It’s a Trader Joe’s. Why do you need to drive to it in the first place?
Because you don’t want to carry a bunch of groceries for 30 blocks in your hands…?
There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
91–100 of 263 posts
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#92The 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: check
In addition, the Times' privacy policy allows it to collect a whole bunch of other information about you - for example they can collect your "race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, religious affiliation, military or veteran status, nationality, ancestry or ethnicity, and political opinions" or buy it from data brokers and use that to serve you ads or sell it to whomever they please.
Now I'm not suggesting that the Times shouldn't point out privacy flaws in other companies' products. But perhaps a sentence or two disclosing that they have the same flaws would be in order.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#93Earlier 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.
I am not mad at the cashier at all. Poor kid was probably paid the bare minimum and had nothing to do with any policy. That is why I didn’t argue with him (plus there were customers behind me, I didn’t want to hold the line). I asked him once, and left immediately after.
Retail workers are already in a shitty job, no point in making it worse
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
sure, but you may still have a landline. but... the whole "we need this for returns" line is just weird.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#95Earlier 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…
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.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#96I 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…
The minute tech gets involved it's also another thing to go wrong..
Personal anecdote time: Recently went to a car park that had to pay by phone and no phone signal (in the UK if it's relevant).
This was obviously a common problem, so they provided an open WiFi network limited to just the parking website.
Unfortunately, I had to create an account to be able to pay to park, and the account creation was gated by a Google captcha that.. wouldn't load as it was blocked.
So no way to pay to park, and a crowd of confused tourists all trying to work out how the hell to park without getting a fine.
Fun times
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#97Earlier 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…
Next time you wind up in a situation like this, just lie about your number.
You’re missing the point, I think. Lying won’t help, as very few people would do it. Most people would just give their number - mostly because they don’t realize it is shit practice to collect numbers, some because they don’t want confrontation.
By politely pointing out the absurdity, we can maybe raise a tiny bit of awareness. I am sure at least a handful of people behind me in the line noticed.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#98> “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.
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 different garages. Why highlight that one specifically?
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#99Earlier 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.
as someone that had the misfortune of once working for K-Mart, and having management harass us if to few customers gave phone numbers for their rewards account. There were many accounts for jennys number. Also i purchased many pizzas with her rewards account.
Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here
#100Whenever someone pulls this sort of thing I simply tell them I don't have a phone.