391–400 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Empathy for the criminals making the rest of us deal with these increasingly patronizing technologies? But don't worry, I'm sure they stole that Milwaukee drill set to eat it, and only shoplift the bare necessities.
>>fellow man >criminals Nice bit of dehumanizing language there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Empathy for the criminals making the rest of us deal with these increasingly patronizing technologies? But don't worry, I'm sure they stole that Milwaukee drill set to eat it, and only shoplift the bare necessities.
Yes. I presume you’re not capable of empathy, given your comment. Punishments don’t stop people being hungry, and they sure don’t stop people from stealing when they are hungry. The fact that you’re unable to at least sympathize is pretty pathetic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the places around here that had first-gen units with a scale on the packing side (to make sure you actually scanned eg a banana and not a two pound block of cheese, yet were constantly wrong) have replaced them with newer versions that don't have scales or any other way that I can see to validate that what you scanned is what you put into your bag. I'm not sure where I would find the data to back this up, but…
The horrible scale system of self-checkouts brought my anxiety to a fever pitch. Any slight adjustment to the bag or moving anything around would literally set off an alarm for "assistance." Still gives me low-key ptsd even though I know they don't use them anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence why this very post is about the method those companies are using to prevent such theft (in this case, facial recognition).
This subthread is not about the use of such a technology, but about Home Depot tracking a customer to build a prosecution case over time. So, no, they're not using it to prevent theft, they're using it to punish theft they've allowed.
Why should the company prosecuting the thieves be anyone else's problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst part for me is when they prevent you from scanning the same item twice. Yes, I want 2 boxes of cereal. I just find it easier to go to a cashier.
you have to put the item on the scale before it lets yo uscan the next item. So you can scan the same item twice if you scan it once, put the other item on the scale, and scan the item again.
I'm pretty sick of misguided/enthusiastic Loss Prevention people, and these digital systems amplify their hijinks. The most conspicuous one recently was at one upscale grocery chain within the last year. There was what I took to be a dedicated LP person who seemed to be lurking behind the self-checkouts, to watch me specifically, and I stood there until he went away. Then, as I was checking out, this employee came up…
Less relevant, but reminds me of my all-time favorite grocery store LP encounter, near MIT. The chain was running this big promotion with lots of tear-open prize tickets that are either coupons or game board pieces, so I had been visiting often, to buy ramen noodles (one ticket per package!) and I had a small stack of coupons in my wallet. I was checking my coupons for this visit in the middle of a center aisle, and…
Is this a new jobs program? I've been seeing a lot of these middle aged/elderly guys with "Loss Prevention" on their shirts walking the aisles aimlessly in supermarkets and department stores. What's the point really when there are cameras everywhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
your compensation is speed, you get to go home faster. Is that not enough?
I have never experienced a faster checkout with self checkout. If it's super fast, it's just for a few items, and a cashier would've been just as fast. If it's for a lot of items, there's a decent chance I have to look up some codes or something; which a cashier is better and faster at. The trade off of self checkout is cost savings for the business. These savings are not passed on to me. Therefore, I don't give a fl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This just doesn't work. A high-trust society cannot be built by force. To badly quote Mead, "It's the only thing that ever has". If the incentives are such that defecting becomes less attractive, defection will decrease.
You're just plain wrong. You can enforce compliance - a police state - but it inevitably worsens outcomes for both people who commit crimes and their victims. But that isn't a high-trust society. In fact a high trust society requires minimal formal policing by definition (and a _lot_ of informal policing by parents, families, friends, and communities). High-trust societies aren't without their problems, too, as trust…
Also, it’s not clear me if you really meant that enforcing property laws inevitably worsens outcomes for those who would otherwise have been victims, or if you mean that the now-much-smaller pool of victims have a worse time with effective enforcement. I’d argue that both are false, but the latter at least seems arguable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just easier, they’re probably waiting until the cumulative value leads to felony theft charges.
This is another example of the poor being punished harder. A desperate mother who steals repeatedly will reach felony levels and spend years in prison or face deportation, but a rich teen who steals for fun will stay below felony and get away Scott free.
Also if you're stealing as an immigrant, you should be deported without any questions asked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might fool the gait analysis, but they will come up with more metrics to analyze you by. You can't beat it. IMO, the only way to stop this is government
No, the only way to stop this is to simply get the CEOs arrested using the same technology they so desperately want to use. False positive their ass into a cell and I'll guarantee you this garbage will stop fast.