeway BHS store. I need a medium size. I liked one style, but all they had was exra small and extra large. In other words their statistical distribution was the inverse of the expected population distribution.

      They should not need tracking to realise how dumb this is; they need to grow a brain cell instead. I guess they stock up with a level distribution of sizes and then the medium sells out first.

      Anyway, how would tracking help? They might conclude I did not buy because I did not like the colour, so next time they will all be extra large and pink as well. Or are they going to photograph me to measure my anatomy?

    4. Re:Not allways a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should not need tracking to realise how dumb this is; they need to grow a brain cell instead. I guess they stock up with a level distribution of sizes

      Evidence?

      and then the medium sells out first.

      Or they actually know more about it than some smug asshat and ordered 3 times as many in the medium sizes and it just happened that 3.001 times as many medium people came in and bought them.

      Get up earlier next time, and be the 2.999th.

  8. Yet another sensationalist summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yay, more hype and wank trying to whip up the /. crowd into a frenzy.

    According to TFA (yeah, I read it, suck me) all the things listed here are features of a store-wide network that interfaces with an app on your smartphone. Yes, that's right, you have to manually add an app to your phone for these establishments in order for any of this 'tracking' to work. An app whose primary function is delivering ads and coupons to you.

    Seriously, aren't things already bad enough with the whole NSA thing? Is fear mongering and just plain making shit up really necessary?

    [captcha: congress]

    1. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure a lot of carriers will bundle this with their phones, in a manner such that you must void your warranty to remove it. Back when I was using Android, my phone came with a Facebook app that I never wanted.

    2. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Void the warranty, then. If the phone explodes, it's still worth it.

    3. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      funny thing is, CNN had a whole 1 hour thing like 2 weeks ago about a company that was using video surveillance to achieve less than "3ft" accuracy, including face-tracking and eye-watching... This is a slashvertisement for a company that I guess is trying to respond and/or capitalize on that previous huge wide-spread news (it was also on NBC, ABC, and in major newspapers).

    4. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is fear mongering and just plain making shit up really necessary?

      Yes. Yes, it is.

      You see, Americans are stupid creatures, and instinctively will not care about anything until untoward horrors that aren't actually happening are pounded through their fat heads, into their overly thick skulls.

      See: Marijuana making white girls go black and never come back, terrorism causing any sort of significant casualties compared to those suffered defending our rights, damage to children from playing violent video games and watching porn, deaths caused by military-style rifles, et cetera.

      We're all up in all of that largely imaginary business. Why? Because of conceited gasping, false statistics, and a great deal of hand-wringing.

      So, yes.

      Yes, we need to make up shit when it comes to our inherent right to privacy.

      Because it's the only way to inflame the populace enough to do something.

    5. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they would love to track even non-app users but... Looking at what today's "targeted ads" serve up I really question the value of all this tracking. What good is a perfect profile if you don't have the products the buyer would want?

    6. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Because it's the only way to inflame the populace enough to do something.

      Inflamed? Better go do shit.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    7. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Seriously, aren't things already bad enough with the whole NSA thing? Is fear mongering and just plain making shit up really necessary?

      You must be new here - the hourly Two Minute Hate is a regular feature of /. nowadays.

    8. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, aren't things already bad enough with the whole NSA thing? Is fear mongering and just plain making shit up really necessary?

      You must be new here - the hourly Two Minute Hate is a regular feature of /. nowadays.

      I find it creepy that you're using a 1984 reference to defend the nationwide surveillance of american citizens from the justified outrage of those citizens.

    9. Re:Yet another sensationalist summary by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Manually installed today, prebundled as an unremovable system app with every new phone tomorrow.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  9. How Annoying by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I resent the necessity to turn off my phone when I enter a store. They are taking what might be a great tool (like product comparisons via barcode and QR code reading) and turning it into a burden and annoyance instead.

    If I found out a store used this, I'd go somewhere else. I do, actually, have choices.

    1. Re:How Annoying by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Based on what little info is on ByteLight's website - wouldn't you, as a customer, have to be running the store's app on your phone for this tracking to work? If so, just don't run the software.

      The other tracking method they listed was wi-fi fingerprinting. Annoying, but not very accurate - and you can completely defeat it just by turning wi-fi off, I assume (something I usually do anyway).

      That said, I'd still complain loudly to the management of any store I shop at if I found they were using the technology.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:How Annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I resent the necessity to turn off my phone when I enter a store. They are taking what might be a great tool (like product comparisons via barcode and QR code reading) and turning it into a burden and annoyance instead.

      And then they complain about people shopping online.

      There may be some good ones, but collectively retailers are fucking idiots and complete sleazy leeches.

    3. Re:How Annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takes a few more seconds to turn-off the phone and put on the tinfoil lined hat and dark shades. Once inside the store walk backwards to screw with the tracking equipment.

    4. Re:How Annoying by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That sounds reasonable until the company starts paying app developers to sneak the code into their apps as part of the advertising that makes it free. You could be walking through a store and receive what appears to be a text message with the coupons or whatever and not know it was from the store's app doing this.

      what some of these free apps require in the form of access is amazing. A flashlight app that wants to read the phone state, contact information and location information is absurd but they are out there. I downloaded a solitaire game and got confused to why it wanted to read my contacts info or protected storage areas. Most people probably don't even bother looking at what the app accesses or has the ability to access when they install them. I have something on my phone (app or setting) that seems to randomly turn the wifi on at times and can't figure out what it is. This is on a non-rooted droid phone too.

      Of course this is nothing new. It reminds of the joke about someone walking into a bass pro shop and spending thousands of dollars outfitting himself to go fishing. When someone made a comment about how it was easy to get commission from someone looking to spend money, the sale associate replied he originally came looking for condoms but I said he knew he wasn't going to get laid, might as well just go fishing.

    5. Re:How Annoying by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder why they haven't come out with an app to block it.

    6. Re:How Annoying by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Based on what little info is on ByteLight's website - wouldn't you, as a customer, have to be running the store's app on your phone for this tracking to work? If so, just don't run the software."

      Well, that's a good point I suppose. But because of the prior use of rather sneaky tactics (using your ",insert store name here> points card" as a way to track your purchases for example), I do tend to assume it's not obviously an opt-in.

      But if it's a store-specific app, which you have the option to not run, it might not be so bad. On the other hand, if it becomes "use this app to get better prices" in exchange for privacy, I'll just be pissed off again. It's coercion, which I do not approve. Mild coercion, perhaps, but coercion nevertheless.

    7. Re:How Annoying by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1

      You call it coercion, but others might simply call it entering into a mutually beneficial agreement with the store.

      So long as it is optional and you have the choice not to lose your privacy, I don't see what your complaint is. Other shoppers, obviously, have the choice to give up their shopping habits to the store and get cheaper prices as a result. As we have seen from store loyalty cards, it is clearly a very attractive proposition to many people.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    8. Re:How Annoying by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I called it mild coercion. If you make regular sales available to only a select group, then people will want to be part of that group. If they understand what privacy they are trading for being in that group, then fine and it can be called fully "voluntary". But often that has not been the case. That was my point.

    9. Re:How Annoying by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      To put it a different way: the issue here is informed consent.

      If people are not fully informed, then they cannot validly be said to have consented. Instead they have been coerced.

  10. I cant wait... by wbr1 · · Score: 1
    Till some intrusive ad scheme like this is manufacturer/carrier baked into phones and difficult or impossible to turn off.

    I can imagine shopping and having a paper clip pop up on my shiny new windows phone that states, "it looks like you are trying to copy queer eye for the straight guy. Would you like some help?"

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:I cant wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fucking government is looking into your life on a level that you really can't determine because of how shady they've become and this is what you're calling intrusive? I can't select what stores I shop at. I won't be able to select which prison camp I get sent to when they come to drag me away for being undesirable.

  11. Re: Just stay at home geeks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you sure told us off!

    LOL

  12. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't track me if I never go in your store... or any store... fuck 'em.

    1. Re:Well... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, eventually your mom will get tired of doing all your shopping and you will have to go to a store sometime.

      I suppose you could find a woman to love who will wait on you hand and foot in this regard but don't hold you breath on it. Most mature women will send you to the store so they don't have to go- even when it's for feminine hygiene products that would make you blush if you were caught buying by your friends.

    2. Re:Well... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And then you buy the wrong ones, which means you're obviously playing around - they must be the kind that she uses.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Do not want. by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    Do not want your creeping salespeople shadowing me.

    Do not want your club card / loyalty program tracking me.

    Really do not want your tracking app.

    1. Re:Do not want. by Animats · · Score: 1

      Do not want your creeping salespeople shadowing me.

      That's why I, and everybody else, gave up shopping at Best Buy. Their combination of annoying and incompetent was just too much.

      Do not want your club card / loyalty program tracking me.

      That made me switch from Walgreens to CVS. Walgreens' pricing on many items is more than doubled unless you sign up with their tracking card. At CVS, they'll scan a generic card at checkout and you get the "card" price.

      Really do not want your tracking app.

      Yes.

    2. Re:Do not want. by hjf · · Score: 1

      I agree with you.

      But like i said before: I run a shop. People WANT a salesperson creeping behind you. I think it makes them feel important. I've learned that you have to get up from your chair and start following them around, grabbing things from the shelves, and putting them in their hands. They buy a lot more when you do that.

      Not all people are into the full self-service thing.

  14. Designed to drive customers *away*, it seems by Nemosoft+Unv. · · Score: 1

    I have two rules when I go shopping, especially for clothes: I don't want to spend too much time on it, and I don't want to be asked if I can find "it". Yes, thank you, I'll use my eyes and I will ask you if absolutely necessary (and yes, I'm a man). Absolutely the last thing I need is the electronic equivalent of an overly eager employee store, especially since I can't tell it to bugger off.

    Granted, not everybody shops like me. But image you are shopping and every 2 minutes an employee pops up next to you, holding up a cardboard with the latest sale, right in front of you. I have never seen that done in a shop, and I think with good reason... Their customers will walk out of the shop quickly.

    --
    "Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
    1. Re:Designed to drive customers *away*, it seems by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      I agree. You don't really want people "pouncing" on you when you walk into a store.

  15. Clippy .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... to shoplifter: "It appears that you are trying to stuff merchandise into your pants. Would you like me to direct you to the baggy pants section?"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  16. Only visible to paired devices by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    My phone has this setting enabled. How is this little nuisance supposed to work in this case?

    1. Re:Only visible to paired devices by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      My phone has this setting enabled. How is this little nuisance supposed to work in this case?

      you think visibility means that the app _you_install_ couldn't talk to their bt devices? doing that link is trivial once you have agreed to install the shit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  17. but isnt /. tracking US ??? 'Ghostery' shows 5 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting topic, yes, for a site that's showing at least FIVE /. user tracking processes ..

    This is outrageously hypocritical ...

  18. Simple solution by davebarnes · · Score: 1

    Don't buy anything.
    Visit a "frugal living" website and "tune in and drop out".

    --
    Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
    1. Re:Simple solution by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Don't buy anything.

      Grow your own crops and raise animals? The form of barter called "cash" works just as well if you don't want corporations stalking you.

  19. Re:but isnt /. tracking US ??? 'Ghostery' shows 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also from what I understand of SAP one of my favorite sponsors here on slashdot. Ever watch the ads for this company? The emphasis is in finding out where people are saying negative things about your product (with the goal of silencing them?)

  20. Re:but isnt /. tracking US ??? 'Ghostery' shows 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never mind I think that sas

  21. Not just the phone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't forget facial recognition. And how about those "smart cards". Remember they already track your credit card purchases.
    Best to leave your phone in the car, in a tin box, and only pay cash. Oh...yeah...maybe a fake beard (unless you have a real one like any real nerd).
     

  22. Low tech solution... by webdog314 · · Score: 1

    Or, they could, you know, go low-tech and just have a sign by the shirts that says, "Matching Shorts - 20% Off". Or even better, put the shorts on the next table.

    Want to *really* upsell me? Have a pretty girl at the door hand me a coupon for an extra 10% off any purchase of $25 or more at the register. Good for two days.

  23. Sensationalist Fox News Story by guttentag · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary is incorrect. The story is about retailers tracking customers who are running the retailer's app while shopping in the store so they can suggest related items. The article even leads off with a ridiculous photo of someone holding an iPad mini and looking at a listing for the item on the shelf. When was the last time you saw someone walking around a store with an iPad in their hand?

    In theory, if you're downloading the retailer's app and using it in their store on your phone, you are looking for "something extra" from the retailer. What they're talking about here is the app acting as a salesperson, noting where you are in the store and possibly what you might be looking at to suggest items you might want. It's a gimmick, though. The app may know where you are within a few feet, but it doesn't know what item you have in your hand, so it can't properly suggest products based on what you're about to buy while you're still in the store. All it can do is say "I see you're by the polo shirt table... want two of these? We'll give you a coupon for two for $20." This is no more effective than putting a dead tree sign on the table that says "polo shirts: 2 for $20." Dead trees are cheaper, and everyone can see them, resulting in more sales than limiting your promotion to the <1% of customers who are walking through your store running your app and paying attention to it.

    The way to make it somewhat more effective would be to tie it into what safeway is doing, where they keep track of everything you buy with your Safeway card and the highest prices you've historically been willing to pay for those items. Then they offer you a discount based on what they know your threshold is... and they offer the person 10 feet away from you a deeper discount on the same item because they see that she only buys the item when it's below a certain price. That systematic price discrimination is the greater concern, but the article doesn't mention that because the author doesn't get it.

  24. Brick and Mortar by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    If this is the wave of the future I'm going to be buying a lot more of my stuff online. None of the internet retailers are tracking my purchases, are they?

    1. Re:Brick and Mortar by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      If this is the wave of the future I'm going to be buying a lot more of my stuff online. None of the internet retailers are tracking my purchases, are they?

      Yeah great idea.

      Amazon and others would never track down your browsing and buying habits ever.

  25. 2nd Phone?? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Call me stupid, but isn't there a way you have a cheap tracphone with no blue tooth in the store as a 2nd phone to carry around in case you need important people to contact you??

  26. Dog bites man by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    We're no longer the consumers. We're the consumables.

    In the marketplace, in the workplace, at home and in public.

    McDonalds "tested" a program where they pay their employees with gift cards. The number of internet service providers who do not require access to your data and your eyeballs is shrinking.

    And the concentration of the wealth of the world in the hands of a small number of people continues to increase, already well past the point of sustainability.

    And people who put up the smallest resistance to the ubiquitous invasion of privacy are considered a threat. We're heading for a bad place.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. They will use financial cohersion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to buy that? $12.99. Or $9.99 with app.

    And they will do that with everything in the store. Prices will be higher, but if you install their shitty little app, prices will drop back to their regular price.

  28. One store tracking is bad... by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    One store tracking me is bad. I'll just stop shopping there. It is when they start sharing the data. This is a clear case of where data privacy laws need to be very very clear and strong. You might think "Who cares if a store or two tracked someone" But the moment you buy something with a CC or debit card, then they can go back through all their data and tie your face (or cellphone ID) to your actual person. If they are sharing the data you now have a trail.

    The worst would be if the cellphone company just started to sell your location data. This way someone going from car dealership to car dealership but not leaving their name or number could then suddenly start getting calls and emails. Or if you have just walked into your first dealership they could see that you hadn't been to any competitors and might be a complete sucker.

    I have long been an advocate that no organization should be allow to share their customer data with any other organization. I even think this should be internal. I don't want the bank calling and trying to sell me products because they see my balance is way up. So even a bank's marketing department should be kept away from my private data.

    1. Re:One store tracking is bad... by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Tracking me in a store is one thing. But getting my ID and selling information about what products I looked at to another store crosses the line. And yes, I am more concerned about other businesses having that info than I am about the NSA having that info (though I am sure they are wanting to know who is looking at buying a lot of pressure cookers).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  29. So stupid.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And these retail stores wonder why we don't bother to shop in them anymore... Why the internet is beating the shit out of them on all fronts...

    they can't figure it out... offer less value for higher prices... the same shit tracking every net store does.. without any sort of lower price. along with dealing with underpaid overworked employees who do not give a fuck because the company treats them like shit too... /facepalm

  30. I have to bring my phone with me??? by khelms · · Score: 2

    It's kind of heavy and won't work anyway when it's not plugged into the wall.

  31. Even lower tech solution to increase sales by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    How about stocking all the sizes? Or maybe go crazy and even ad some sizes based on the new body types that exist in society. You know, tall or far or even tall AND fat people.

    And maybe I am insane but how about stocking clothes for the season we are IN? I am male, I buy clothes when I need new ones... well... several months after I need new ones and the concept of shopping a season ahead is both alien and repulsive to me.

    Or how about actually putting clothes for men in at least 1% of clothing stores? We are nearly 50% of the population.

    Nah lets go high tech and try to guess what a shopper wants instead of selling him what he wants.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Even lower tech solution to increase sales by hjf · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who worked in a shoe store. I asked him WHY is it so hard to find shoe sizes in my number (I'm 45 EUR/12 US). He gave me a very simple explanation:

      ALL women are shoe size 36 or 37. And women that are 38 wear a 37 (I think that's about US size 6).
      Men have an incredible distribution: ANY shoe size from 36 to 46. And men make up for less than 10% of sales.

      So unless you're an incredibly busy shop, it's just impossible to stock all models in all sizes for men. And even if you do, it's amazingly difficult to sell them. Women shoes? There are never enough!

      Like you said: "lets go high tech and try to guess what a shopper wants". Yes. Shopper being the keyword here. Women are shoppers. Men aren't.

      And as a store owner: you have absolutely not even the faintest idea of just how fucking difficult it is to sell some people "what they want". The customer will never tell you what he wants. I have a comic book store and constantly i get people asking "what do you recommend?". Cold, out of the blue, first time shopper who I have no idea what he likes or not, asks you what do you recommend. So what can one do? Ask them what they like? What they've read before? Fuck that shit. I just get something that's been sitting on the shelf for months and offer them that.

    2. Re:Even lower tech solution to increase sales by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      Where I live, US 8-10 women's sell out first, and men have just as many shoes out & available. As for the rest, your friend (or possibly you?) really need update your stereotypes -- the "all women love to shop and own like a million shoes, all men hate to shop" stuff is so outdated that it's absurd. (I can't figure out why so much more of the geek community believes that kind of stuff than regular people do.)

      Some people from both genders love shopping for new clothes and/or shoes, and some dislike it. Most people mislead others into believing they fit one gender stereotype or another for fear they won't be accepted or fit in, including shopping or clothes/shoe ownership. I don't know many fellow mid-thirtysomethings that do it, though, and from what I've heard/seen, it's even more rare in the folks younger than us.

      FWIW my feet are US size 9.5, I own 5 pairs total (gym, around the house & everyday casual sneakers, a generic low-heel women's formal shoe & a generic unisex office-style formal one), and I hate shopping for clothes/shoes.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    3. Re:Even lower tech solution to increase sales by hjf · · Score: 1

      I will accept your argument against the stereotypes the day shops have an equal distribution. For now, 9 out of 10 shops I see are for women, or mostly-women.

      In real life the stereotypes are still true. Sorry, but that's how it is.

  32. Interesting Submitter by guttentag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The submitter, Velcroman1, has submitted hundreds of stories since October 2009, all of which link to Foxnews.com, but only five comments in the last two years... just one this year so far.

    Even more interesting is that stories submitted by MarkWhittington come up on Velcroman1's slashdot page as if they were Velcroman1's submissions... If you look at MarkWhittington's slashdot page, all of his submissions link to his own articles or opinion pieces on voices.yahoo.com or examiner.com. ALL of them. And also no comments. MarkWhittington apparently contributes his own content to these sites as a freelancer and submits them to slashdot to drive traffic.

    On page 2 of Velcroman1's slashdot profile Nerval's Lobster (nkolakowski@slashdotmedia.com, nkolakowski@geek.net) submissions start to show up. We've already established that Nerval's Lobster is Nick Kolakowski, a slashdot employee submitting paid content as user-submitted stories...

    It would be interesting to see what percentage of published slashdot stories are genuinely submitted by people who have no financial interest in the submission.

    1. Re:Interesting Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It ain't the slashdot of yesteryear, that's for sure.

      This site was started by nerds.

      It was sold.

      It is now slow as shit, jammed to the rafters with javascript, and has 30-50 comments on stories that 5 years ago had 800-1000.

      It's time to start the deadpool.

    2. Re:Interesting Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there any place for nerds to hang out toghether on the Internet anymore?

    3. Re:Interesting Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, just not here anymore. Ofcourse, you don't want to announce a new place here. You'll have to find it, just like we found /. back in the day.

      As a faithful slashdotter since the late 90's, I can say I've spent a lot of time here. I've enjoyed a lot of the stories and comments---very intelligent and insightful. But the time has come to move on. The place just isn't what it used to be. Of course you can say the same about other sites I used to visit (Tom's, Anandtech and a host of others).

    4. Re:Interesting Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, man. We should get back and hang out in some dark basement. Like in old times.

    5. Re:Interesting Submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it the facebook-effect. As sites get popular, the Facebook crowd finds and joins them. Then, the average I.Q. drops significantly. Remember when Usenet had interesting discussions before "Google Groups"?

  33. and The Sheep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Look Up.

    http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Sheep_Look_Up_Large_Print_16pt.html?id=FxZoKxmCoyYC&redir_esc=y

  34. Can you say flip-phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got to love technology.

  35. here is the problem by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    Stores cant keep their stock in any fucking sort of order, havent been able to with a small army for the last 30 some odd years

    now they expect you to pick up a shirt from section A-1 and flash you to shorts in B-2, really? HAVE YOU SHOPPED FOR CLOTHING IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE?

    sure its in some order, but for god's sake if a clothing store cant keep brand Y off the same rack as brand B and manage to match size numbers from tags to hangers do you seriously thing THIS is going to work, going to macy's is WORSE than hunting a flea market for video games for god's sake

  36. And All That E-Spam Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...defeated by the 'Power Off' button. Technology is a wonderful thing.

  37. tracking good, advertisements bad by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

    I have no trouble with being tracked, and with the environment being modified towards my likes. However I'm royally sick of constantly being offered shopping opportunities. Hey guys, if you're tracking my actions and my likes, you should notice that actively trying to sell me stuff makes me go away, and stop doing it so much.

  38. Makes me glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that I have a "dumb" phone. It onlt makes/receives calls and texts. No apps or GPS or camera or anything.

  39. I've Never Seen This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, this has never happened to me. Has anyone ever seen this in the real world? I can't imagine the customer reaction would be in the slightest bit positive. Someone picks up a shirt, their phone goes "Bzzt..." with a text from the store, they put the shirt down, read their text, get a creeped-out look on their face, and leave.

  40. I would love my supermarket to be able to track me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they could give me an app that told me exactly where everything in my shopping list is and I wouldn't have to spend hours wandering round the hateful place trying to find some obscure item that they have moved yet a-fuc*ing-gain. Of course they would never actually do that because they want you to wander round in the hopes you will buy some extra shit you don't need. I despise shopping, and I despise food shopping more than any other type of shopping but I'm not at home often enough and don't buy enough to make it worth online shopping. Make it easy for me to nip in, get exactly what I need and nip out again within 5 minuets and I will happily be tracked, it seems like a reasonable compromise between their need to manipulate me and my need to get away from the place as fast as possible.

  41. which transmits a unique signal that the camera... by drolli · · Score: 1

    can pick up.

    A intransparent Bag should help.

  42. salespeople by romco · · Score: 1

    >you pick up a shirt, you might get a message about the matching shorts.

    That is what well trained sales people are for.

    --
    AdFuel
  43. a unique signal .. the camera ... can read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when you enter the store, there'll be a notice that tells the shopper to download the shop app that activates the camera, switches on bluetooth and mandates that the phone be carried in plain sight so they can deliver their dishonest sales pitches to you? What ARE these marketing droids smoking these days?

    Yep, I'm a phone luddite. The phone stays OFF (not even on standby) when I don't need it. Thats what SMS and voice mail is for, to leave messages for my convenience.

  44. That's not tracking, that's a crystal ball. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Hey [beep thwunk], looks like Lord Lardass is going to pay us a visit next weekend [whirr click]. Better tell the system to put a few XXXXXXFat's on the next truck to Blobville [clunk].

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  45. umm, old school by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    there could have always been a sign under the shirt to promote the shorts. pickup the shirt, see the sign. it was never hard.

    but there's always been technology to do all of that stuff. it used to be called a salesperson. they've gone extinct in most stores these days. but if you have a fist of cash, and you walk up to a human with a name tag, you can still get all of that old-school service at no additional cost.

    1. Re:umm, old school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there could have always been a sign under the shirt to promote the shorts. pickup the shirt, see the sign. it was never hard.

      but there's always been technology to do all of that stuff. it used to be called a salesperson. they've gone extinct in most stores these days. but if you have a fist of cash, and you walk up to a human with a name tag, you can still get all of that old-school service at no additional cost.

      Such are the "efficiencies" of modern life. A human clerk with years of experience can respond directly to emotional nuances when interacting with the shopper. Software can only respond in the ways that it has been programmed to respond.

      Also, if you are a regular customer, seeing the same face all the time can lend comfort, familiarity, and trust to the shopping experience, making it more likely to score non-essential purchases. When you run into a minimum-wage strange face every time, you don't get that.

      We have demonstrably plenty of people who don't mind shopping in stores where the security staff outnumber the sales help because they think their "Lower Prices Every Day" makes them "wealthier". But Wealth is supposed to bring Comfort, and comfort isn't in great supply on the cattle lot. You may be a cheapskate who goes to the dollar store for toilet paper, but when you shop for fine steaks and other expensive perks of being well off, you're more likely to shop some place where you're treated with more respect.

  46. Let's fix a people problem with technology by hyperfine+transition · · Score: 1

    From the article : "The problem is that about 40 percent or more of retail shoppers walk out without finding what they want. But in half of those cases, the product actually was in stock.”

    Let me fix that: The problem is that about 40 percent or more of retail shoppers walk out without finding what they want because the store is understaffed, and the few staff on the floor are lowly-paid, inexperienced casuals.

    1. Re:Let's fix a people problem with technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Years ago, I literally had to beg the apathetic, teeny-bopper sells clerk to locate and sell me a $500 item. She even had to get the manager to help her. He, too, was upset that I interrupted his day by wanting to purchase something.