Earlier quoted context omitted.
My number is always 212-867-5309. And it works great for returns. Comically, it seems many others use this as I frequently find loyalty points already there. I’d like to find the club of likeminded folks. Sadly more places are requiring validation.
Is the number arbitrary or a reason you chose it?
There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
141–150 of 263 posts
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#142Just say you don't have a smartphone. I got rid of mine and was worried I will have issues at places that do this sort of stuff. Turns out usually things suddenly become possible.
The HN crowd knows this, but 97% of users don't, and just follow the "rules". They lack the tech-paranoia that us tech workers have, as we happily/fearfully build these systems to maximize monetization.
60% of the time, do 97% of the users accept arbitrary stats every time?
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#143One 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 sh…
Yeah, I've never really understand this. If I go to a shop and "the landlord" charges me a fee, or fines me, the effect is exactly the same as if the business were responsible. Imagine if the landlord whacked up a turnstile and imposed a $1 fee for everyone entering the building. Same effect. Tons of people would refuse to go on principle, myself included.
The cost of “free” parking is added to the prices the store charges. It’s better to unbundle these costs — an urban parking space can cost over $50,000 to build. That’s not cheap, and will materially impact rents and the price consumers have to pay.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
My number is always 212-867-5309. And it works great for returns. Comically, it seems many others use this as I frequently find loyalty points already there. I’d like to find the club of likeminded folks. Sadly more places are requiring validation.
Is the number arbitrary or a reason you chose it?
[deleted]
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Many years ago I worked as a cashier (at Trader Joes no less) and occasionally had to ask customers for this sort of information. I had zero problem just punching in fake data if the customer didn't want to provide it, and sometimes I just went ahead without asking, if the customer was clearly busy with a crazy kid/pet/whatever.
Some cashiers were diligent about the data collection but many, probably most, had a similar approach to mine.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#146Oh, 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...
> 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?
Welll....
The display on my dishwasher technically exists. It is set on the top face of the panel, facing up into the counter, so it cannot be seen when the dishwasher is closed.
I'm not sure who thought of this, but it must have been approved by multiple people to appear on a real, already-manufactured dishwasher. Every one of those people was apparently terrible at their job.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I've never really understand this. If I go to a shop and "the landlord" charges me a fee, or fines me, the effect is exactly the same as if the business were responsible. Imagine if the landlord whacked up a turnstile and imposed a $1 fee for everyone entering the building. Same effect. Tons of people would refuse to go on principle, myself included.
The cost of “free” parking is added to the prices the store charges. It’s better to unbundle these costs — an urban parking space can cost over $50,000 to build. That’s not cheap, and will materially impact rents and the price consumers have to pay.
The cost of the rent is also added to prices the store charges. The rent close to a metro station is far higher and often "local" stores are much more expensive as a result.
You could attempt to unbundle that by charging people an entry fee too.
Why not itemise the electricity bill whilst you're at it, etc.
It's penny pinching and adds friction. I've been to Trader Joe's, if you're going there you're not at all price sensitive.
You need a system to avoid people using the car park as long term car storage or for commuting, that's it.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#148The author says that the app's "more than 4,000-word privacy policy is a minefield of digital pitfalls". I hate to break it to them, but the LA Times has a more than 7,000-word privacy policy with the exact same pitfalls. - Collecting IP address: check - Collecting geo-location and device identifiers: check - Cross-device tracking: check - Tracking referring and exit URLs: check - Third-party cookies for ad targeting…
The LA Times is not a car park.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#149I 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…
Cosmo Kramer:
They're trying to screw with your head.
Jerry: Now why would a junior high school want to screw with my head?
Cosmo Kramer: Why does Radio Shack ask for your phone number when you buy batteries? I don't know.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#150Oh, 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…
I'm not a big fan of this. If I want to see a device's status, I look at it. Or in the case of certain devices, I listen for a specific hum. This requires no setup and no maintenance. I can check the status of my washing machine, as can anyone else in the house.