RadioShack Puts Customer Data Up For Sale In Bankruptcy Auction

itwbennett writes For years, RadioShack made a habit of collecting customers' contact information at checkout. Now, the bankrupt retailer is putting that data on the auction block. A list of RadioShack assets for sale includes more than 65 million customer names and physical addresses, and 13 million email addresses. Bloomberg reports that the asset sale may include phone numbers and information on shopping habits as well. New York's Attorney General says his office will take 'appropriate action' if the data is handed over.

Comments

Hmmm

[jason777]

I guess I'm glad I'd just make names up

Re:Hmmm

[twitnutttt]

Worse was how they would always ask for your phone number every time you bought anything!
(I remember a comedian joking about this once... "Why does Radio Shack need your phone number to sell you batteries?")
Luckily, I too would make up a fake number.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the days of COCOTs, buying a number pad dialer and a certain other electronic item would cause the local rat shack to deny the sale, refusing to help anyone trying to make a red box. Assuming you were dumb enough to give them a phone number for both transactions.

Re:Hmmm

[TWX]

Don't bother to make up a number. Say no, or tell them that it's unlisted. Retailers will either put in the store number, gobbledygook, or have a means to bypass that.

I don't give out personal information for no benefit to myself. I don't show my receipt at the door unless it's at a membership store where I could lose my account if I fail to do so (like Costco). I'm there to exchange cash for goods. I don't care about their attempts to do more.

Re:Hmmm

[kuzb]

I just say "no, you don't need that" when they ask. If they insist I ask them if they really want the sale or not. Usually at that point they cave and process the transaction.

Re:Hmmm

[eedwardsjr]

I always told them I was homeless. NEVER would give them a number except one time I grabbed their business card and told them this was my number.

Re:Hmmm

[omnichad]

(yourareacode) 867-5309. Chances are, it's already in the system too.

Re:Hmmm

[omnichad]

I don't show my receipt at the door unless it's at a membership store where I could lose my account

I hate to say it, but I personally love walking out of Best Buy while their "security guard" yells at me but then does nothing about me not stopping. It's not stolen, and I'm not going to be treated like it is.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily, I've never owned a phone. Honestly, no need. Everyone I want to talk to is online and I work from home. In the rare occasions that I have to talk to someone in person, I've always been able to borrow a phone. And those occasions are so rare that it's not worth $20./month or however much it costs.

Re:Hmmm

[Paradise Pete]

I don't show my receipt at the door unless it's at a membership store where I could lose my account if I fail to do so (like Costco).

I do the same. At Costco I've agreed to it in becoming a member. Anywhere else I just keep walking and say "I didn't steal anything".

Re:Hmmm

[Paradise Pete]

867-5309. Chances are, it's already in the system too.

They don't say "You don't look like a Jenny" ?

Re:Hmmm

[lexman098]

I don't show my receipt at the door unless it's at a membership store where I could lose my account if I fail to do so (like Costco). I'm there to exchange cash for goods.

And the guy at the door is there to make sure you did exchange the cash. Ever check your bag as you walk out to make sure you have all your goods? It's a private business, so what if they want to make sure people aren't taking their merch out the door without paying? You may not have a signed a contract, but it's implied when you walk into a store that they have the right to protect their stuff (security cameras or whatever else). You're just being a dick and making the security guard's job more difficult.

Re:Hmmm

[Pseudonym]

For extra cultural cred, you could use Butterfield 8 as the area code.

(Sadly, Pennsylvania 65000 doesn't work any more.)

Re:Hmmm

[omnichad]

That's when you say in your gruffest voice "I'm a lady!" And then see if they apologize profusely.

I actually did that one the phone with cable Internet tech support when they questioned whether I was really the customer. I wasn't, I was calling on behalf of a woman whose computer I was working on. They were extremely apologetic and it was hilarious.

Re:Hmmm

[PRMan]

Nope. I paid for the products and they have no right to search me.

Even at Costco, if the line is too long, I just walk out without letting them search me.

Re:Hmmm

[diamondmagic]

You might be able to make that argument... once.

If you know before you walk in that they're going to ask on the way out, then you don't really have an excuse.

It's the same deal in Western societies where you pay for your meal after you eat it: It's just understood that's how it works, and you can be legally liable if you don't.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry... I have a cold.

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have shot you and claimed you were reaching for your gun.

Re: Hmmm

[FlyHelicopters]

He could have shot you and claimed you were reaching for your gun.

I have never, ever seen a security guard at a retail store with a gun.

Not Walmart, not Best Buy... nothing...

I HAVE seen guards with guns at the bank, but I'm still not convinced they would shoot you if you grabbed money and ran away. The issues of private security actually shooting people are such that I'd only think they would do it to protect human life, not material items that are easy to replace.

Re:Hmmm

[BronsCon]

Ever since the checker at Fry's caught that one of my items (the smallest yet most expensive item on my ticket) was not in my bag, I'm more than happy to let them check. It's not always a loss-prevention, treat you like a criminal, measure. In fact, having talked to the checkers quite a bit when the store is slow, I've learned that they catch people leaving without what they paid for much more often than the other way round. At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative. And yes, cashiers do face consequences for not making sure the customer leaves their register with all of their purchases.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he's just being a dick. I get the feeling that a lot of Slashdotters have been stuffed in one locker too many, and take out their psychological scars on the people around them.

Re:Hmmm

[puzzled_decoy]

Wait... that dude standing by the door at Best Buy is supposed to check receipts? Huh. Every time I've been there he just wishes me a good day.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not always true. I was denied sale due to flat out refusing by the other sales associate because he claimed the one checking me out would get in trouble for not getting real valid information.

Re:Hmmm

[TWX]

I don't say anything like that. If they attempt to stop me and say they want to see my receipt, I respond with, "no thank you." It's never been a problem.

Re:Hmmm

[TWX]

It's not my responsibility to keep up with internal corporate policies for retailers. Frankly, I have no idea if they're going to want to see a receipt as I leave the store or not. Most of the time as I leave Best Buy they do not ask, but occasionally they do.

Re:Hmmm

[TWX]

It's funny. The biggest offender is Fry's Electronics, despite the fact that they run all shoppers through a serpentine common-feeder line to a huge bank of registers, after which there's no more store merchandise. The 'gate' is the cash register. I have paid at the register and concluded my business with them. If their poor architectural choices mean that I have to walk through 400' of store to reach the door, then that's their problem, not mine.

Re:Hmmm

[spudnic]

I take offence to this. I have not been able to fit in a locker during all of the years I was in school no matter how hard you shoved me!

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless something has changed (and it's been a LONG time since I worked there) he's really only supposed to check on big ticket items going out. Otherwise his presance there is just to discourage casual theft.

Re:Hmmm

[JohnFen]

At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative.

Baloney. It's "loss prevention" aka "treating your customers like criminals". That it might catch a mistake in the customer's favor is purely a nice side-effect, but doesn't take away from the fact that it is belligerent and powerfully offensive.

I have never, and will never, submit to exit searches like that.

Re:Hmmm

[JohnFen]

You may not have a signed a contract, but it's implied when you walk into a store that they have the right to protect their stuff (security cameras or whatever else).

But they don't have the legal, moral, or ethical right to search me.

You're just being a dick and making the security guard's job more difficult

It's hard to believe that the guard's life more difficult to hear "no thank you" as I stroll by, but if it does... then tough. They're being dicks by asking me to submit to a search. Fair's fair.

Re:Hmmm

[WinstonWolfIT]

In general, they have the right to temporarily detain you if they have reasonable suspicion that you've stolen something. I simply ignore them, and the day one touches my arm will get him fired by the time I'm finished. Even if you "agree" on entrance to have your bag searched when leaving, they can do nothing more than ask you not to return, which is legally binding.

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I say , "your copy of the transaction is on the register. Mine is in my pocket. Bye"

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The key is that the door guy be as large as possible, to make eye contact with every. single. person. who goes through the door and report what we used to call "go-arounds" (people who go for the exit and then don't for what ever reason). Try this some time: walk towards the exit, stop for a beat, maybe shift your weight while you do it, and go back in to the store. Odds are that it won't take long for someone to offer to help you.

Re:Hmmm

[UnknownSoldier]

> You're just being a dick and making the security guard's job more difficult.

Somebody call the wahmbulance simply because somebody is sticking up for their rights.

Fry's and Costco nazi's can go fuck themselves. They don't _have_ to like it, but it is the LAW.

Re:Hmmm

[duke_cheetah2003]

Just to add to this.. door checks of receipts also catch cashier error, most commonly cases of charging for the same item twice accidently.

I'm not overly fond of door checking of receipts but enh, there's much better things to worry about. If you don't like stores that have this policy, don't shop there.

Re:Hmmm

[duke_cheetah2003]

I prefer (yourareacode) 555-1212

Or any random four numbers after 555. 555 is a faux prefix used for television shows, they never ever route to anyone.

Re:Hmmm

[mrbester]

"No, my name is Luka. I live on the second floor. The building has a communal phone."

Re:Hmmm

[jcr]

I just told them "no" when they asked for my name or phone number. I never used a credit card at a Radio Shack.

-jcr

Re:Hmmm

[musikit]

actually when i was a kid. 555-1212 was the 411 for that area code. before national 411. i lived in areacode 609 but if i needed a number from area code 937 i would dial 937-555-1212 to get 411 service in that region. i believe 555-1212 is still there but i havent tried in years

Re:Hmmm

[TWX]

So you're saying that the key to successfully stealing from retail stores that place security at the door is to assertively do everything in the store including leaving it?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Fry's is paranoid about this. If you even take too long to decide on a product, they'll send someone over to "help". Whenever it's happened to me, I just tell them "*I* will summon *you* if I wish to have you fetch something for me" and I never show my receipt to the door person. I've had a couple of guys follow me outside after ignoring their request for a receipt, until I tell them to fuck off.

I suppose they could ask me not to return to their store, but then I could also smear the shit out of them online for such an action. I don't think they'd dare risk that, what with their increasing insignificance compared to Amazon.

Re:Hmmm

[omnichad]

I've been threatened and shouted at for just walking out with a $3.99 Blu-Ray and even held out my receipt while walking by. Guess it depends where you live, but I'm not in a major city or even a large suburb.

Re:Hmmm

[TWX]

I check my receipt myself, and I watch the register closely as my items are being rung-up. It's part of caveat emptor. One cannot rely on the kindness of others in this regard.

Re:Hmmm

[Dunbal]

Her Majesty the Queen might be interested to know that she is in the databases of several stores.

Re:Hmmm

[sjames]

It's actually not the same. You do have to pay for it by law, but nobody's going to try to jail you if you attempt to pay when you order.

Likewise for Best Buy, you do have to pay, but as long as you do, that's the end of it legally speaking. No law says you have to submit to a search.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They have no such right. If they want to ensure that people aren't stealing, then they need to hire people to be their register to door errand boys because that is not my obligation.

On the contrary, the store security are being dicks by harassing customers. There have been more than one occasion where I nearly had security guards arrested for trying to block me from leaving the store. Every single one of them pussies out when I tell them I'm calling the police.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Not paying for a meal is not the same thing as not showing a receipt. The former is illegal, the latter is not.

I do not acquiesce to ridiculous requests and baseless accusations of wrongdoing where none exists, which is exactly what the bag checks are. What the fuck are they going to do about it?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Please dad, get off the internet!

Re:Hmmm

[SecurityGuy]

That usually works painlessly not, but back in Ye Olde Daye I had Radio Shack refuse to sell me things (batteries, of course) because I wouldn't give them a phone number. As you might expect, that led to a good many years where I couldn't think of a good reason to enter their stores.

Funny coincidence, them going bankrupt and all.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us are grown enough to check our own transactions, to dress ourselves and to cross the street without supervision.

But hey, if they help you out then more power to you, you special little guy!

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the law, in all states, that you do not have to show a receipt. That's a fact. I'm not being a dick, I'm just not going to waste my time with their rules that I do not, by social convention, implication, or law have to follow. They can ask and you can let them look or not, it's your choice. Whatever you choose, more power to you.

You are not making the security guard's job more difficult. It's their job to ask and if you say no, it's their job to let you continue walking, unless they have specific reason (again, laid out in the law) that you've stolen. If saying "no" makes the guard's day worse, then they don't understand what their job is.

Re:Hmmm

[SecurityGuy]

Ever check your bag as you walk out to make sure you have all your goods?

Yes, I check MY bag. I check MY wallet to make sure I put my credit card back. I don't go rummage through the store's storeroom to make sure my stuff isn't there.

It's implied when you walk into a store that they have the right to protect their stuff (security cameras or whatever else)

No, you think it's implied. I don't, and I never steal and hate being treated like I might have. It's also not their stuff once I've purchased it, and I don't like being asked to prove that my stuff is really mine.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Costco, which is considered a "club" (or some other legal term I can't think of), can make such a check a condition of membership. That is the law. Best Buy couldn't as it's not a club.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the days of COCOTs,

COCOTs were customer-owned, meaning they didn't respond to the coin tones that a redbox would generate. They were just installed on standard lines, not lines configured for a payphone.

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

That goes both ways. I have a concealed carry permit and I DO carry my firearm everywhere. If a security guard were to so much as grab a gun in a manner threatening towards me, I'll blow his fucking head off.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they can make it a condition of membership, which means all they can do is tell you to leave and never come back. They have no legal right to search you.

Re:Hmmm

[steveg]

Not me. I always used the same name.

"Cash."

Sometimes they'd try to convince me to give them more and I'd glare a little and say "Cash!" with emphasis.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them yell, just pretend they are a yipping little dog.

If they threaten you, then call the police and report it.

Re:Hmmm

[monkeyzoo]

Nice obscure reference. :)

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably lose more having the "security" guard at the door then they lose from stolen items anyway.

It isn't "loss prevention" it's "loss acceptance"

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I always just say 'No, thank you,' when a checker asks for my phone number or email address. It's polite, but at the same time, it's difficult for them to respond to.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What argument? You make it sound as if they have any say in whether or not I allow them to search my belongings.

There is no argument, just a statement of fact: You have no right to search me.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, they have the right to temporarily detain you if they have reasonable suspicion that you've stolen something.

No, they do not. The only right that they have if they have a reason to think you have stolen is to call the police. The police will detain you, not some rent-a-cop with zero authority.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be fun if we got a sort of boycott going. Loss Prevention wants to search your bag and compare to receipt? sure, no problem. When everything checks out, politely ask where their customer service desk is for returns. Tell them you refuse to pay good money to be treated like a criminal, wish to get a refund for all items. It is just a numbers game, if their policies cost them more in lost sales than they save in theft prevention/deterrence then they are more likely to change their policy.

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Restocking fee?

Re:Hmmm

[zippthorne]

It sounds like he's saying that the way to get service is to pretend to be a shoplifter?

Re:Hmmm

[BronsCon]

Well, since I know they're gonna check the bag on the way out anyway, why am I gonna take 2 minutes of my own time to sort through a couple dozen small items in my bag? Honestly, if you're double checking your bags with more than a handful of items, you're just pissing off everyone in line behind you.

You are right though, I should probably put some clothes on.

Re:Hmmm

[WinstonWolfIT]

I'd suggest you actually look it up. Most cities grant merchants this power.

Re:Hmmm

[BronsCon]

When you've got a couple dozen small items, it's not hard to miss something. On top of that, some of us value our time such that the once every couple years something might be left out of the bag costs less than the time it takes to check every bag, every time. I happen to be one of those people so, while I do watch things being rung up, and bagged, that doesn't mean something small might not get dropped or miss the bag without me seeing it. It also doesn't help that the local Fry's doesn't have bagging stations, so everything is moved from one side of the counter to the other as it is scanned, then bagged after the transaction has completed; by then it's close to the inner edge of the counter where it is more likely to fall without being noticed by the customer. There really isn't room for them to have 32 registers in any other configuration, so I don't fault them for it; especially as they've implemented a secondary bag check as you exit. Fry's is really the only place I don't mind letting them check, as well, because the checkers are always courteous and if they're not busy and you've got time, they're typically quite happy to chat for a while.

Re:Hmmm

[Sir Holo]

Nope. I paid for the products and they have no right to search me.

Even at Costco, if the line is too long, I just walk out without letting them search me.

You walk out as you should, even if THERE IS NO LINE. It is a citizens arrest, and unless they have documentation (video) that you have shoplifted, their detaining you is flat-out illegal.

People, however, are for-the-most-part sheep, and will submit to such transgressions. DON'T.

Re:Hmmm

[thegarbz]

Nope. I paid for the products and they have no right to search me.

Actually the law disagrees with you depending on what efforts the store went to to inform you that you will be searched on the way out.
If they did inform you with for instance a sign on the doorway on the way in, then your rights end with choosing not to go in the store.

You only ever need a choice. But the choice only needs to be provided once with reasonable notice.

Re:Hmmm

[thegarbz]

It's not my responsibility to keep up with internal corporate policies for retailers.

And in that regard there's no responsibility placed on you, but if someone has gone to reasonable effort to make you aware of their policies before you enter then by entering you are in fact bound by them. I.e. a sign at the door saying your bag will be searched on the way out. I'm not sure exactly where you live but this type of condition has been enforced legally in every country where it's been used.

Re:Hmmm

[thegarbz]

You may have given them legal right by entering the store depending on how well the policy was posted on the way in.

Don't assume you have some magic legal security bubble that makes you impervious to anything.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother to make up a number. Say no, or tell them that it's unlisted.

Tell them that you don't remember your phone number, there's nowhere else for them to go with that without losing the sale.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not my responsibility to keep up with internal corporate policies for retailers.

It might be at club stores like Cosco which require a prior written membership agreement, executed between you and them, to enter and make purchases in their stores. In that case you are bound by the terms of that contract between you and Cosco. I'm betting that there's a clause in their stating that they have the right to review your purchases, if any, and check your receipt before you may exit their store. This is different from non-club retail stores, like Best Buy or Walmart, which admit the general public, not just their members, and with whom you have no prior written agreement.

Re:Hmmm

[gl4ss]

where do you think the con in a con job comes from?

a con man does things with confidence...

Re:Hmmm

[Euler]

I try to be nice as possible to the person behind the counter, but I just say the equivalent of "do you want my money or not? Let's just bypass the part where you ask for my info." Party City was the latest place that wanted my info. They have no need for my info. I give them money, they give me fancy paper plates for my toddler's birthday party.

.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just refuse to give it to them.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This depends on the state. In California, they have no right to temporarily detain you. Private security personnel have no special authority. They can do a citizen arrest if they witness a misdemeanor or they reasonable believe a felony (they have been informed of such) has been committed. That arrest gives them the ability to detain. No arrest, no detainment. However, the detainment doesn't give the merchant, or its agents, the right to search the person or their possessions, only LEO have this power. That said, whether the arrest was valid or not doesn't exclude a lawsuit for unlawful detainment.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a "faux" prefix. It is a reserved prefix. Most, but not all, area codes in the US advertise 555-1212 as the number for information and route all 555-xxxx numbers to it.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since the checker at Fry's caught that one of my items (the smallest yet most expensive item on my ticket) was not in my bag, I'm more than happy to let them check. It's not always a loss-prevention, treat you like a criminal, measure. In fact, having talked to the checkers quite a bit when the store is slow, I've learned that they catch people leaving without what they paid for much more often than the other way round. At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative. And yes, cashiers do face consequences for not making sure the customer leaves their register with all of their purchases.

I'm with you. Not into grandstanding or making a point that my rights and entitlements have been violated by Costco, Best Buy, or whoever. If I don't like their business practices I go elsewhere. I'm just happy the Wal-Mart greeter has a job.

Re:Hmmm

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Interestingly most people seem to think that those people have some power to actually stop or detain you. I to just keep on walking, the worst that has ever happened is that person at the door yelled "Hey you stop! I need to check your receipt!" If you choose to not stop and they attempt to detain you the law is on your side since you can bring false imprisonment charges against them provided you haven't actually done anything else other than leave or attempt to leave with your legally purchased items.

Re:Hmmm

[lexman098]

You act like they're going through your pockets. Next you'll be complaining about egregious privacy violations when they ask for your zip code to confirm your credit card authorization.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like stores that have this policy, don't shop there.

Libertarian infinite alternatives fallacy detected

Re:Hmmm

[omnichad]

Exactly - unless it's somewhere like Sam's Club where you're under contract to do so. And I always go out my way to be patient with them, as annoyed as I am that they exist. Or at least when I had a membership - it's not generally worth it to me.

Re: Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely wrong.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What's baffling to me is how they expect this to actually stop shoplifters. If a regular customer is not required to show a receipt, and a shoplifter doesn't, then how are they to tell the difference?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If you want somebody to double check your receipt for you and these stores are willing to provide the service, then great! But it's strictly opt-in.

Re:Hmmm

[tehcyder]

Interestingly most people seem to think that those people have some power to actually stop or detain you. I to just keep on walking, the worst that has ever happened is that person at the door yelled "Hey you stop! I need to check your receipt!" If you choose to not stop and they attempt to detain you the law is on your side since you can bring false imprisonment charges against them provided you haven't actually done anything else other than leave or attempt to leave with your legally purchased items.

If you haven't stolen anything, why would you decide to act like an arsehole? Does the little thrill of power over annoying someone on minimum wage doing his job make you feel better about yourself?

I don't get it.

Re: Hmmm

[tehcyder]

Judging by the amount of sheer asshattery in this thread, if I worked as a store security guard in the US, I'd take my own gun in and shoot myself in the head at the end of the first day.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

A sign at the door does not revoke your rights.

Re: Hmmm

[tehcyder]

That goes both ways. I have a concealed carry permit and I DO carry my firearm everywhere. If a security guard were to so much as grab a gun in a manner threatening towards me, I'll blow his fucking head off.

Hey guys, it's the Navy Seal guy with over 300 confirmed kills! Let's see if we can feel his muscles.

Re:Hmmm

[tehcyder]

I have never, and will never, submit to exit searches like that.

They'll have to pry that receipt from your cold, dead fingers.

Re:Hmmm

[tehcyder]

Fry's and Costco nazi's can go fuck themselves.

Yeah, fight the fucking power bro.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I suggest you look it up. The ONLY way that a non-LEO can legally detain you is if they issue a citizen's arrest, whereby they assume full liability for false arrest and unlawful detainment and the only way that can happen is if the store security has physical proof that I had stolen, such as a video recording showing me picking up an item and leaving the store without paying for it. Hunches, assumptions and observation of "suspicious" behavior do not cut it for probable cause in the eyes of the law. Of course since I don't steal, I will always be in the right should such a situation occur and I can then lawfully issue my own citizen's arrest on a security guard who is trying to detain and/or assault me. Or I could just put him down in self-defense.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The main lyrics to a popular song by a popular musician is considered an obscure reference?

Re:Hmmm

[davester666]

That pretty much seems to be the only way to get a "sales associate" to come over and help you. The only other way is to just start dumping stuff off the shelves, but then they ask you to leave.

Re:Hmmm

[davester666]

And as a bonus, if you know how much the stuff is supposed to be, you can pay less. Every couple of months a scanned item will have a different, higher price than what is posted on the shelve, and the store is obliged to sell the product for the shelve price.

Re:Hmmm

[Jadecristal]

This should be fun in states where they, by law, have to let non-members purchase alcohol and use the pharmacy...

Re:Hmmm

[BronsCon]

Best Buy checks receipts? Since when? I have to ask because they weren't doing that at any of my local stores last time I shopped there. then again, it's been a couple years so that may have changed.

Re:Hmmm

[Shirley Marquez]

Asking for your telephone number was a way of getting a unique identifier for each customer, allowing them to track your pattern of purchases. (They never called the numbers; Radio Shack did no telemarketing. They just used them as a database key.) There was the potential confound of multiple people living at the same address and having the same phone number, but it was the best they could do at the time outside of asking for your name and address, which would have been far more time consuming. Nowadays stores use loyalty cards or match your purchases to your credit card, but those tools weren't available to Radio Shack when they started collecting phone numbers.

If you also gave them your address (as you would if you had made a request to receive catalogs) they could have potentially used your purchase pattern to send you customized flyers, though so far as I know Radio Shack never did that. Target, years later, is a notable example of a company that DID send customized flyers and got in hot water for it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...

Knowing the patterns in which people buy things is valuable data for a company. Even if they don't have any way to match it up with your personal information and thus have no way to contact you, it gives them information on things like which products are bought together or by the same people, which would allow them to design more effective advertising.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Of a certain age, yes.

Re: Hmmm

[rpstrong]

Ask to see his secret tattoo.

Re:Hmmm

[Phoghat]

"I personally love walking out of Best Buy while their "security guard" yells at me " Friend did that twice @ Sam's Club, Third time he went, he got banned

Re:Hmmm

[omnichad]

Right - it's part of your contract when you become a member at Sam's Club. Better to be banned than sued for breach of contract.

Does it come with free batteries?

[rotaryexpress]

Over the years I've refused to give retailers my information. Hopefully I won't have to be proven right.

Re: Does it come with free batteries?

[BeaverCleaver]

The only thing better than not being on a database is polluting that database with so much false information that it becomes useless.

Re: Does it come with free batteries?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing better than not being on a database is polluting that database with so much false information that it becomes useless.

That was my take on this, and why I am not worried. I got so tired of being asked for my information by Radio Shack at checkout, I Started lying to them, then I started having fun with lying to them then I tried to see how outrageous I could make the names and phone numbers.. One of them was 976-3845.. and many others..867-5309.. etc I am glad I don't work for the call center that was dumb enough to buy that information and have to call all the bogus numbers, like the numeric version of being Rick Rolled, except it has some pointy haired idiot boss bitching at you trying to make shit roll downhill because of HIS idiotic crap.

Have fun trying to get in touch with Colon D Charge or even Tony Stark.. Morons!

I feel better now...

[DoofusOfDeath]

For having either refused to give them my information, or giving them made up info. And they've just guaranteed that I do this with all other stores from which I make cash purchases.

Re:I feel better now...

[SeaFox]

Best Buy once asked me for my phone number. They claimed if I didn't give to them my payment may not go through (was using my credit card iirc).
I just told them that I'd never had that issue before. I think I eventually had to give them a (obviously fake) number to move on -- like one even the cashier could tell was invalid.

Re:I feel better now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too. When aske for my name, I told them Nonya. When questioned about it (none of their local people were smart enough to catch the first name) I told them that my full name was Nonya F. Bizzness. A few of them STILL didn't get it, so I told them just to forget it, take my money, give me my stuff and my change and let me get on my way.

Appropriate action ?

[Crashmarik]

Meaning a grandstanding lawyer is going to get involved to gum up the works and generally try and shakedown the process for whatever he can.
Sorry to see the Shack gone, even sorrier to see the long tradition of NY prosecutors being justice for publicity.

Re:Appropriate action ?

[kuzb]

"Sorry to see the Shack gone"

I'm not. Radioshack was fucking horrible in the last 20 years. High pressure commission sales staff, shitty products, questionable sales practices all the while shutting down the sale of all the items that made the store a treasure for its electronics parts. They deserved to go under, and most of us are just wondering how the hell it didn't happen sooner.

Re:Appropriate action ?

[LVSlushdat]

Hell, they've been crap for the last 30 flippin' years.. In 1985, I got laid off from a job, and a friend who was a radio shack manager at a local store told me that they were hiring at the local Radio Shack Computer Center for a repair tech. I applied and despite having not much experience with the then-new personal computers, I got hired. I worked there for about 6 months, with my local manager happy as a clam with my work. I wound up being the go-to-guy on the small TRS-80 Model 100s that were just being introduced. All the sudden I came in one day, and my manager says to me "I gotta let you go, the guy who quit, that made the opening that we hired *you* for wants to come back.. And he's chummy with the district manager, so my hands are tied"... I was SERIOUSLY pissed as it was a great job, nice manager, and fun work, but after 6 months I was job-hunting again.. I even wrote a nastygram to the mucky-mucks in Ft Worth, which never did any good.. Since then, Radio Shack can kiss my ass...

Re:Appropriate action ?

[dissy]

"Sorry to see the Shack gone"

I'm not. Radioshack was fucking horrible in the last 20 years.

Not coincidentally my sorrow at seeing the shack gone actually started about 20 years ago :P

Re:Appropriate action ?

[JohnFen]

They've been crap for a bit longer than that. Back in the stone-age days when they were the 7/11 of electronic parts stores, they were OK. Once they seriously branched out into consumer electronics (a few years before the TRS-80), their nosedive began.

I am among the people who have been amazed they didn't go under decades ago. Good riddance to a terrible company.

Re:Appropriate action ?

[penix1]

High pressure commission sales staff

It is great fun when they mob yo at the door with, "Can I help you?" to answer, "No thanks. Just shoplifting." They then follow you real close after that...

Re:Appropriate action ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radioshack got bought out by Circuit City in Canada, which never had a retail operation here. They rebranded the stores as "The Source: By Circuit City".

Now they are just the source, the stores are still vaguely Radio-Shack-esque, but as stated above, less connectors and cables and cell phone chargers are exhorbinantly priced. Lots of small items at high prices. I don't know how they stay in business. They sell really low end laptops and usually have a few even lower end towers on sale.. but anyone that knows ANYTHING about computers knows better than to buy oh, an aging A4 processor.

Still... when someone says "The Source" I still think of it as Radio Shack. And a lot of people still call it that here. Us older folks anyway. :-)

That being said, they JUST revamped their website from the "oh we sorta have a website" to this crap, showing they still don't know much about tech:

http://www.thesource.ca/

Re:Appropriate action ?

[kuzb]

It's odd that you should say that, because I was hired at a radio shack 10 years ago (which was now The Source by this point) under similar circumstances. I spent a lot of time servicing overpriced PCs and Laptops. The only difference is that I chose to leave for a development job 6 months later which paid better and allowed me to not have to feel guilty about every customer I served "the radio shack way".

Honestly, leaving them was the best thing I ever did for myself. I moved to a town that didn't suck, tripled my income, and furthered a career I've been with ever since. I look back on my days there as "necessary to achieve escape velocity from a shitty town". It was ultimately what gave me the incentive to leave that dead end place. Thanks Source!

Re:Appropriate action ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, around the same time they started demanding personal info was the same time I started avoiding shopping there. Wasn't worth the hassle you'd get.

This is why I don't join rewards programs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the reward is they SHIT ON YOUR PRIVACY..

Re:This is why I don't join rewards programs.

[Thud457]

but... but... free batteries!
#ohgodhowdidIgetthisold

Re:This is why I don't join rewards programs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free shitty batteries.

Re:This is why I don't join rewards programs.

[Anonymous Coward]

The batteries were actually one of the few things at RS that were high quality. They came out on top in Consumer Reports rankings year after year.

Re:This is why I don't join rewards programs.

[PRMan]

Yeah, but growing up, my parents would never buy batteries. So free horrible batteries were still better than no batteries at all.

Re:This is why I don't join rewards programs.

[Anonymous Coward]

The free battery-a-month was limited to their shitty carbon-zinc batteries.

Re:This is why I don't join rewards programs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but they were shitty batteries.

80's data

[jfdavis668]

Don't worry, it's all from the 1980's.

Re:80's data

[jfdavis668]

Probably stored on 5 1/4" floppies.

Re:80's data

[Anonymous Coward]

That's racist.

Re:80's data

[TheGratefulNet]

CSAVE "CSTDAT.TXT",A

hang on, folks. this is gonna take some time.

Re:80's data

[Anonymous Coward]

I just threw up a little.

Re:80's data

[Dishwasha]

Don't you mean 8" floppies"?

Re: 80's data

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a racist!!!

Re:80's data

[i.r.id10t]

We had 5 1/4" floppy floppies in the 80s. And saved data on audio cassette. And even had 2.88mb 3.5" floppies that weren't floppy. Heck, some of us even had *gasp* hard drives!

Re:80's data

[TheGratefulNet]

for the trs80, there were 35 track floppy drives and the (ohh, cool) 40 track drives. I think it was 80MB per side and generally only used one side of theh floppy.

we called drives that could write to both sides 'flippy'. you would eject the floppy, fip it over and reinsert it. you'd often get sector errors, as the 2nd side of the floppy disk was the 'reject' side, from the vendor. best side goes the 'normal' way. but we could often get use out of the 2nd side. rarely were there drives that used dual heads, so the usual thing was to write to the first side, wait for it to fill up, then eject and try writing to the 2nd side.

you would also have to punch a hole (the write-protect tab) in the other side of the floppy so that you could control read/write off each side. a tape was placed over the hole to allow writes; removing the tape made the floppy write-protected.

I think there was a max of 4 floppies you could chain. the filespec was "file.txt:drive", eg "file.txt:0" or "file.txt:1" for floppy 0 (first one) or floppy 1 (2nd one).

sigh. fun times. 48k should be enough for anyone.

Re:80's data

[Bing Tsher E]

80 Kilobytes.

My first hard drive was 5 Megabytes, and it blew me away how much storage I had.

Re:80's data

[thogard]

The TRS-80 model 2, 12 and 16 used 8 inch floppies.

Re:80's data

[vandamme]

I was cleaning out last summer and found a floppy notching tool. Those were the days.

Re:80's data

[Anonymous Coward]

I was never privileged enough to have a drive capable of reading or writing 3.5" disks past the odd 1.76 MB format, despite having several disks labeled DSED. I do wish they're bring back SuperDisk, though. Those 120MB floppy-sized things would be way nicer than easily-scratchable junk CD-Rs for lots of stuff.

Re:80's data

[TheGratefulNet]

lol, yeah KB not MB.

damn, how far we really have come. amazing when you think about how many orders of mag we've seen in our life time.

I am not worried

[ctrl-alt-canc]

I bought only an item by them many years ago, and I paid cash :-)

Re:I am not worried

[MightyMartian]

I bought lots of stuff off of RadioShack back in ye olden days. Two computers (an MC-10 and a CoCo3), several game ROMs, two printers, a one-sided floppy drive, OS/9 level 2, and dozens of doo-dads for various projects.

So yeah, if RadioShack wants to sell the fact that I bought a TP-10 thermal printer back in 1983, then go to town!

Re:I am not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice! CoCo3 and (Tandy) HX 1000 for us. With the memory upgrade to 640k and the second floppy drive you KNEW that Deskmate was your bitch! :).

Re:I am not worried

[penix1]

I too started on a Coco 3. And worse, I recently found this:

http://www.coco4.com/vcc/

A lot of it about.

[auric_dude]

Despite privacy policy, RadioShack customer data up for sale in auction Data includes names, phone numbers, mailing and e-mail addresses, and purchases. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Re:A lot of it about.

[HiThere]

IIUC, bankruptcy laws require them to sell anything they can make money on unless it's illegal. And the people managing the bankruptcy aren't the people who were running the company before. (Usually, maybe they are in this case.)

Keep this in mind whenever a business asks you for information.

Re:A lot of it about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint here: For some jurisdictions, it IS illegal. Therein lies the rub.

Re:A lot of it about.

[guruevi]

RadioShack doesn't operate (anymore) in Europe. In the US private data collection and resale is legal and encouraged.

Re:A lot of it about.

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't some companies require you to use your real name otherwise your CC provider will probably decline the transaction?

Re:A lot of it about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you said you wouldn't sell personal information. Which they did, in their privacy policy.

Re:A lot of it about.

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, bankruptcy law allows, and often requires, companies to break a lot of promises. I'm no lawyer, and all I know about bankruptcy law I learned from GrokLaw, but it has all kinds of wierd little "kludges" designed to allow the maximum amount of money to be pulled out of a corpse...usually for the benefit of the lawyers, as they get paid even before the creditors.

Fuckedcompany

[SumDog]

Man this reminds me of news from the old fuckedcompany.com and internal memos days; companies selling all their hardware and forgetting they had customer data on hard drives.

Re:Fuckedcompany

[TWX]

I really liked it when they branded themselves as a direct parody of Fastcompany, logo and everything.

It's very simple as to why they'd sell hardware with data on they drives- if they had to spend the effort/money to wipe the drives then they'd recuperate less in liquidation. It's a selfish motive and completely understandable, even if completely disagreeable.

Re:Fuckedcompany

[SternisheFan]

Radio Shack remained stuck in the '80s and '90s as cooler, cheaper options like Best Buy and Amazon took center stage. The store failed to keep up with fast and furious technological advances, and didn't adapt to consumers' ever-changing needs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Jimmy Fallon: Radio Shack’s entire inventory has been put up for auction. When asked if the auction would be on the internet, a spokesman for Radio Shack said ‘The what now?'”

Re:Fuckedcompany

[antdude]

Whatever happened to fuckedcompany.com? Did they also fall down like those companies?

Re:Fuckedcompany

[moneybabylon]

Fuckedcompany message board is still around in the form of www.f169bbs.com

Some of the top customers from my RadioShack years

[Electrawn]

Johnny Cash
123 Anywhere St
Frankfort, IL

Dagwood Blues
1060 West Addison Street
Chicago, IL 60613

(Elwood was too obvious to store managers)

George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611

(Address verification on SCO Unix 3? HA!)

Borders

[Anonymous Coward]

When Borders went under B&N purchased the customer info. This only abnormal because RadioShack asked for phone numbers from people buying bateries at the mall.

Re:Borders

[TWX]

How much of the rest of Borders did Barnes and Noble buy? If they bought a significant portion of Borders' business then it's not quite so egregious. If all they bought was the customer data then that's pretty bad.

a typo?

[fightinfilipino]

65 million customers? i'd think there'd be like 6.5 Radio Shack customers out there total.

Re:a typo?

[aevan]

You're assuming we used the same fake names multiple times. I know I've bought maybe a dozen things over the years from there, and never gave the same name twice.

It's kinda like an online petition that way

You can get it a lot cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

A list of RadioShack assets for sale includes more than 65 million customer names and physical addresses, and 13 million email addresses.

Um, you can get that a log cheaper on the darknet, with the added bonus of credit card numbers and PIN codes, where applicable. Why wait for a bankrupcy court to approve a purchase when you can get it quickly and cheaply via third-party contacts?

Re:You can get it a lot cheaper

[jfdavis668]

Cheaper to buy on Amazon

Sell it to Micro Center and Make Magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem.

.

Re:Sell it to Micro Center and Make Magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they want a list of customers who mostly bought cell phone accessories?

Same problem applies to law and regulation

[DutchUncle]

This is why regulations, especially security and privacy and security-theater issues, must be monitored constantly and addressed immediately. Even if you trust the current management (including government), all it takes is a small management change (or government change) to bring in management that you cannot trust - or, worse, that you can be absolutely sure will do the opposite of what the previous management promised.

Re:Same problem applies to law and regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the problem is that a court or a court appointed individual is tasked with recouping as much value out of the bankrupt company as it can for the creditors. This isn't a decision by the Radio Shack management to sell the info, they basically have to if the bankruptcy court says to.

What we need is legislation that says that any privacy policy for a company at the time of a bankruptcy filing must be adhered to by the bankruptcy courts. This will tick off creditors who can pay for a lot of lobbying of congress, so I doubt we see this happen. But that is what is needed.

Re:Same problem applies to law and regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

or, worse, that you can be absolutely sure will do the opposite of what the previous management promised.

Previous? It is not uncommon, that the current government does the opposite of what it promised earlier...

Re:Same problem applies to law and regulation

[martin-boundary]

Yep. Google, we're looking at you.

Same can happen at a cloud provider...

[mlts]

One scenario that I worry about with cloud providers is exactly this. The provider goes bankrupt, sells all data to someone else, and they now have all the servers and can use the container information, free, clear, with nothing the clients of the former cloud provider able to do about it legally, barring copyright violations.

Both Borders and RS both show a lesson -- yes, there is a privacy policy with company "A", but when the servers get under the ownership of a new company, that policy is out the window, and the data can be used for anything that the new owners desire. Multi-TB torrent? Perfectly legal.

If a cloud provider changes hands, I can see a new company digging through data just to extort people. Say they find a sex toy maker's customer list on a server. They can then send out a note that all customers of this maker will have their named published unless they "buy into" a privacy policy (removing the name from the list) for the low price of $99.99. Since the new company 100% owns the data, free and clear, this is perfectly legal.

Re:Same can happen at a cloud provider...

[PRMan]

Well, a couple people just went to prison for extortion on something very similar, so I highly doubt it.

Re:Same can happen at a cloud provider...

[zarthrag]

I don't think that would work in the USA. It breaks the one rule there is:

"Don't piss off someone (or group thereof) richer than yourself."

Re:Same can happen at a cloud provider...

[Anonymous Coward]

The higher rule is "don't piss off a hacker who can easily air all of your dirty laundry". Money as a means of extortion means very little in the information age.

Re:Same can happen at a cloud provider...

[Zordak]

It's not quite that simple. When B purchases the data, the contract between you and A doesn't just disappear. B purchases the data subject to the contract. Since there is no provision in the contract that it's not transferable (at least not on RS's end), that's a normal and acceptable thing to do with a contract. That's not a guarantee that they won't do the most nefarious thing with it that they can get away with, but simply putting up a torrent of it probably won't fly. In fact, that's exactly what the NY AG is talking about here. RS received the data under an agreement. They can't breach that agreement just because they're going bankrupt.

Can you feel it

[Anonymous Coward]

I can feel the invisible hand of the market giving me the finger. Can you? This is why nobody trusts leaving privacy to the market and privacy agreements that have no legal meaning in these situations.

A lesson for cloud services

[Anonymous Coward]

Let that be a lesson: Even when companies have a "don't be evil" mantra and actually follow it, when the financials are dire, anything goes. Or as others might put it: "To get money when bankrupt, no (customers') holes are barred."

cause and effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

30 years ago I dropped by a local RS to buy a $3 item. On presenting a $5 bill at checkout, I was asked for a name address and phone number. I waved the bill and said "It's a cash sale." The clerk said he couldn't sell w/o the data. I said "OK" and left never to return to RS. I wonder how many others have done the same and what relation this has to their bankruptcy? Is RS another corporate victim of MBA marketing BS?

Re:cause and effect?

[gurps_npc]

The proper response to "we can't sell w/o data" is to say. "Well, Mr. Cashier, put in George Bush for the name, and your own address and phone number. Unless you don't think the sale is worth your information?" If he refuses, then tell him to use the store's address and phone, and Robbie Shack as the name.

Re:cause and effect?

[JohnFen]

No, the proper response to "we can't sell w/o data" is to leave without completing the purchase.

Re:cause and effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, cut off your nose to spite your face.

The proper response is to lie about your name and phone number, buy the item you want, and then walk out laughing to yourself about how the local bar is going to get some strange cold-calls asking for Mike Rotch.

Re:cause and effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mike Rotch" is too obvious due to the fake sounding last name. "Mike Hunt" is much better.

And I would just leave in a situation like that, but not before ordering the exact same product from Amazon on my smartphone in front of the store employees.

"Appropriate action" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The appropriate action being, of course, that he gets a cut.

Buy it to destroy it

[MobyDisk]

Can we start an organization who buys the customer list and destroys it? Except I don't want them to actually profit from this. Hmmmm...

Re:Buy it to destroy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just burn down the buildings of whatever company buys the customer information?
They know that the only reason it may be legal for them to buy that data is an oversight in the laws.

Re:Some of the top customers from my RadioShack ye

[grimmjeeper]

My favorite was always

Todd Wilkinson
1 Happy Street
Fryburg, CA

What is appropriate action?

[hawguy]

New York's Attorney General says his office will take 'appropriate action' if the data is handed over.

Why do I have a feeling that "appropriate action" means a "privacy violation fee" that's paid to the government?

Re:What is appropriate action?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing, isn't it?

The public complains, the government listens. ...but only when they stand to profit.

Even more amusing is that the fine won't amount to an "admission of guilt". They'll sell the data anyway to recoup the losses from the additional fine.

Lawsuit incoming

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure this is outside the scope of what the bankrupt retailer is allowed to do with the data.
Anyone who gets his data sold should sue him and try to get something out of the bankruptcy auction.

auction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why sell the list one time? Sell it and sell it again and again.

Seinfeld

[ArcadeMan]

Kramer knew it all along.

Re:Seinfeld

[nensondubois]

Beat me to it!

Hahahaha

Canadian Tire

[ArcadeMan]

If you return an item to Canadian Tire (for a refund, maybe exchanges too) they also ask for your phone number. I've learned that they do this to limit the number of returns you can do (which I think is probably illegal) so I always say I don't have a phone, only Internet. The cashier always end up using the store's own phone number instead.

Re:Canadian Tire

[Anonymous Coward]

Not illegal if they informed you that last time they did a refund that you were now an exception to the policy. There's nothing in Canadian law requiring a company to provide a refund, assuming they didn't defraud you in some fashion.

Re:Canadian Tire

[mishehu]

The Retail Equation is what a number of big retailers in the USA use (i.e. Victoria's Secret). Even if you show up with the original receipt in hand and are just asking to do a like-item exchange for a different size, they demand to scan your gov't issued photo id. They will refuse your exchange unless you capitulate or try to dispute the purchase with your credit card company.

If there was ever a legitimate use for a fake id, this is it.

Re:Canadian Tire

[Livius]

Unless they advertised a refund policy in effect at the time of the original purchase.

Re:Canadian Tire

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just use my passport. That way they don't get my address, phone number, height, weight or SSN.

That said, I have never been asked to produce anything more than the product being returned/exchanged and the receipt. Those are the only requirements that any business with good customer service have. Places like Nordstrom don't even need the receipt, they just scan the bar code on the product.

That will be amusing

[m.dillon]

Whenever Radio Shack asked me for my address I just said I wasn't interested in giving it to them. But a friend of mine did one better... he always wrote down the address of the White house and signed it Mickey Mouse. And the sales person dutifully entered it into the computer, no questions asked.

-Matt

Re:That will be amusing

[danlip]

The clerks don't care, and why should they? But I believe the computer was setup so it was truly impossible for them to complete a sale without entering something. I've seen them make up a name and address when I refuse to give them one.

I avoided Radio Shack because of that policy, as did many others. I'm sure it's one of the reasons they went out of business. At least I hope it is - it serves them right.

Re:That will be amusing

[Opportunist]

The clerks not only don't care, they are at least as pissed off as you are.

Because HE, not the markedroid idiot that came up with this marvelous idea, HE gets yelled at by paranoid customers who can't just say "don't wanna" but have to make an insanely huge deal out of it. It is seriously in the clerks best interest to enter as many bogus addresses as he possibly can get away with, hoping that eventually the whole shit gets dumped because it causes more trouble than it's worth.

Re:That will be amusing

[Linsaran]

As a former Radioshack employee; I can tell you that one of the metrics sales associates were ranked on was the % of Name and Address captures they did and anyone below a certain percentage (which I can't remember right now, but something in me says 80-90%) would be publicly shamed and potentially disciplined at the monthly associate meetings we were forced to attend. A lot of associates would 'make up' entries for exactly that reason (which if they got caught doing too much might also result in a write up or what not).

Re:That will be amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former Radioshack employee; I can tell you that one of the metrics sales associates were ranked on was the % of Name and Address captures

As a former Radioshack employee (on and off until 2005), this was never a metric I was ranked on. You were not forced to enter any information to make a sale. You were trained on how to suggest it was useful for them to do so and it was for those that lost receipts, but it was not forced. It was only forced for returns and exchanges for obvious fraud reasons. In fact they even had an under $50 rule. We would have to return or exchange ANYTHING under $50, technically "no questions asked" even though you had to ask a lot of questions to get to that point. I remember my district manager forcing me to accept returns for things we never sold and obviously came from a big box competitor.

The only metrics they really considered were average ticket (total of a single sale), PBA (parts, batteries and accessories) and number of cell phones, satellites and credit cards. Sometimes total sales per hour was considered. My manager hated my low ticket average since I was the only one capable of selling resistors, capacitors, connectors, IC's, etc... But customers always returned and came back to me because of that. Managers eventually overlook the average ticket because my sales and returning customers were better.

90% of their problem was having to hire people with no electrical knowledge and then forcing them to sell cell phones since they couldn't train them on anything else. That added to the fact that it takes 30+ mins plus to activate a cell phone so they needed 4 - 5x the sales reps to keep customers from waiting which either didn't happen (no one wanted to wait 30 mins to buy their resistors) or greatly increased their costs for little profit.

Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad I told them to get stuffed every time they asked for my postal code or phone number.

No deadly force to protect property

[drnb]

I am not a lawyer and I am only speaking of jurisdiction I am familiar with.

In the US it is usually (always ?) illegal to use deadly force to protect property. There must a threat of death or severe bodily injury to make deadly force legal. Note that certain situations imply by law that such a threat exists unless there is evidence to the contrary, ex stranger forcing their way into your home. Ie the occupant of a home is presumed by law to be acting in self defense.

A weird exception may be deadly force being legal in some jurisdictions during the suppression of a riot. Perhaps there is an implicit assumption that people are in serious danger by the very existence of a riot.

That said, a security guard may be able to use appropriate force to detain/restrain you if there is a reasonable belief that property was stolen. A citizens arrest sort of thing while awaiting the real police to show up.

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[penix1]

Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[TWX]

Even without such signs, courts have interpreted trespassing as being a threat to the rightful owners or occupants of private property and allowed for homicide against a trespasser to go without-charge or for acquittal.

A bank as a form of retail establishment doesn't quite fit the definition as banks welcome everyone in to do business. It's private property but it's also a public space.

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[Bengie]

In many areas of the USA, a threat to your property is a threat to your person.

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[drnb]

Sounds like something highly dependent upon a particular state or jurisdiction. Basically it sounds as if the "Castle Doctrine" protection of the home itself has been enlarged to the entire homestead land that the home resides upon.

Even so I would expect certain caveats. Is the stranger trespassing on the property armed for example. Bad news for a lost hunter, perhaps not for a lost hiker.

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[FlyHelicopters]

Sounds like something highly dependent upon a particular state or jurisdiction. Basically it sounds as if the "Castle Doctrine" protection of the home itself has been enlarged to the entire homestead land that the home resides upon.

Even so I would expect certain caveats. Is the stranger trespassing on the property armed for example. Bad news for a lost hunter, perhaps not for a lost hiker.

I can only speak for the laws of Texas, however I do have a concealed carry permit and I have been to the classes to learn about the rules, so I can share what I know...

In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force for three reasons:

1. To defend yourself against what you perceive to be a deadly threat to your life. If you are in fear for your life, you may shoot someone to stop them from being a threat. This doesn't mean your intent can be to kill them, you NEVER shoot to kill, you only shoot to stop. One the person is on the ground and not a threat, you cannot shoot them again.

2. To defend a third party who has a threat to their life. If you see someone being attacked and you feel their life in danger, you may use deadly force to stop the threat.

3. To defend your uninsured property. For example, if someone were to grab your purse and it had $5,000 in cash in it, that is likely not insured. You can shoot the person to stop them from getting away with your stuff. This has been extended by the courts to include the deductible on some insured property such as cars, but I personally wouldn't chance it. The example held up in concealed carry class was a guy was stealing a tractor trailer rig from a man's home. That is an expensive item and while it is insured, it also has a large deductible and it is the source of this man's living, so he would be without an income without it. The guy picked up his AR-15 rifle and went outside and saw another man inside his truck hotwiring it and starting to drive it away. He shot the thief several times through the front window of the truck and he ended up dying. It was ruled a justified shooting due to him defending his property.

---

Note that trespassing on LAND is not on that list, that topic has been brought up in class before and the instructors made it pretty clear that someone JUST WALKING ON YOUR LAND is NOT enough of a reason to shoot them. If you are not being directly threatened or they are not actually taking your property, then NO, you cannot shoot them for being on your land.

If they break into your physical home, then yes, the courts have ruled that can be, by itself, taken as a direct threat to your safety and the use of deadly force is normally acceptable. Not all states and countries agree with this, some states actually expect you to retreat from your home if possible, leaving it to the burglar. I think this is nuts, but that is what it is.

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[FlyHelicopters]

In many areas of the USA, a threat to your property is a threat to your person.

Yes it is, and I'm as pro-gun as you'll find, owning... well, more than one gun. :)

That being said, would I shoot someone over a modest amount of property? What if I had $500 in my wallet, would I shoot someone over that?

No, never...

It is not worth taking a life over that. Likewise, I wouldn't shoot if someone stole my truck, I have insurance and my deductible is $500, I'm not going to kill someone over that.

I have spoken to people who have actually shot someone in real life, it is not fun, it isn't pleasant, and it sucks. Every single person I've ever met (including a police officer) who has had to shoot someone says that it sucks.

So I personally would choose retreat if I can, the only real exception is my home. It is not being a coward to flee a fight if you can, unless it is your home. Where my children sleep is the only exception.

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[FlyHelicopters]

Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!

If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?

Re:No deadly force to protect property

[tehcyder]

Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!

If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?

As a non-American, if I saw a sign like that I'd assume the owner was joking, and if I did get shot I'd expect the police to arrest the arsebiscuit for attempted murder.

Actually you gave Costco that right

[drnb]

Nope. I paid for the products and they have no right to search me. Even at Costco, if the line is too long, I just walk out without letting them search me.

No right to search you? You mean other than the membership agreement you signed that allows you to enter their private property?

Don't confuse you having a right with Costco being polite despite you being an a-hole.

Re:Actually you gave Costco that right

[Linsaran]

Well technically he still has the right to refuse an unlawful search of his person, but Costco is within their rights to make a condition of his membership that he waive that right within their property. Him choosing to exercise that right could (and probably should in this circumstance) lead to him losing his membership to Costco. Of course I'm just arguing semantics at this point, so yeah . . .

Re:Actually you gave Costco that right

[drnb]

Well technically he still has the right to refuse an unlawful search of his person ...

For those unfamiliar with costco they are not searching your person. They ask you to show your receipt and they take a quick look through and under your shopping cart.

Re:Actually you gave Costco that right

[Anonymous Coward]

Searching your bag is considered searching your person under the law. If done against the customer's explicit consent, which must be obtained each and every time they visit the store, it is grounds to sue the store, for the store employee(s) to be arrested, or, if they lay hands on you or detain you, for the store employee(s) to be laid out or dead for assaulting you and/or attempting to hold you hostage.

Costco cannot legally search anyone, nor can any non-LEO (and even LEOs MUST have probable cause). The store's only recourse would be to rescind the customer's membership and ask them not to return if they refuse the search.

Re:Actually you gave Costco that right

[drnb]

Searching your bag is considered searching your person under the law.

Perhaps, but searching your shopping cart is probably not what most readers had in mind when they read "searching your person".

If done against the customer's explicit consent, which must be obtained each and every time they visit the store, ...

The contract you signed may state that merely entering the store indicates such consent. Also for those unfamiliar with costco one has to show their membership card at the door to get it. Which may be another mechanism by which you are consenting. Failing to show the card is most likely trespassing.

... it is grounds to sue the store,

Kind of meaningless given that anyone can be sued for anything.

... for the store employee(s) to be arrested, ...

Nope, you probably contractually agreed to have merchandize leaving the store inspected.

or, if they lay hands on you or detain you, for the store employee(s) to be laid out or dead for assaulting you and/or attempting to hold you hostage.

They are most likely perfectly entitled to prevent the merchandize from leaving without the contractually agreed upon inspection and direct you to customer support for a full refund. If you try to force an exit with the merchandize you are most likely the aggressor in any physical person to person altercation that results and the employee the person entitled to self defense.

Costco cannot legally search anyone, nor can any non-LEO (and even LEOs MUST have probable cause). The store's only recourse would be to rescind the customer's membership and ask them not to return if they refuse the search.

Again, contractual agreement to have merchandise inspected. You may leave with inspected merchandise or with a refund.

Re:Actually you gave Costco that right

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Their contract can say anything that it wants, but by law you cannot sign away your right to not be searched wholesale. You explicitly MUST consent each and every, not by entering the store, not by flashing a membership card, but by your wilful act of showing them your belongings and/or receipt.

And no, they cannot prevent you from leaving the store ever. If they truly suspect you have stolen, they can call the police and have them deal with it, but they better be right or they may find themselves slapped with a fine for filing a false police report and for wasting everyone's time. If a store employee tries to physically prevent you from leaving the store, they are vigilantes who are breaking the law and it can be legitimately construed by you as assault and/or a hostage situation and you have every right to inflict harm on them in order to preserve your own safety. The cameras in the store, along with the eyewitnesses would be all the proof that you need to show that you were justified in your actions.

I suggest you go read up on law, because you haven't got a clue.

Re:Actually you gave Costco that right

[drnb]

Wrong. Their contract can say anything that it wants, but by law you cannot sign away your right to not be searched wholesale.

You absolutely can. There can be a contractual obligation to have your bags, pack, briefcase, etc searched on entry and exit. Happens all the time. There can be a contractual obligation to have the merchandise and receipt checked. Restricting rights and creating obligations is what contracts are about. If one party breaches, such as failure to have the shopping cart's merchandise inspected, then the other party is no longer obligated to provide fulfillment such as let the merchandise leave the store.

And no, they cannot prevent you from leaving the store ever.

I didn't say you, I said the merchandise.

If they truly suspect you have stolen, they can call the police and have them deal with it, ...

That is not the scenario being discussed.

If a store employee tries to physically prevent you from leaving the store, they are vigilantes who are breaking the law and it can be legitimately construed by you as assault and/or a hostage situation and you have every right to inflict harm on them in order to preserve your own safety.

Wrong. Various states permit citizens arrest, and further allow the use of reasonable and necessary force. In California a sworn peace officer is required to recognize a citizens arrest, it can not be ignored. The officer must accept the person in "custody". After accepting the person into such "custody" the officer may use their discretion and immediately "release" them. However the law is clear, citizens arrests are legal and must be recognized by sworn peace officers. In fact they are at times absolutely necessary. For misdemeanors the offense must be witnessed by the officer in order for them to make the arrest, letting the witnessing citizen make the arrest and turn the person over to the officer removes the problem of a "stale misdemeanor".

I suggest you go read up on law, because you haven't got a clue.

I do for California. For an odd reason I actually had to take the required law enforcement class that covers powers of arrest, use of force, etc.

Re:Actually you gave Costco that right

[tehcyder]

Well technically he still has the right to refuse an unlawful search of his person ...

For those unfamiliar with costco they are not searching your person. They ask you to show your receipt and they take a quick look through and under your shopping cart.

Thankyou, some of the posters above were making it sound like you were being given a full cavity body search at gunpoint.

What about prevention?

[Andy Smith]

"New York's Attorney General says his office will take 'appropriate action' if the data is handed over."

So they must think handing over the data would be unlawful. Why not prevent it from happening in the first place?

Submit the customers to a lifetime of real world spam, and then do what, take action against a company that doesn't exist anymore?

Re:What about prevention?

[Khashishi]

Surely, this situation has come up thousands of times already. I thought the precedent was that it is basically legal.

Re:What about prevention?

[Livius]

Perhaps his concept of 'appropriate' is different than ours.

I always just declined when they asked

[gatkinso]

Never was a big deal.

Re:I always just declined when they asked

[UnknownSoldier]

Same.

Clerk: "Phone Number?"
Me: "Cash Customer"
Clerk. "OK." They skip entering any more info in.

Re:I always just declined when they asked

[Opportunist]

Phone number?
911
Erh... that's the emergency number?
Yeah, and I'd really wish I could be there when your autodialer calls it and your markedroid has to explain it to the pissed off 911 agent.

Re:I always just declined when they asked

[SecurityGuy]

Varies by company and time. I've had Radio Shack refuse to sell me stuff without a phone number. That was probably in the 90s. Lately, Sears has been getting aggressive about it. I got lectured with some crap about Sears becoming a "member oriented" company by some college educated sales guy who couldn't get a real job, when I politely declined to give them my phone number.

Good for you, Sears. Keep the merch. I'll buy it from someone else.

This is a perfect example

[JohnFen]

This is a perfect example of why we should not be giving personal information to anyone without a VERY good reason. Even if the company you're giving it to has the best privacy policy in the world and is completely hack-proof, if that company ever goes under then you're screwed.

Re:This is a perfect example

[Anonymous Coward]

I parted company with the American Red Cross some years ago over a post 9/11 requirement that volunteers submit their personal info, including SS#, DOB, Mother's Maiden Name to MyBackgroundCheck.com. Here is an excerpt from their "Privacy Policy":

"Finally, in the event that My Background Check (or an affiliate) goes through an actual or potential business transition, such as a merger, acquisition, liquidation or sale of all or a portion of its assets, customer information will, in most instances, be part of the assets transferred."

They could sell out to the Russian Mob next month and you'd have no recourse.

Brings back memories

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought they asked for your contact information so that the government could keep tabs on anyone buying a suspicious combination of electronic items from Radioshack.

Oh, I'm sure they'll take "appropriate action"

[Opportunist]

After all, they have to make sure that tax is paid on this transaction!

with the way you Americans treat privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

then "New York's Attorney General says his office will take 'appropriate action' if the data is handed over" , will mean pay 17.5% sales tax and the information is yours!

That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[drnb]

Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low.

My understanding of the concept of "Stand Your Ground" is that it does not define the conditions upon which deadly force may be used. Different concepts, for example the "Castle Doctrine", define such conditions. Under the "Castle Doctrine" a person is by law considered to be in danger of death or severe bodily injury if a stranger forces his way into their home. That forcible entry into the home enables the use of deadly force. What "Stand Your Ground" adds to such concepts is whether the person is obligated to flee. Does the person enabled to use deadly force under the "Castle Doctrine" have to attempt to flee if possible to do so. "Stand Your Ground" merely say that they have no such obligation to flee.

Be aware that "Stand Your Ground" is being grossly misrepresented in the media. Partly through the normal day to day ignorance of the media (*) and partly through politics.

(*) Consider the media's abysmal coverage and discussion of anything computer related. What makes you think they do any better on any other subject matter?

Re:That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider the media's abysmal coverage and discussion of anything computer related. What makes you think they do any better on any other subject matter?

When there is a discussion by lawyers who are well versed on the statutory and case law of a particular state regarding self defense.

Let us take California, which doesn't have a Stand Your Ground (SYG) statute, but its castle doctrine doesn't require you to flee in the face of danger from your home (see CPC Section 198.5).

Although there isn't a SYG statue, the state does accept a SYG defense. When used, the California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) state, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

In California, not only can you stay and fight, you can also chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life. California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. 1) Aggressors are not eligible, you must be defending, not striking first. 2) You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. 3) You had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. 4) However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.

The legal precedents that established this jury instruction are People v. Hecker in 1895 and People v. Newcomer in 1897. Hecker says you may stand your ground if it’s safer than retreating, but Newcomer changed that by removing the need to retreat.

Re:That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[drnb]

Consider the media's abysmal coverage and discussion of anything computer related. What makes you think they do any better on any other subject matter?

When there is a discussion by lawyers who are well versed on the statutory and case law of a particular state regarding self defense.

I have noticed that the presence of lawyers does not necessarily improve the quality of the media's coverage. Lawyers are often paid to represent one single side of an issue and intentionally misrepresent the other. The media will sometimes stack the deck to one side and if the two sides are comparable the media will sometimes participate and/or regulate the debate again favoring one particular side. I've seen the media let one side dominate the available time uninterrupted while letting the other side get very little time and interrupt and talk over that side when they are attempting to make a point or clear up a misrepresentation of the other side.

Re:That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[drnb]

In California, not only can you stay and fight, you can also chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life. California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. 1) Aggressors are not eligible, you must be defending, not striking first.

In California its not quite that simple. If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted. Note the California Castle Doctrine presumes imminent threat unless evidence to the contrary exists. Scenarios where a resident pursues and harms a fleeing invader are often used as examples of such contrary evidence, for example injury to the back of an invader.

Also If the attacker has disengaged or otherwise sued for peace and the formerly endangered person attempts the use of force despite the lack of imminent threat the roles have become reversed, the former attacker now has some right to self defense. Again, California.

Re:That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[Anonymous Coward]

In California its not quite that simple. If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted. Note the California Castle Doctrine presumes imminent threat unless evidence to the contrary exists.

This is absolute BS. A friend of mine and I were once held up at gunpoint, until I realized the gun was just a toy. I grabbed the guy and proceeded to beat the shit out of him. In a moment of distraction by my friend and the other would-be mugger, the guy I beat up fled and I chased him several blocks before I caught him and stomped him into the ground again, despite his pleas that I stop.

The second guy that my friend was dealing with also fled and my friend called the police. When they arrived, we told them everything that had happened and they applauded us for our courage, for standing up for ourselves and for me chasing down and beating the one guy so badly that they were able to nab him easily. Both perps turned out to be known and wanted criminals. One of the cops took me aside and said verbatim "We need more people like you around".

Had my pursuit been illegal, I'd have likely been given at least a warning, but instead received admiration and praise from the responding police officers. This happened in California.

Re:That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[drnb]

In California its not quite that simple. If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted. Note the California Castle Doctrine presumes imminent threat unless evidence to the contrary exists.

This is absolute BS. A friend of mine and I were once held up at gunpoint, until I realized the gun was just a toy. I grabbed the guy and proceeded to beat the shit out of him. In a moment of distraction by my friend and the other would-be mugger, the guy I beat up fled and I chased him several blocks before I caught him and stomped him into the ground again, despite his pleas that I stop.

The second guy that my friend was dealing with also fled and my friend called the police. When they arrived, we told them everything that had happened and they applauded us for our courage, for standing up for ourselves and for me chasing down and beating the one guy so badly that they were able to nab him easily. Both perps turned out to be known and wanted criminals. One of the cops took me aside and said verbatim "We need more people like you around".

Had my pursuit been illegal, I'd have likely been given at least a warning, but instead received admiration and praise from the responding police officers. This happened in California.

For odd reasons I had to take a law enforcement class that all California Peace Officers are required to take. It covers the the legal use of force among other things. Your pursuit was not illegal. Your stomping him after he pleaded you to stop was. When the person surrenders the imminent threat is legally gone and and the doctrine of reasonable force dictates that you only may use the force necessary to restrain. You can hold him down but that's about it. Your actions were as absolutely illegal. You were lucky the police on the scene ignored your final actions.

If after surrendering and continuing to be attacked the robber could have kicked your ass and his lawyer would have been able to successfully claim self defense for that particular action. Obviously he would still be guilty for everything that preceded it.

The robber could have also prevailed in a civil lawsuit against you. You could have lost far more in such a suit than was at stake in the robbery.

Re:That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted.

This is incorrect.

Note the California Castle Doctrine...

You are confusing castle doctrine with a stand-your ground-defense. Although related, they are different things. My statement, which you quoted, was regarding the stand-your-ground defense, which extends outside a residence.

Scenarios where a resident pursues and harms a fleeing invader are often used as examples of such contrary evidence, for example injury to the back of an invader.

Injury to a fleeing attacker may or may not be evidence to the contrary. The simply act of fleeing doesn't remove the imminent threat standard. Some scenarios: 1) The attacker is shooting at you while fleeing. 2) The attacker could harm others while fleeing. 3) If you have a reasonable belief the attacker could immediately return after fleeing from you.

A stand-your-ground defense doesn't prevent the state from filing charges. It simply acts as a means to argue the defendant's actions, whether they lead to homicide or not, were justifiable.

Re:That is not "Stand Your Ground"

[drnb]

If the attacker is attempting to flee then there is no imminent threat and deadly force is no longer permitted.

This is incorrect.

Absent a riot where deadly force is permitted to defend a home or suppress the riot, an imminent threat to a person is absolutely required, and in the case of an escaping violent felon the threat to the life of others must be quite realistic and likely and not merely possible.

Note the California Castle Doctrine...

You are confusing castle doctrine with a stand-your ground-defense. Although related, they are different things.

Yes, that was my point in an earlier post, perhaps in a different subthread. :-)

My statement, which you quoted, was regarding the stand-your-ground defense, which extends outside a residence.

The rules change outside your home.
“Over a hundred years ago, the California Supreme Court said, ‘no duty to retreat if you’re in your home,'” says UC Hastings Law Professor Rory Little. “‘We’re going to leave open whether there’s such a duty if you’re outside of the home.’ That little leaving-open has never been firmly answered by the California Supreme Court. They simply repeat the same broad language over and over again.”
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/...

Scenarios where a resident pursues and harms a fleeing invader are often used as examples of such contrary evidence, for example injury to the back of an invader.

Injury to a fleeing attacker may or may not be evidence to the contrary. The simply act of fleeing doesn't remove the imminent threat standard. Some scenarios: 1) The attacker is shooting at you while fleeing.

Now you are getting into Clintonian word games. Of course a weapon still being pointed at you trumps attempting to flee. A weapon so pointed constitutes a reasonable imminent threat.

2) The attacker could harm others while fleeing.

No not "could", not merely the possibility of a future threat to life. The danger to the lives of others has to be reasonable and realistic and likely in the case of a fleeing violent felon.

3) If you have a reasonable belief the attacker could immediately return after fleeing from you.

No, deadly force is not legal in such a circumstance as the threat is a possible future threat not an imminent threat.

You can pursue and use necessary and reasonable force to detain such a fleeing attacker but deadly force is not one of your options until we get into situations like in (1) and (2) where the threat once again becomes tangible not merely possible.

Re: Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have shot you and claimed you were reaching for your gun.

I have never, ever seen a security guard at a retail store with a gun.

He could have shot you with your own gun, and claim you committed suicide.

Re: Hmmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have shot you and claimed you were reaching for your gun.

I have never, ever seen a security guard at a retail store with a gun.

He could have shot you with your own gun, and claim you committed suicide.

He could shoot you with gum and claim it was spermicide.

Total of Time Saved (in days)

[j3p0]

At some point in the 80's I stopped giving them the info as I figured out given how often I went to Rat Shack, by the time I died I would have saved myself about two weeks of agony.
I didn't foresee the internet and was overly optimistic about Shadio Rack's retail smarts, but I'll bet I made myself a nice weekend.

Re:Some of the top customers from my RadioShack ye

[mjwx]

Its the same with signing up to things that ask for an email address that isn't for verification.

If there really is a Blah@blah.net he fucking hates me.

Radio Shack gets what is deseves

[Sir Holo]

I stopped shopping there 20 years ago solely because of their insistence on getting my name, address, phone number, and so on.

I have shopped elsewhere since then (Fry's, sparkfun.com).

Die already, Radio Shack. Just die already.

Re:Radio Shack gets what is deseves

[freeze128]

Computer City also was adamant about collecting customer info on every transaction, and they went out of business too. Maybe this is a clue to all retail stores: stop asking for my address!!!

They went to shit in the end

[HalAtWork]

I'm glad I didn't give themmy phone number for buying a pack of batteries... What an unfortunate fall from grace...

Looking inside shopvac

[Etherwalk]

Ever since the checker at Fry's caught that one of my items (the smallest yet most expensive item on my ticket) was not in my bag, I'm more than happy to let them check. It's not always a loss-prevention, treat you like a criminal, measure. In fact, having talked to the checkers quite a bit when the store is slow, I've learned that they catch people leaving without what they paid for much more often than the other way round. At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative. And yes, cashiers do face consequences for not making sure the customer leaves their register with all of their purchases.

Yeah, the cashier at home depot who looked inside my shopvac wanted to make sure it had all the parts, I'm sure.

Re:Looking inside shopvac

[BronsCon]

Having worked at Home Depot in my lesser years, no, the cashier was doing their job and making sure they scanned all of your items. About 20% of the theft in my store was sliding small items under the garden center gate, 10% was walkouts, and 70% was people shoving shit in shop vacs, so yeah, not blaming anyone for checking those.

Re:Looking inside shopvac

[Etherwalk]

Having worked at Home Depot in my lesser years, no, the cashier was doing their job and making sure they scanned all of your items. About 20% of the theft in my store was sliding small items under the garden center gate, 10% was walkouts, and 70% was people shoving shit in shop vacs, so yeah, not blaming anyone for checking those.

When their job is to accuse me of stealing, it's an insult to every customer who buys a shopvac. That is the fundamental objection people have to requiring people to sign your receipt when you leave, for example, or to running college essays through anti-cheating software.

Re:Looking inside shopvac

[BronsCon]

Someone's panties are all in a bunch, wouldn'tchaknow. Seriously, nobody's accusing you of anything; but, if it acts as a deterrent, or they happen to catch a thief, it keeps prices lower for you (or profits higher for the shareholders, which could also include you), and if the anti-cheating software happens to catch a cheat, that added proof that you actually did the work makes your degree that much more valuable.

So, where's the problem?

Re:Looking inside shopvac

[Etherwalk]

Someone's panties are all in a bunch, wouldn'tchaknow. Seriously, nobody's accusing you of anything; but, if it acts as a deterrent, or they happen to catch a thief, it keeps prices lower for you (or profits higher for the shareholders, which could also include you), and if the anti-cheating software happens to catch a cheat, that added proof that you actually did the work makes your degree that much more valuable.

So, where's the problem?

Leaving aside your sexist language, the problem is in the insult. The action assumes you are a thief and launches an investigation without any evidence, just because you bought a shopvac. It is a guilty until proven innocent approach.

Imagine that as you check out, the cashier says "I am going to look inside your shopvac in case you are a thief."

Saying it's because other people are thieves justifies looking in mine is saying that I might be guilty because other people are.

Re:Looking inside shopvac

[BronsCon]

The legal system is the only place you have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Last time I checked, there were no checkout lines (or shop vacs) in the legal system. It's private property and you don't have to set foot on it if you don't want to. I'll let you draw the rest of that conclusion.

And who's being sexist? Some men wear panties too, y'know.

Facebook bought the whatsapp data

[stimpleton]

"New York's Attorney General says his office will take 'appropriate action' if the data is handed over." So...the data cannot be sold as a single asset, but presumably is ok if bundled with a business as a going concern ala Facebook purchasing whatsApp primarily for the customer phone numbers.

Is this customer data collection common in USA?

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of last summer, when I bought a memory card for my camera from B&H in New York. They actually asked my home address, phone number and everything before they gave me a possibility to go into next desk for getting a receipt which allowed me to go yet another desk, where the actual credit card payment was made. And by that receipt one could go to fetch the actual memory card. I just hope the B&H will not go belly up, as they really have too much of my data now. Anyway, it was so humiliating experience of being handled as a cattle which is there just to steal things, that I would never go there again.

Google, eg, 'Too Big to Nail' were they to fail ??

[tkjtkj]

When Google was in the birthing process, and distributing 'Terms of Membership' I communicated to them that they seemed to be clutching our personal data as if it were their own. I specifically asked management what would happen to our data were Google to be sold or to fail. They never replied to my several inquiries. Now that RadioHack is in this pickle, we see the reality: we could easily be in the pickle-bath with them! Laws MUST be made at federal levels to prohibit this plan to profiteer so unfairly.

I never played along...

[VAXcat]

HA! I always found this annoying. Rather than argue with the salesperson about whether they get my info (both at Radio Shack and everywhere else) I just tell them I'm Larry Talbot, and I live at 1313 Mockingbird Lane.

Will take action if it happens?

[iq145]

Such a thing should be PREVENTED from happening at the start. Once the info is seen, it can't be unseen.