Slashdot Mirror
Philadelphia Bans Cashless Stores (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: This week, Philadelphia's mayor signed a bill that would ban cashless retail stores, according to The Morning Call. The move makes Philadelphia the first major city to require that brick-and-mortar retail stores accept cash. Besides Philadelphia, Massachusetts has required that retailers accept cash since 1978, according to CBS. The law takes effect July 1, and it will not apply to stores like Costco that require a membership, nor will it apply to parking garages or lots, or to hotels or rental car companies that require a credit or debit card as security for future charges, according to the Wall Street Journal. Retailers caught refusing cash can be fined up to $2,000.
Amazon, whose new Amazon Go stores are cashless and queue-less, reportedly pushed back against the new law, asking for an exemption. According to the WSJ, Philadelphia lawmakers said that Amazon could work around the law under the exemption for stores that require a membership to shop there, but Amazon told the city that a Prime membership is not required to shop at Amazon Go stores, so its options are limited. A top official in Philadelphia's Chamber of Commerce said that the ban will prevent Philadelphia from modernizing with the rest of the country. Cashless companies argue that cash slows down transactions when change needs to be counted and creates security risks for employees locking up at the end of the night. Supporters of the new law argue that "not accepting cash hurts poorer residents who may not be able to afford or qualify for a credit card or who want to avoid fees that come with changing cash into a prepaid debit card," reports Ars. "Additionally, privacy advocates say that being forced to use a digital form of payment to buy things is a de facto requirement to share records of their purchases with third-party companies."
Amazon, whose new Amazon Go stores are cashless and queue-less, reportedly pushed back against the new law, asking for an exemption. According to the WSJ, Philadelphia lawmakers said that Amazon could work around the law under the exemption for stores that require a membership to shop there, but Amazon told the city that a Prime membership is not required to shop at Amazon Go stores, so its options are limited. A top official in Philadelphia's Chamber of Commerce said that the ban will prevent Philadelphia from modernizing with the rest of the country. Cashless companies argue that cash slows down transactions when change needs to be counted and creates security risks for employees locking up at the end of the night. Supporters of the new law argue that "not accepting cash hurts poorer residents who may not be able to afford or qualify for a credit card or who want to avoid fees that come with changing cash into a prepaid debit card," reports Ars. "Additionally, privacy advocates say that being forced to use a digital form of payment to buy things is a de facto requirement to share records of their purchases with third-party companies."
Glad to see there's still a little sanity left in the world.
Then bundle taxes into store prices and make sure those prices end in whole dollars and not a penny less.
Morons.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
To reinforce what you're saying with a supplementary perspective: there is a growing divide between "The Rich" and "The Poor", and the middle-class keeps shrinking, forcing people who were once middle-class into the ranks of "The Working Poor". It's not all that bad yet but it keeps getting incrementally worse every year for one reason or another. Something like retailers going 'cashless' will just accelerate the process. Some will say "you can get a prepaid debit card without a bank account" but all of those cards have fees attached to them, some exorbitant, and when every penny counts you can't afford to have some parasite company siphoning off your money because you needed groceries.
IDGAF if The Rich get to hide their questionable purchases so long as everyone has the ability to protect the privacy of what they spend their money on too. It's all part of this concept called "Freedom", which may have a potential for abuse, you must just accept that as part of the cost of freedom.
their stores are effectively closed to people who can't get a credit card.
Nope. You can buy with a debit card. You can also buy with a prepaid gift card, which you can buy for cash elsewhere.
From the privacy perspective, you're boned regardless if you shop at Amazon Go
Only because the government is making it harder to buy prepaid cards anonymously. I believe the current limit is $50, and even then, they can't be used for international transactions.
So we need a stupid law to protect us from a stupid law.
Like how "Blood plasma is stable" as he repeats that lie about 12 times, or "China's Communist Party / Government doesn't censor people directly." -Shanghai Bill is not a valid source of fact-checkable information. In fact, he's full of shit.
This is not why companies like Amazon are doing this. They are eliminating employees and pushing their robotracker technologies. Nobody is opening up cashless drug stores or check cashing bodegas, which get robbed.
Stop lying Bill.
I'm guessing Philly politicians need to spend their ill gotten cashola somewhere.
You can guess all you want, but I know you're a fucking tool.
>Many of us don't use cash or credit.
That is true. But the ONLY option that really protects privacy is cash.
>"A debit card, spending your money which is stored in your local credit union or bank, is absolutely an option."
Card payments of any type leave a trail AND force you to disclose your identity to not only the retailer but also a third party (both of which prevent privacy).
I will also point out that some people who have bad credit, cannot even open a bank account to get a debit card. And now they are cracking down on anonymous debit card sales, closing that avenue too. So it really can still be both a privacy and a poor issue when you are faced with a cashless business.
A restaurant cannot force you to cover someone else's order
They wouldn't have forced you to cover someone else's order, restaurants work by table. It's nice for you to think that you have some legal right here, but you don't. Consider yourself lucky that the restaurant just thought it easier to split the bill rather than deal with having to file police reports against a bunch of arrogant customers.
Sidenote, it's 20fucking19. There's a mountain of technological options available that make sorting our your bill afterwards easier and faster than having the restaurant split the bill in the first place. Hell even my bank has an app that takes care of tracking who has paid, who hasn't, sends them reminders over whatsapp, etc.
they also can't say you have a debt with them and are going to refuse your legal tender.
And that's been covered many times before. Did both parties sign a legal lending document? No? You don't have debt with them. You're just a customer who has taken something and not yet paid. That's not "debt" in any legal sense or financial sense, and just looking up the word in the dictionary doesn't help your case either.