Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 263 posts

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#71

Post by chillwaves »

hyperman1 wrote: post #50
the_snooze wrote: post #16

I hate tech like this. It ostensibly offers some minor convenience for the end-user, but it's really just a big data grab for whatever company implemented it. A few years ago, I went to a local Shake Shack and found they replaced their cashiers with kiosks. But placing an order requires me to give them my phone number, supposedly so they can text me when my order was ready. This should have been a very simple transac…

For companies doing this, I tend to give them the phone number of their own service desk.

On a related? note, local area code + 867-5309 seems to work for most store discount cards.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#72

Post by MBCook »

01100011 wrote: post #30
unicornporn wrote: post #13

Oh, great timing. Just ended a conversation with some friends who had bought a dishwasher. The display for these new machines had been removed, so the only way to tell when the machine was really finished was to... Guess what? Download an app! I suppose I don't need to tell you all the permissions it asked for...

Personally I think I prefer devices which offload the UI to a smartphone. I was thinking of something like this years ago where you could use something like Bluetooth to push a web UI so devices like thermostats would no longer need to have a shitty UI for things like programming schedules. Unfortunately in this case the greed of the manufacturer hoping to monetize their UI has ruined an otherwise decent idea(althoug…

What happens in two or three years when they decide to stop updating the app and it no longer works on your phone?

They couldn’t bother since there was no recurring revenue stream so you just have to buy a new dishwasher?

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#73

Post by jcpst »

mLuby wrote: post #66
akudha wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago, I was at a huge electronics store in NYC. I wanted to buy something small, maybe 30 bucks worth. The cashier won’t bill unless I gave him my phone number. I asked him why he needs my number, he said “in case you return the item”. I told him he needs the receipt, not phone number, while returning items. He didn’t budge. I didn’t want to cause a scene, so I left without purchasing. It is not just collecting…

To be fair to the cashier, they were probably given no choice in the matter. One of those "I'm sorry, the system won't let me proceed without this info." "Required form fields" are one of those great power/great responsibility things.

It makes me wonder, when I draw a line in the sand with a clerk, how often they just enter junk data into the system so they can get on with their shift.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#74

Post by newaccount74 »

imgabe wrote: post #57

> “This isn’t a TJ’s thing,” said Tara Miller, a Trader Joe’s spokesperson. “It’s being implemented by the landlord. We are a tenant in the building and are bound by the same parking validation system as other tenants.” So why does the headline imply the exact opposite? Because it gets clicks of course, but this is why people hate and distrust the media any more. Stop lying.

The headline clearly says "if you park at this Trader Joes".

It's pretty clear that this is about an issue with the parking garage at a specific Trader Joes. Whether the retailer or their landlord came up with the stupid scheme doesn't really make a difference to the customer.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#75

Post by rav3ndust »

mcculley wrote: post #67
rav3ndust wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a simple "I don't have a mobile?" A lot of folks forget there are still people who don't have one - and many who don't want one. If the store won't transact with someone simply because they don't feel like handing out that bit of information (or simply because they don't have the information to provide), they're not really a store worth transacting with.

Don’t feel like you need to lie. Just say, “no”.

I didn't suggest to lie, I said, what if the customer actually doesn't have a mobile? Have we reached the point now where if someone claims not to have one, they're lying?

I should clarify i wasn't referring to myself - I have a mobile (deGoogled, at least). But there do exist people who don't want or need a mobile device.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#76

Post by jandrese »

One of my local shopping complexes had their landlord add tolls to the previously free parking. It was all done via an incredibly shitty app that required you to set up an account and link a credit card to pay. It was slow, hard to use, and crashed a couple of times on me while I was trying to set up the account forcing me to start from scratch. They also had kiosks, but they were not working.

I used to go to that shopping complex a couple of times a month, but now it has been almost 4 years and I have not been back. All of the stores and restaurants I used to frequent have since closed up and moved out anyway, so there isn't much draw. I'm not even sure what is in there now, if anything. I uninstalled the parking app.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#77

Post by vineyardmike »

pengaru wrote: post #63
gruez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So... for some old timer who pulls up without a smartphone they'll turn them away? yeah? AFAIK if you want to shop at an amazon go store, you need mobile app and a registered amazon account. We're also getting there at other places because some establishments/jurisdictions are requiring proof of vaccination (ie. signed QR code).

I fully expect more cities to prohibit retail establishments from refusing cash within their jurisdictions. There's precedent for it already, on grounds of discriminating against the poor.

It used to be a thing a lot more but most cities suspended this due to covid.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#78

Post by bluehex »

> Indeed, almost all of Metropolis’ information gathering was justified by the spokesperson as being necessary for improving the company’s service.

Is it just me or is this poor writing? I thought something had to be true in order to be justified. They "attempted to justify" or "rationalized" but they didn't "justify". I know this is nit-picky of me but this is a newspaper with professional writers and editors. Maybe my understanding of the word usage is too narrow.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#79

Post by TheBill »

dpifke wrote: post #54
reaperducer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always put a fake number into the Shake Shack kiosk. It hasn't been a problem, since the people sacking the burgers shout out my equally fake name to pick up my order. If Shake Shack is really texting me that my order us ready, it's going to a prison pay phone a dozen states away.

I have yet to encounter a loyalty card program where local area code + Jenny's number (867-5309) wasn't registered.

Also usually gets you plenty of Safeway Rewards @ Chevron.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#80

Post by seccess »

akudha wrote: post #44
the_snooze wrote: post #16

I hate tech like this. It ostensibly offers some minor convenience for the end-user, but it's really just a big data grab for whatever company implemented it. A few years ago, I went to a local Shake Shack and found they replaced their cashiers with kiosks. But placing an order requires me to give them my phone number, supposedly so they can text me when my order was ready. This should have been a very simple transac…

Years ago, I was at a huge electronics store in NYC. I wanted to buy something small, maybe 30 bucks worth. The cashier won’t bill unless I gave him my phone number. I asked him why he needs my number, he said “in case you return the item”. I told him he needs the receipt, not phone number, while returning items. He didn’t budge. I didn’t want to cause a scene, so I left without purchasing. It is not just collecting…

Next time you wind up in a situation like this, just lie about your number.
Post reply on HN