Stores Use Discount Cards To Notify Of Recall 404
crazyj writes "USA Today is one of many sources running a story about how some supermarkets used their "discount" shopping cards to notify customers of a beef recall. Interestingly, some stores did not use the information because they felt it violated the customer's privacy. I always use a fake name and address when I sign up for those, but do others feel that the stores were justified in 'violating' their privacy agreement?"
is it invasion? (Score:4, Insightful)
violation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Should be opt-in (Score:5, Insightful)
I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I receive a form letter in the mail saying "Such and such beef is tainted, please check your package before eating. If you are concerned, return the beef to the store for a free refund", I'm not going to think, "Those f***ers used my personal info to send me a form letter!" I'm actually going to go check my beef and hope like hell I haven't eaten it yet. I probably wouldn't give a second thought as to why or how I got the letter. It is sufficient that I received it and was properly warned.
Unsolicited Commercial Mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Customer Privacy need not be violated to warn them (Score:5, Insightful)
Jamon
thin line (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really see this as crossing that line.
Re:violation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reasonable expectation of privacy you should have with the card would be that the store would not give or sell their mailing list to others. That's the only gray area I can see with these cards. But in this particular case, the store itself contacted the customers because of meat they bought in the store. There is no third-party involvement. Thus, there was no breach of privacy.
Choices (Score:5, Insightful)
- Fill in a fake name and address on the card, and don't worry about being contacted.
- Fill in your real name and address on the card, and get warnings such as this one.
The form I filled out for my supermarket card had the usual "Check this box if you do not wish your name and information given out to qualified vendors, etc," but lacked a "Please do not contact me with further offers" box. However, I have yet to receive any mail from said business, including flyers.Truthfully, if they have your address, it was your decision, and you should be happy you received the warning. If they don't, that's just the price you pay for privacy. I'm certain somebody in the office or the neighborhood got the warning and would be perfectly willing to alert you in the future.
Re:Absolutely they did the right thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely they did the right thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it is dumb, but I am so tired of every move I make being tracked.
Re:violation of privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
And in this case, since they 'OWN' the data (that's right, you gave it to them, it's theirs now), and they are not selling it or giving it away to other parties, it is hardly a violation of privacy.
If you give false information, well, that's your problem.
How does sending you a msg violate your privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chopper Shopper Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:is it invasion? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. Honestly, if I'd bought what was, say, 100% certain BSE infected beef that WOULD kill me by a slow horrific painful death, and the supermarket only had my name, and they then used the phone book, online tracking agencies, a private investigator or phoning my relatives to get hold of me, I would be fucking glad.
I'd be pissed at the situation, but this is something that'd save my life.
What next, five people asleep in a burning house and firemen must phone twice and knock before entering? There's points where the line of privacy can and should be crossed, I see this as one of them
Your Club Savings (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Peppers:
Regular Price: $12.95/lb
Your Club Price: $.95/lb
You Save: $12.00/lb !!
Toilet Paper:
Regular Price: $172.99 for 12 rolls
Your Club Price: $2.99 for 12 rolls
You Save: $170.00 !!
The Sham Store -- see how much you save by shopping here?
Re:Let's see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, die a miserable painful death caused by a terrorist act... or have your privacy invaded. At least following the government logic.
Both of these events have ridiculously low probabilities (mad cow being somewhat lower in my opinion) but somehow one is OK and the other isn't? Although I guess that most people think both are OK.
It always amazes me how easily people lose any common sense when whipped up by sensationalism and fearmongering (compare with the ridiculous hassles that people have to put up with because of terrorism fears). Have some perspective, for God's sake. Thousands of people die in traffic accidents all the time but no one thinks it's OK for traffic cops to search me every time when I drive (compare to airports) or come to my home to lecture me about traffic dangers (compare to this article).
Re:Avoid the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you kidding? No-brainer! (Score:3, Insightful)
Things aren't recalled just because they don't work - they are recalled for safety reasons. Recalls are always bad publicity, so no cpmpany in their right mind does one unless they are directed by the government, or feel they will be soon.
Clearly Ethics are on the Supermarkets' Side (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though, I think I'll take a very Kant-like view on this (if I remember my Philosophy class correctly). I'll argue that since the supermarkets have this information at their disposal, it is their duty to notify their customers. The article quotes Katherine Albrecht, the founder of an organization called the the "Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering", as saying "Sure it would be useful to have someone contact me if I bought something tainted, but at what cost? A total food-supply surveillance network?" The fatal flaw in this argument is that the supermarkets already have what she calls the "A total food-supply surveillance network". That's why you get the discounts; they are paying you for this data. Now, since they have this data, they can save your life by calling you on the phone and telling you not to eat a piece of meat you bought at their store. I believe that the ethical use of this customer data demands that at the very least they give you a call on the phone, and/or do whatever it takes to inform you that the product they sold you may put your life in danger.
Not that it would have helped me. I put a false name and number on the form when I signed up for my supermarket discount card(s). (Not that they care, as this still probably generates useful demographic data of some kind for them.) Good thing I don't eat meat.
Letter from a food store.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our records show that on 1/6/04 you purchased 2.5 pounds of beef at our store in Seattle. It has come to our attention that this beef may have come from a suspect supplier, and there's a chance it may have mad cow disease. You are welcome to return your purchase to the store for store credit, whereupon it will be destroyed.
We obtained your contact information from your "frequent shopper" card. If you feel this is a violation of privacy, please disregard this notice.
Signed,
Some Supermarket Chain
Strictly, no violation of privacy here (Score:5, Insightful)
QFC supermarkets posted a sign saying concerned shoppers could call to find out if they had bought suspect meat via their id.
Then, if and only if the customer called, QFC only told the shopper. Not any third parties.
I wouldn't want to catch the gruesome mad cow disease, so full ethical marks to QFC for offering customers an informed opportunity to consent.
As interesting are the dogs that didn't bark, bureaucracies hiding behind a privacy comfort blanket: giant Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons chains said they have no plans to take such a step. Perish the thought - publicise they have poisoned me ?
Katherine Albrecht, founder of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, hit the nail on the head at the end of the story. rtfm.
A lot of people missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it an invasion of privacy because the bar tender remembers what drink you ordered last time? Isn't it the same thing?
Thoughts on Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Law always is a weight between the Civil Liberties of an individual versus the safety of the public.
There are many scenarios where Civil Liberties being violated may or may not be justified:
To me, this is nowhere as serious and imminent a threat, as Mad Cow can't be transmitted from person to person (last I remember). Still, a customer has a right to know whether he or she may have bought infected meat. This right to know outweighs the loss of privacy that is at hand.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:1, Insightful)
If they're not supposed to be keeping this kind of info, I don't suddenly want to find out they ARE keeping it after all. Really, though, I cannot for the life of me believe that they promised not to keep the info. Surely they'd realise it would leave them wide open for a privacy lawsuit if it ever came to light they were violating their customers' privacy.
JUST SAY NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
For christ sakes, at least credit card issuers are required to provide a privacy statment to it's clients allowing them to opt out. Isn't that envasive enough?
I NEVER use ANY loyalty card. Ever. If they want to profile me (or my statistical type) they can PAY me. Not visa versa. And a "discount" doesn't fuqin count!
When they first started the 2 tier pricing, I'd check out.
Cashier: Got your bonus card
buyer: no, scan the store card (they never hear that)
Cashier: your total is XXXX
Buyer: let me ask you.. do you get paid more when you charge more?
cashier: ?????
buyer: then why the @#*( wouldn't you apply the discount all the time?
cashier: ???????
They don't get it. Here's the deal.. NEVER PARTICIPATE. You gain NOTHING?
Here's the moral I wish more people grocked:
If you want to profile me you can PAY ME.
You don't pay me with a discount, cause I won't buy without one.
I've never been refused a discount due to the fact I dont have a profile account.
I can't beleive how stupid the consumer is.
Works only if you NEVER use a credit card. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the story: "I always use a fake name and address when I sign up for those...".
This only makes a difference if you NEVER use a credit card. If you use a credit card once, they have your true name and address, and they associate it with the discount card.
What you don't see won't hurt you? (Score:2, Insightful)
And, btw, shortly after applying for a store preferred card, I got both the preferred card and an American Express pre-approved card with the same exact typo in my name. I guess it goes to the bottom line, they get money from American Express and they don't get any additional money for warning me. They also seem to bank on that I won't put two and two together that the American Express offer is related to the preferred card. If they can pro-actively sign me up for credit, then they really damn well better be able to pro-actively call me about a recall. I hope that the CEO of a food chain gets charged with murder due to criminal negligence during one of these cases. Then we will see if they consider the current system to be "working."
Re:is it invasion? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a total red herring even even talking about privacy issues in this case. The stores have already compiled all of this information on their customers. If it is a privacy problem then it is ALREADY a privacy problem. If there's nothing wrong with what they are already doing then using the data to benefit their customers certainly does not turn it into a problem.
It's pure Public Relations. As far as they are concerned avoiding "privacy problem" means keeping it hidden to avoid a problem of people complaining what they were already doing. They simply don't want anyone noticing/thinking-about what they already do.
-
Re:violation of privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
But, for what purpose? If they truly OWN the data, they could sell it, right? They could publish it, right? They could give your number to vendors of missile parts and child pornography, right?
Wrong.
Personal information is never truly owned by anybody other than the person detailed. Otherwise, there would not be so many laws regarding the sale, transfer, and maintenance of such data. There will likely be more laws regarding this in the future, not less.
Sorry, bud. I sign my name on a Safeway application, I'm giving it to Safeway. Unless it's explicity on the paper I sign, my signature doesn't then give Safeway the right to do whatever they please with my personal information.
Remember, it's information. Information can be licensed, and is usually transferred under some kind of contract or agreement.
You can't take your WinXP CD, make copies, and sell them. Neither can you take my personal info, make copies and sell it, either.
Re:Works only if you NEVER use a credit card. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or you can get a credit card that has the same fake name as you used on on your discount card. I did this and they still thank me for shopping and use the fake name whether I pay via cash or credit card. Works like a champ.
Re:Letter from a food store.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for your draft letter, but we have already considered the issue and chosen an alternate course of action.
By not sending a letter at all we avoid consumers returning their purchases and the expense of giving away store credit. We avoid the need to destroy product. We maintain high levels of consumer confidence and trust in our brand.
We can disregard consumers feeling we violated their privacy because they will not notice.
Yours Truely,
Supermarket Chain Upper Managment
-
Re:is it invasion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:is it invasion? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I bet you'd be the first to sue if you ate some of the beef and subsequently found out about this, "as is your right" of course.
Re:is it invasion? (Score:3, Insightful)
When a supplier believes there is a problem with what they supply, they have a responsibility to make that problem (real or suspected) known. Re-calls and news stories spread the information but scare the timid and don't always reach those who need the information. As has been said in this thread, if you gave them correct conact information, IN THIS CASE I (personally) would be comfortable with them telling ME (the purchasor) about the issue.
Telling ANY third party what I bought - NO!!!
Re:Let's see... (Score:3, Insightful)
A better analogy might be the probability of dying in a terrorist attack GIVEN that you are in Manhattan and there is a bomb located somewhere in the city. Sure, it's a small probability, but you'd be pretty pissed if the city decided not to tell you because they didn't want to bother you.
Using Grocery Data to deny Benefits (Score:4, Insightful)
"I sorry ma'am but your request for perscription drug benefits has been denied because our records show that for ten years between 2000 and 2010 you consumed an average of 0.5 kilos of beef a week. Your present medical condition is a result of your own negligence."
This would seem absurd except for the fact that the government is using twenty year old marijuana misdemonor convictions to deny current benefits like housing assistance and graduate student loans presently.
Before you tell me how absurd and paranoid I am, remember that people would have labeled paranoid anyone who said twenty years ago that everybody would have to pee in a bottle to test for heroin in order to get a simple job like selling shoes.
It's probably a good idea to keep out of corporate data bases as much as possible because unknown people can simply and arbitrarily destroy your life on a whim by using this data. This can be done either by delibrate malicious intent by identity thieves and zealous prosecutors or just corporate mandate.
Millions of jobs are disappearing in the US due to bad political and corporate decisions. Any justification to pin the blame on the worker themselves will be eagerly sought out and used against them. Expect this type of data mining for blame-the-victim tactics to increase in the future in the USA.
Re:Using Grocery Data to deny Benefits (Score:5, Insightful)
It also might be a good idea, as our liberatarian friends like to remind us, to actually start taking better care of our health and to recognize our own resposibility for our future medical conditions. Maybe that second hambuger and third beer isn't such a good idea if there is going to be no Medicare for us in the future.
We should also start accepting the idea that the giant social, medical, and pension programs that we paid into all our lives will be gone by the time that we are old enough to need them. All them money that we put into these programs is being pissed away now to give the 'greatest generation' $80,000 hip replacements when they are 85 years old, or is being secretly looted to support the giant US government federal deficits incurred by cutting taxes while at the same time creating huge expensive endless wars.
Also the social climate among the young is changing. Anyone who tattoos their face and puts metal bolts into their body for cosmetic reasons when they are twenty can not seriously be expected to voluntarily support programs to assist the aged and disabled when they are fifty. Call me a bigot, but this just seems to be a realistic observation.
Re:is it invasion? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are all missing the issue here. The whole purpose of those cards is to invade privacy. They sell the demographic data to advertisers. The point is NOT to protect privacy it is to avoid making people aware that thier privacy is being violated.
People might stop using the cards and the scam would stop working.