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)
Re:is it invasion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, is it a violation of their privacy agreement? Not having read it, it's hard to say. However, have you ever read one that says 'we promise never ever to contact you about anything'? Seems rather unlikely doesn't it?
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 tha
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
Re:is it invasion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is that going too far? It might save lives, though...
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 part
Re:is it invasion? (Score:5, Informative)
i'd be pissed that the supermarket didn't bother to do some basic research on the whole bse thang.
it's all in the fda faq [fda.gov] on bse. especially these gems:
all the organs in which infectious prions occur were removed at slaughter and did not enter the food supply. Muscle meat is not a source of infectious prions....None of this material left the control of the companies and entered commercial distribution.
you know how many cases of bse have been identified in humans? 155. worldwide. you know how many of those were in the united states? one. and you know how that woman got vcjd (human bse)? by eating organ meat... in britain.
we'd save more lives if the ama decided to call everyone on their membership list to tell them not to drive.
can you believe that me, the raging vegan, is saying this? what's this world coming to...
Re: is it invasion? (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate this quote. I heard something similar on an interview with a government representative discussing the matter after the contamination was found.
The problem is, I recently read Fast Food Nation. That book discusses slaughterhouse conditions. It has descriptions of how intestines and other organs can get burst by cutting instruments and how organ matter can get splat on other carcasses in the vacinity. With all the self-regulation permitted under the law today, I don't trust the slaughterhouses to (a) even know if the contaminated carcass had it's organs improperly cut/splattered and (b) to report this if they did know.
Mention the recall at checkout? (Score:2)
{Card scanned}
We are glad to see you well. Have you eaten any of the beef you bought last week?
CUSTOMER: Um, yes. At dinner last night. Was good.
{Pushing red button alerting 911}
We would like to inform you that the beef you bought last week has a 90% chance of making you very ill and a 23% chance of killing you. We are providing an ambulance to the hospital as a free service. We'll move your cart to the freezer so you can recover it if you survive. Thank you f
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:is it invasion? (Score:2)
Hmm... I can see it now...
"Viagra!!! It could save your LIFE!!!"
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.
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?
violation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:violation of privacy (Score:2)
'nuf said.
Re:violation of privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:violation of privacy (Score:2)
Sorry, but it's no invasion of privacy if the customer gives their contact information to the supermarket voluntarily. If you don't want them to have your contact info, then don't give it to them, and vote with your feet by taking your business elsewhere.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
If you gave me your email password, you should already assume that I can see whatever messages you have received. If I choose to use the information I saw in your email to warn you about something (without disclosing anything to a third party), the fact that I give you that warning isn't a violation of your privacy.
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.
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.
Re:violation of privacy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:violation of privacy (Score:2)
Not always true, while yes they do jack the prices up when introducing card systems, a local store here offers coupons based on what you buy. decent use of user tracking.
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 law
Re:violation of privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
What country did you say you were from? Certainly not the US. In the US the info becomes the property of the business, to do whatever it bloody well pleases with.
Re:violation of privacy (Score:2)
Expectations (Score:3, Interesting)
Any actions involving the information provided which are not explicity documented in the privacy policy are definately not permitted.
Well lets see... (Score:3, Funny)
2.) You're privacy is infringed on.
pick one.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2)
there are some reasonable uses of customer information. I believe a recall is one of those.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2)
What I think would make sense is for the store to give you the ability to select whether you'd like to be notified of product recalls via your discount card signup information at the time you apply for the card. (Existing cardholders should be given a method to select their preference too.)
There are plent
Re:Well lets see... (Score:3, Interesting)
But let's move a little closer to the actual case:
1) You aren't actually known to have purchased infected beef.
2) Said beef isn't actually known to have any deleterious effects on humans even if consumed.
3) Because even if it is harmful the odds are literally millions to one.
Nudges things a smidge closer to the grey zone, no?
Being saved from certain death might be one thing, but being "saved" from everything on the order of the risk in this case is rather another.
Of
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2)
As long as you don't eat beef, you mean, right?
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2)
Re:It's when they recall the KY Jelly.... (Score:2, Funny)
Should be opt-in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should be opt-in (Score:5, Funny)
"Contact me if I buy too many products with trans-fatty acids",
"Contact my doctor if I buy too many Tylenol pills", or
"Contact my mother if I don't buy enough vegetables."
Re:Should be opt-in (Score:2)
- Contact my health insurance company if I do *NOT* buy cheetos, etc. -- I might be eligible for a discount.
This example seems to follow the same principal as the savings card to begin with -- opt in to get a discount, but some fear of using the privacy-invasion to raise the prices for others.Re:Should be opt-in (Score:2)
Also, the store periodically updates its systems in order to serve you better, and resets your preferences.
Absolutely they did the right thing (Score:5, Informative)
Given that there is no moral reason for them not to contact the purchasers of the tainted beef, they would have been held liable had they not used every means at their disposal to contact the purchasers.
Re:Absolutely they did the right thing (Score:2)
I imagine the court room appearance would go something like:
Lawyer: So, you knew there was a chance that the food was contaminated?
Supermarket: Yes, but the chance of someone getting sick was so small......
Lawyer: Yes or no
Supermarket: Yes
Lawyer: And you had an available means to attempt conta
Re:Absolutely they did the right thing (Score:2)
Unless of course you're a lawyer for the plaintiff working on a pure contingency basis, in which case you can start shopping around for that summer home on the beach
-
Re:Absolutely they did the right thing (Score:3, Insightful)
"...Stupid card games..." (Score:5, Funny)
1) Collect All n Cards! For example, collect cards in the names of all the world leaders. Or try a variant, where you assign points for how well recognized the world leader's name is. For example, leaders of major western powers, and other leaders commonly in the news, who are still in office might be worth seven points (Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, Pervez Musharraf etc), former major world leaders would be worth 5 points (Benito Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek, Theodore Roosevelt, etc), and three point for lesser-known world leaders (Luiz Da Silva, Thaksin Shinawatra, etc). Extra Bonus: George Bush is worth ten points. Then swap them with your friends to get a complete set! (NOTE: there are innumerable variations on this game. Collect authors, your pet's names, vulgar names, etc...)
2) Swap them at parties as introduction cards.
3) If the store lets you use your phone number in place of your actual card, give the main switchboard number of any large business in your area. Then get your friends to do the same thing. This is extra devious because it must absolutely **** with the store's consumer preference tracking database. (This isn't strictly a game with the cards, but it's a game made possible by the cards, and can be a helluva lot of fun, especially if you get some reward for every x dollars spent -- if enough other people are playing the game, you'll randomly get rewards!)
4) Worry young cashiers by first acquiring a large number of cards, then open your wallet, take them out, and spend a minute or so pawing through them until you find one you like. Make sure you finally choose one along the lines of "Uri Fuckov" to get an extra chuckle as the clerk tells you to "have a good evening Mr. Fuckov."
5) Invent your own games! The only limit is your creativity.
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:go to Food Lion (Score:2)
Re:go to Food Lion (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm. Randall's, Albertson's, and Kroeger's are all the same company. In fact, in that string of grocery stores in the article they listed of companies that said it violated privacy, they are all the same company. :)
When I was in Texas at a Kroeger's, my wife and I went and got a card to get a quick discount, filled it out with fake information. Then the cashier, who just happened to be the assistant manager, chuckled when I told him I had a Safeway's, Albertson's, and Randall's card in my wallet. He s
Re:Absolutely they did the right thing (Score:2)
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.
No force, and real names are usually optional (Score:3, Informative)
Unsolicited Commercial Mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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 bot
Miserable Death? (Score:2)
Re:Miserable Death? (Score:3, Funny)
This BSD crap is going too far. We might know what causes it (these protein fragments labeled 'prions'), but then again, we're not really sure.
Dude, BSD is dying, hadn't you heard? This BSD crap won't be going on for too much...
Oh wait, you weren't talking about kernels, were you?
Fake Information (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean Monday my cat's going to get a call from Safeway?
Re:Fake Information (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fake Information (Score:3, Interesting)
do you use a credit card when paying for your groceries? in the same transaction that you swiped your "savings card"? well, then they already have your name and address. they now know all the things you've bought and paid for in cash, since they can correlate that card with your credit card from previous or future transactions. they know which stores you go to at what time of the day, which credit cards you use, and every single thing you buy. they know who your girlfriend is (yes i kn
Re:Fake Information (Score:3, Funny)
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:thin line (Score:2)
What privacy issues are you guys talking about? Them calling you? Out of all the phone calls I get, one telling me about problem with a product I bought doest seem to be a privacy issue.
Privacy in exchange for what ? (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think I'm getting anything in exchange for my information, since they raised prices at the same time they did this. So as far as they know , I'm a black mother of two.
Specific Agreements Required (Score:2, Interesting)
The only thing I fear is a slippery slope...a few months from now, it's not just tainted meat or a toy recall, but a sale on your favorite brand of foot fungicide.
One solution would be a simple declaration of accepted usages for customer cards upon signup. For example,
[ ] I want to receive promoti
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.
BUT!!! (Score:2, Funny)
read the fine print (Score:4, Informative)
If they have to invade your privacy, (Score:2)
Don't bother me to let me know about your newest sale on face cream. But by all means if you discover that I have bought something that may KILL ME, please violate my privacy and tell me about the recall.
BTW, I never sign up for those cards.
LK
They've done worse... (Score:2)
How does sending you a msg violate your privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does sending you a msg violate your privacy (Score:2)
Now, your wifey is back in town and she gets a phone call from the market telling her that the meat you bought might be c
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:vegetarian (Score:2)
Chopper Shopper Card (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe you people! (Score:5, Funny)
Except in this hamburger here... urp.
GAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
False Information on these things. (Score:4, Interesting)
We found that this woman gave obviously false information to everyone she ever got a card from. In a small town of about 10,000 people, where all the streets are named according to an obvious pattern, she still listed made up addresses such as "anytime place" or "1313 Mockingbird lane" on every grocery discount card, blockbuster type movie rental or whatever she got, going back 8 or 9 years. In a town with only one set of numbers for the first three digits of the local phone number, she entered what are apparently completely random strings, and sometimes mixxed letters and numbers, again without anyone apparently looking at them. On one, she listed her work address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. Guess what her job description was?
Not a single business evidently looked at the information she filled in on those forms, and she had over 30 such cards, literally including one for every grocery store in town. She ripped off several of the movie rental places for tapes, was wanted for bad checks and other crimes where an address might particularly matter at various times, and still, no one noticed any of this.
We weren't too surprised that some pharmacies had ignored forged perscriptions and fraudulent signatures, or that she had pawned things with tickets in obviously false names (Her favorites when buying drugs seemed to be astronaut's names, and David Bowman). What we are surprised by is how many business that DIDNT have an incentive to look the other way obviously did so. Many of these lost money from their unconcern rather than made any.
At first glance, it's like this whole system is built to work only for criminals. Still, if only the crooks were doing this, stores are not going to be dumb enough to keep getting stung with bad checks and such. Ergo, lots of otherwise honest people must be filling these things out with just as spurious information.
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.
Re:Clearly Ethics are on the Supermarkets' Side (Score:2)
Heh.
Re:Clearly Ethics are on the Supermarkets' Side (Score:2)
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
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 Upp
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.
Morality over Legality (Score:2)
what about card swappers (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
I don't mind... (Score:3, Interesting)
Fake name and address? (Score:3, Interesting)
But when I pay with my credit or debit card they always thank me by name because it pops up on their screen or print out.
If I was designing that database I'd have it populate the empty fields with the known info when someone pays by card. Such as name, address, phone number etc.
Anyone know if they do this?
What you don't see won't hurt you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Protest website (Score:2, Informative)
The most impressive site I've seen about this stuff is
Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering [nocards.org]
They've been tracking all manner of invasive (and, unfortunately, pervasive) supermarket marketing techniques for quite a while now.
Denial? (Score:2)
But, anybody who reads
California law requires anonymous card option (Score:5, Interesting)
Any retail or wholesale discount card that is not a line of credit, nor an instrument of debt (e.g, debit card) cannot require the consumer to disclose ANY information. They cannot even require you to provide your name! They cannot tie the use of a financial instrument (such as a credit, debit or check) back to the discount card account. Lastly, any consumer may lend or give their discount card to anyone else. You can use your discount card, hand it to the next person in line and apply for a new card the next time you come into the store if you wish.
At my California supermarket, at the bottom of the form there was a small box that says "I decline to provide any information". When I received my discount card application I quickly went to the very bottom, checked the box and immediately handed it back to the clerk. They clerk was clearly puzzled, but with a little prompting I managed to convince them I and completed the form and so I got my first card. Then to demonstrate the anonymity, I gave my card to the next person in line who didn't have a card. I'm currently using a card that I friend from out of town picked up (who also checked the box) and gave to me.
Some supermarkets have been slow to update their application forms, even thought the California law started 1-Jan-2001. I have had to help a friend deal with a supermarket who didn't want to give him a anonymous discount card. A call to the HQ of that supermarket cleared up the matter. (BTW: The store's excuse was that they had printed too many of the old forms that required comsumer information to toss them. Lame!) Perhaps the California law needs to be changed to prohibit the stores from even asking for such data?
So I won't be notified of a beef recall anytime soon. Not that I care. I'm a vegitarian. :-)
BS! The lawyers have the info (Score:3, Interesting)
BS!... What probably happened was that the lawyers got the list of the people that MAY be affected by the issue and decided that it would be cheaper to pay "real" claims as they come in rather than lose customers and invite "frivolous" litigation due to a possible scare.
Re:Avoid the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Avoid the problem. (Score:2)