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

131–140 of 263 posts

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

#131

Post by lostdog »

imgabe wrote: post #98
newaccount74 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course it makes a difference. If you want to protest the parking scheme and you complain to Trader Joe’s you won’t get anywhere, because they have nothing to do with it. They’re only mentioned because they’re a popular store and will draw clicks. It’s a sleazy and dishonest tactic. Trader Joe’s isn’t responsible for the scheme, nor is it limited to that particular Trader Joe’s. It’s a service that’s used at many d…

> If you want to protest the parking scheme and you complain to Trader Joe’s you won’t get anywhere

TJ does care that it's customers want to come to the store, and they do have some power during lease negotiations. Making it bad PR for Trader Joes really is a good way to exerting pressure to get the landlord's rule changed.

For this specific parking garage, the TJ is the most major tenant, so they would have the most leverage over getting the rules changed.

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

#132

Post by tannedNerd »

bink wrote: post #61
extropy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still TJ decided it's fine to continue running their store with this crap being set up Or they might have been in the dark until people started complaining. Anyhow this totally involves TJ and they will need to do something about it, as more customers will get pissed.

Trader Joe's no doubt has a multi-year lease at this location that they can't just break. But beyond that I seriously doubt the Trader Joe's legal team inspects the terms of service for the parking apps of all parking garages attached to buildings where they lease space. We'd also have no way of knowing if they objected to these terms in private even if they had. They probably will have their legal team take a look a…

They also could have easily pushed back and told the landlord if they do this they won’t be renewing their lease. I’m sure losing an anchor tenant like that is enough to encourage the landlord to change their mind.

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

#133

Post by dogman144 »

mcculley wrote: post #103
rav3ndust wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You replied to “I forgot my phone” and I thought you were helping that argument.

No, wasn’t a lying argument. If you go out without your phone, fair answer to give.

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

#134

Post by reaperducer »

a5aAqU wrote: post #130
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.

If there's a camera on the front, might want to wear a mask too.

If there's a camera on the front, might want to wear a mask too..

It's still 2021. There's no way I'd go into a Shake Shack without one!

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

#135

Post by chana_masala »

prepend wrote: post #95
seccess wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

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

#136

Post by throwaway55421 »

_nalply wrote: post #124
vineyardmike wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Golden example or greedy landlords killing their golden goose.

Not really, it's more the bad execution that killed the goose. Only misers would object to a small fee for parking. It's the hassle of paying that keeps people away. Where I live all shopping centers in the town have the same fees for parking, CHF 1 for the first hour then CHF ½ for every half hour. You can pay with an app, for example https://easypark.ch , or by cash at a central parking meter by the entrance which…

In a lot (most?) of the US most places are far enough away from each other that using a shop's car park as somewhere to leave your car (e.g. while commuting) does not happen. There is also no viable public transport.

Charging for parking, then, is nonsensical. It's a cost imposed on your business just like the rent.

You could try to recover your rent/land costs by charging a flat fee for people to enter your shop on foot. Why not? Well, because no-one will come any more.

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

#137

Post by thebean11 »

hunter2_ wrote: post #84
LegitShady wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it depends on how much those dumb devices cost. many people are price sensitive and unaware of the privacy concerns, and the less business you have the more expensive each unit is to make, etc. Dumb TVs are the same thing. Hard to find, and surprisingly expensive for the feature set when you do find them. I don't currently own a TV but if there was a decent dumb TV that was decently affordable and wasn't garbage I mi…

Could run a shadow vlan/tablet/etc. where you do absolutely nothing personal and just use it as a UI for the subsidized IoT devices. Obviously this is serious effort right now for most people, so a mass-market shim that makes it easy for all could be a successful niche. People love the integration of a single thing in their pocket, but maybe some are getting privacy-conscious enough to have two. Think of it like a TV…

Needing to go get the tablet from the laundry room cause you want to make toast is also abysmal UX..

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

#138

Post by gnabgib »

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…

Well done standing your ground. Some retailers will try the same with postal code/zip.. that's shameless marketing collection to show which regions are performing with fliers. You should always be able to say "No" (and many cashiers just accept this, but of course it's framed like you must to continue), if they push you `H0H 0H0` (those are zeros) is a valid Canadian postal code for a fellow who won't be visiting the policy creators.

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

#139

Post by cracell »

jandrese wrote: post #76

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 sh…

I would be very surprised if Trader Joe's lease didn't include parking conditions for exactly this reason.

Bad parking kills many businesses.

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

#140

Post by throwaway55421 »

jandrese wrote: post #76

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 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.

Post reply on HN