Many of these things are basically standard practice nowadays thanks to cross-site tracking and this is just one of the many companies that checks all the (modern shitty-company) boxes.
It's good that they are exposed and people discuss them in order to (hopefully) reach the politicians, but none of this is surprising at all.
>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).
You can print the QR code at your local library. The onus is still there, but it's on the business. On the other hand, I've been 'checked' in a few places but nobody has a QR scanner, they just look at my name on the card and my ID
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.
I'm glad to see this framing. Reading the provisions identified in the article, you could easily react by saying "well, that's normal." Of course a parking app would ask for your vehicle's make/model and for your credit card information. But it is a cost, and the unrestrained use of that information is a further cost.
And that's before you get into "need[ing] to monitor people’s unrelated web browsing and links they click" ostensibly in order to "understand how customers are coming to Metropolis" (emphasis added).
Is there even an app at all here? If you look at their screenshots, it's all just a website. When you "sign up", they don't send you to the Google or Apple app stores, just to their app.metropolis.io site.
When you look at the privacy policy, everything I see there is in line with a somewhat lawyerly description of what every web server receives. IP Address, Carrier (in the rDNS or WHOIS of the IP), HTTP referrers, HTTP User-Agent details, etc. Cross-device tracking is a side effect of logging into their website from multiple devices. Geo-location could be a bit intrusive, but again pretty useful to auto-identify the parking structure that you're in, and browsers allow you to deny the request for that data.
They also collect "cellphone number, email address, license plate number and credit card information, as well as the make, model and year of your vehicle.", but that's needed to provide the service.
The framing here is pretty alarmist, and all of it is based on a read of the privacy policy. A deeper dive would MITM the traffic and actually see if they were collecting data beyond the basics. Without that, the article just ends up on picking on one specific vendor/industry, without helping the reader understand how this vendor compares to other vendors and other apps.
It sounds like you’re not aware of the news in the last decade or so. Very little chance there is no data monetization going on. Would not be profitable without it.
The bulk of the fee goes to the landlord, not the service. FTA, states a ~$1 service fee and probably not much room to raise it. A huge money maker it is not, considering dev and infrastructure time. Unless they have a plan to sell folks' whereabouts and preferences too.
One important thing to remember, just because management doesn't plan to do it this year, doesn't mean next year's team won't.
I agree, there probably is data monetization. That doesn't change the fact that the site doesn't appear to be asking for, or getting, any additional data beyond that provided by default by all web browsers, or that necessary to provide the service.
If additionally intrusive data gathering was happening, that would justify an article at this level of alarm. As it is, without additional research or evidence, this is within the scope of the data available to any website host.
- Yes, providing a service that isn't necessary! :-D
- But you can't realistically shop here without,
- Because we decided it's profitable to sell your whereabouts, cross-device phone, email, car data, and financial details to advertisers. So we're forcing you.
I don't think it mentions in the article, but the system takes a photo of your car with you in it and does OCR on the license plates. That's how it identifies you.
Convenience is a tossup, strictly worse for new users, and the cost is higher. Old system was a free/validated anonymous ticket that worked just fine. When a system is forced on people that is 98% to the advantage of a business and 2% to the customer, people are rightly going to get upset.
The worst offender I've seen is Xfinity/Comcast. Recently cancelled service, never got a notice and multiple incorrect bills after canceling. Anytime I would talk you customer service, they would always say... "If you want to see your correct bill, then you have to download the app."
I continually would have to tell them that I'm not downloading their damn app and that they are big enough that they can have the correct information on their website.
Joe Biden and the Democrats decided to give large ISPs an additional 65 billion dollars with the Infrastructure Plan shortly after this incident.
And Trump and the Republicans decided to give large ISPs a massive corporate tax break just the prior term, as well as remove a lot of pro consumer regulation re: the FCC, in that case. What's the point of the political commentary?
If I recall, the billion dollar subsidies that were stolen and never used to expand broadband were given out on the Democrats' watch previously, and again this time. So, the whataboutism is not really necessary here. However, if you want to go that route—there is nothing stopping Democrats from declaring Internet a public utility and targeting the ISP monopolies, but that isn't part of their agenda.
You will be happy to learn that under Chair Khan, the FTC is going to prioritize enforcement actions against this specific practice. Only 1 Commissioner issued a dissenting statement. [1]
Comcast has probably already discontinued the practice, as it's been 2 weeks since the policy statement was issued.
According to the press release, there are a lot of grey room and no these companies have not magically discontinued their "dark" patterns because of some press release. The only thing that will actually get companies like this to do anything is enforcement, and the government historically lets companies like this off extremely easy and they decide the small penalties are worth the extra they make by doing the thing they are not supposed to be doing.
That isn't a bad idea. However, it is kind of a gamble... like if they don't give you what you want and you have to take them to court because of accessibility or something they'd be quick to point out that you aren't actually blind.
It’s not a problem. There’s an ADA ambulance chaser lawyer here in the Bay. Just point him at the problem and he will rustle up a blind man and sign him up for Comcast and ask for the Braille bill in the way that they will be most likely to refuse. Then he’ll take care of it.
Usually he goes after wheelchair access and stuff but I think he’d jump on this.
That is a very fair point. The point of mentioning the Infrastructure plan wasn't to target specifically Democrats for being the only one at fault, however they are the ones in power now and many people here pretend like the Democrats are somehow different and actually making significant improvements. I was just pointing out the flawed logic.
FTA nothing to do with Trader Joes, but where that particular THs happens to have its parking lot. Only at location, and you're allowed to emter a license plate number instead of logging in. Seems pretty click-baity to me.
Just 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.
As always many people love convenience over privacy and this is why major wolves are able to prey them for data. The way to solve is through proper rules and regulations but ....
If you need an app on my phone to take my money for normal, everyday transactions, you don't need my money.
Side tangent - I used to be incorporated as a consultant, and think I need to be again because of crap like this, so it can own things for me. I haven't had a car in a long time, and think I need to lease one from MeCo instead of buying one.
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 at the agreement for this location now that it's made the news, but can we cut them a little slack before fetching the pitch forks?
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.
Trader Joe's should fight with their landlord about it. That should be part of their customer service, to do those things for me, in return for me shopping at their stores and giving them revenue.
Just say you don't own a mobile phone and that you're willing to pay parking with cash or credit card.
The ball is now in their court to figure out what to do.
I feel likes that’s not exactly fair and quite a bit of editorial censorship considering it was the original article title. Almost to the point I would ask if any of the HN admins have stock positions in Trader Joe’s…
Trader Joe’s is subjecting their customers to this and should be held responsible if if it was through their landlord. They still are an accomplice to this data harvesting by the fact they have a business relationship with the company doing this.
Did you guys remove Facebook from the Cambridge Analytics scandal post? After “they” weren’t the ones doing right?
We're just trying to respond to user complaints about titles the same way we always do! No stock positions were involved. As for scandals of the past - I can't even remember last week.
When users disagree about which title is better, we have to make a call. My call in this case is that (a) it's really not that big a deal and (b) it's best to go by HN's first principle, which is that we try to optimize for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). It's much better to err on the side of curiosity than indignation.
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...
Someone can make an absolute killing by creating an entire brand of “dumb” appliances that Just Work. Make them sensible quality, modern, entirely offline.
they'll make a lot less of 'an absolute killing' than the devices and apps that spy on you through your phone and generate a constant revenue stream after the initial purpose.
That's why dumb devices are getting harder and harder to find. It's much easier to take advantage of users and steal their data with 'smart' devices.
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 might buy one to watch movies on.
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 remote that floats around your coffee table.
100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I've joked with friends that I'd call it Dumb Inc. It's (mostly) in jest, but I think there's a real mismatch of expectations with a lot of modern appliances with respect to what a consumer needs and what companies use to try and differentiate their products from the competition.
In evolutionary biology, there's this idea that "evolution is stingy" – in most cases, a species doesn't have substantially more capability than it needs to survive (human brains are an often cited exception). I kind of expect that, outside of a computer, most product design should be err on the side of being stingy too. If I buy a toaster, I don't need it to be wi-fi connected so it can send me a text notification when the toast is done. I say this satirically, but I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if one existed. Frackin' toasters.
> 100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I've joked with friends that I'd call it Dumb Inc.
The problem is that — in a not so distant future, where every company makes a large slice of its profit from selling user data — Dumb Inc. products will be a lot more expensive than the competition. As people in general are not technically competent to assess the consequences of their digital actions, they will chose the cheaper option. So, perhaps Dumb Inc. won't have mass market appeal, but I guess it could still sell to the techo elite. :)
Maybe – but I think this assumes that general consumers will forever be unsophisticated with respect to their privacy. That may be the case, but I think it's a bold to claim to make. In my mind, that claim goes against the current trend towards more privacy.
I also highly doubt that a manufacturer of smart products would pass a "we profit off your data" discount down to consumers. Better they pocket the additional profit and then market it as a convenience for the consumer, which I think is precisely what's happening right now.
> future, where every company makes a large slice of its profit from selling user data
Which is why we have the GDPR to prevent this dystopian shite!
The only people on HN who object to the GDPR are those whos scummy business model exploits user data (and those who don't realise GDPR popups only need to exist because advertisers must now ask permission to use your personal data; and so they should!).
But that's not how evolution works, is it? If living creatures didn't have more capability than they need to survive, they would necessarily go extinct the minute the environment changed.
Also, as I wrote in my other comment, there are "dumb" appliances on the market - the fact that most people won't search for them is exactly what makes them rare.
I think privacy advocates think that there’s this massive untapped market of single-issue consumers who would gladly spend the extra money for this kind of thing.
I don’t think it’s there. I’d be willing to bet appliances are already a commoditized market and the margins are already painfully thin. “Absolute killing” it would not be.
The problem is a certain % of HN readers and so on will but those, even pay a premium.
But the rest of the population just wants smart appliances and Nest or other smart thermostats, Ring/other key hole cameras, Alexa/other smart devices and Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/…
So, unfortunately it’s not going to be a very successful business because the dumb masses have been brainwashed into accepting these smart devices.
I think Framework would be a good test. If they are successful it may imply that there is a large enough market, otherwise all bets are off.
Do people really want this stuff or are they forced to use it? When your options are either buying this IoT thing or not buying the thing at all, what can you do?
I don't think anyone is forced to buy an Amazon Eco speaker, a Google Home or an Apple Homepod. Given that people are buying these tells me that some people want it and are willing to sacrifice privacy.
Similarly, a lot of people are willing to buy a Tesla despite all the monitoring that that car does. And so on.
So, it is obvious that a certain percentage of people don't care about privacy. Now, what is dangerous is that a substantial percentage of these people are so called tech-savvy and even people in the tech industry. So, if they don't care despite them being able to understand the privacy issues, the general population which looks at these people for buying advice is certainly not going to care.
There's actually a pretty large market in used appliances that have been refurbished with all-new wear parts (seals, bushings, etc.) I don't think the manufacturers want to create dishwashers and other appliances that last decades anymore.
Care to elaborate? I've got a dream of someday making an aftermarket appliance control board that could be retrofitted into different types of appliances, offering smart features - Free firmware, Free app, automation, etc (obviously without all the surveillance/lockin bullshit). I'd love to hear what else is already out there.
The fact that you are here, making this comment, as if there weren't any, proves there's no great market opportunity. Few people will seek out such things; instead they will continue to complain about how there aren't any.
I'm not making a general comment; I bought a washer and dryer for the first time in my life a couple years ago, GE branded, and they have no wifi, bluetooth, or even any kind of electronic display.
As it happens, I got them more for their dimensions fitting the space I had than anything else, as GE hasn't had the greatest reputation for reliability in recent years. But so far, they work fine.
My brother-in-law bought a Speed Queen washer because it has relatively primitive technology. As I understand it, they're aimed more at commercial users or users who want to fix their machines themselves. https://speedqueen.com/
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(although the device really should function on some basic level without a phone).
I believe the other person was talking about having the devices serve up webpage UIs, so you wouldn't need their specific app, just a browser. A lot of makers do this with their 3D printers and CNC machines, as it avoids the cost and hassle of installing a display on the machine.
Two of the more popular ones, for those interested:
Personally I don’t like those either. I’ve experienced it with printers (which can only be configured initially via USB and some app), 3D printers (configured by putting an SD card in your computer), and other gizmos. They’re all a pain to deal with, especially if your WiFi details change or their IP does.
Some others expect you to connect to THEIR Wi-Fi network instead. Which is also a complete pain.
I don’t mind having an app to make the device more useful, but it needs to have enough controls on the front to use the thing and preferably reconfigure the Wi-Fi if necessary.
At the time I was considering it, I figured there should be a dedicated protocol for serving things like this. Something simple, like a subset of bluetooth, with easy discoverability. Sort of like NFC perhaps. Something that you can implement with minimal software and hardware support. Obviously you risk the protocol dying and devices becoming bricks. I'm not sure how you avoid that.
Heck, we've even seen that model simply to use goods you've purchased, as with digital restrictions malignant books, music, videos, and games, where the restrictions-management servers were discontinued and access to the goods (bads) bought requiring them became useless.
3d printers and CNC machines almost always involve using a computer anyway and good chance they are physically connected. Not the case with my washing machine or toaster
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.
> Personally I think I prefer devices which offload the UI to a smartphone.
In concept, I agree. As you mention, in practice, the apps used nearly always collect data about you and the use of your devices to send back to the mothership.
That makes their use unacceptable to me. Requiring the use of a smartphone app is a showstopper.
But even if that wasn't the case, it seems odd to require me to provide a device of my own in order to use a machine. There are a lot of people who don't own a smartphone at all (and I will join their ranks once my current one dies). Why exclude that part of the market?
This could be great, if the interfaces were to adhere to some standard. Like, if there was a single web server on a chip thingie which would expose http endpoints, and even that could be replaced with something else, because the signals that it sends on the wires are also documented.
But of course, this lessens the control of the manufacturers, and increases the control of the users. So it won't happen until it's up to the manufacturers.
> 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.
This is an awful, consumer hostile trend. I have a Bose sound bar that requires an app, account, and internet and blue tooth connection just to change the settings. Luckily it has a remote so I can use it without any of those things, but it can only change the volume and power the device on/off. I only kept it because the sound is good and it was a gift.
The default "happy path" for new Samsung televisions is to be set up through an app. A mandatory step is to allow background location tracking permissions.
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 transaction: I give them money, and they give me burger. That's it. No need to get tech BS involved in things.
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.
This +10 (if I could). Putting in something clever (and thus probably rare, and maybe unique to you) can make it far easier for Borg-tronic Analysis, Inc. to connect all the little data dots about you. A bit of data that is common to a large number of people makes a far better poison for their dystopian wishing well.
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.
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 the information, it is also treating customers like idiots and with total contempt. I never set foot in that store again.
There should be a oath (like doctors) for software professionals. I don’t think it will practically change anything, but at least it will create a tiny bit of awareness. People who code shit like this parking app should really ask themselves if it is worth it
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.
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
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.
I hear you though. I failed to receive a flight ticket because the airline accepted but could not use an address with a + before the @; and when I tried to use a website to prove my identity to get a local SIM after moving county, customer service claimed to only support Windows and Android and wouldn’t help me when I connected via a Mac and my phone was from Apple; and the local public transport app didn’t let me buy tickets when it was installed on an iPad, only on a phone; and a few days ago I got an invoice with “click here to pay” text, except the invoice is an image and there is no hyperlink.
Using a premium‐rate phone number doesn’t help anything though. Like the parent mentioned, it’s not like the retailer ever actually calls the number. The problem is that advertisers use the number to correlate one person’s activity across multiple retailers and services.
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.
Safeway no longer accepts that number at least in the 503 area code, I found out upon trying as was my custom, a few years ago. The cashier recognized it and laughed with me as she scanned her own card which they keep on hand precisely for these reasons, as I understand it.
Actually, I did have trouble at Safeway with this recently but the cashier kindly gave me a card that scans -- very nice because it has none of my information associated with it.
Related, but when I am forced to read the number instead of just typing it in, I consciously say "Eight Six Seven Five Three Zero Nine" instead of "Oh"!
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.
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.
exactly, just say no, firmly. most folks (retail or otherwise) would rather avoid confrontation so will opt for the workaround (that retailers institute as a backup since they typically would rather not lose business entirely).
but also, have no qualms about providing false information. you have no legal obligation in most cases to provide accurate info, and companies often employ deception in trying to elicit oversharing private info anyway.
This reminds me so much of how Radio Shack used to operate. I'd go there to buy some capacitors or solder, and the cashier would demand my full name, address, phone number every single time. I just said, nope, here's the cash, give me the receipt.
One of my buddy's actually had them refuse to sell him some parts. He had given them his address and all (not a confrontational person) and they denied the sale. I bought the stuff for him. I used cash and did not identify myself. I get the feeling Radio Shack had some other stuff going on.
He never returned anything and was a pretty frequent buyer (he was big into a lot of hobbies that he could build electronics and he built stuff for work). They rung him up and then the store employee said they couldn't sell him these items. He started ordering from catalogs after that. Didn't matter much I guess as Radio Shack stopped selling components not long after.
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.
Parking in the UK was a nightmare for me. I don’t remember the specifics, but either a 1 or an I is a valid character for a license plate, and the other isn’t valid. The app used standard iPhone fonts such that the one that will never exist in the UK looked exactly like the WRONG character on my phone.
I got a parking ticket from the first parking lot we parked in on that trip, within just a few moments of walking out of the lot.
I had screenshots and everything that showed that I paid, and the language the company used on its tickets and also appeals process was completely foreign to me, an American.
Total nightmare but after many rounds of back and forth I was able to successfully appeal, and then get them to explain to me in more plain language that it actually was successful.
What I mostly do not like about these new techs: dependence.
Before you needed simply cash to pay for parking.
Now you need a phone with a non-empty battery, mobile internet connection and a digital mean of payment provided by a third party that takes its share.
The new war of attrition for the sake of exploitation is everywhere now it seems like. A simple legal framework where citizens could easily vote against these types of behavior, without having to jump through a bunch of legal hoops, would be really nice.
DMV, and other gov services, in CA, as well as it seems other states, is now fully integrated with ID.me, which to me does not inspire trust. They even run a shop, https://shop.id.me/, with store discounts and so on. So, to give all the info to such an entity is risky as hell.
So, recently when I had to do something with DMV I just decided to go a little early and use the kiosks they have inside rather than use the online version which mandated that I link my DMV account and share all my personal info, the serious kind that DMV needs and not just name/email, with ID.me
Not sure how long this will be an option, but let's see.
In California there's just a simple form and a fee to retrieve information from the DMV. If anyone does this to lookup your information, you will be notified by the state.
I highly recommend getting a PO Box or a PMB and using that as your primary address on your drivers license, for this exact reason.
In this case, you are required to also give the address you physically live at, but this information is not eligible to be shared through the above process.
You own the property via a pass through single owner LLC to retain the $250k cap gains exemption. Still is a massive annoyance and complication to do so although, and mortgages are harder.
Just to add to above comment, if the record is not for self (i.e. self owned car or own driving license), then it can be fetched only for "permissible use". The bullet points are:
Motor vehicle or driver safety and theft
Legitimate business
Civil criminal administrative or arbitral processing
I don't know if this is still the case, but in California the DMV form has a box asking for "Apartment or box number". I had a PMB (private mail box, like a PO Box but at a third-party business) so used my PMB number & street address.
DMV mailed me a licence with street name and "Apartment <my-PMB-number>" even though it wasn't an apartment and I lived elsewhere. That address worked perfectly for years - banks, passport application, etc, everyone accepted it. Online ordering from sites that specifically said "we don't ship to PO Boxes" also worked no problem.
If I ever move back to California I'll definitely do that again. I was 100% truthful on the DMV license application, it's just that they chose to interpret my mailing address as a residential apartment.
They do this because most non-law enforcement data cannot be queried through inter-government links. There’s a consortium called AAMVA that coordinates regulations between states. States provide a feed of license and registration data to insurance companies and others, then they spend far more to buy that data back.
The issue is that many validations leave the state for things like commercial carrier endorsements, etc.
I predict in 2025 - California will be the first totalitarian state enabled by Big Tech fusing with the State of CA. Basically exactly like the CCP + Tencent. Total unaminity in the population, political dissent is instantly castrated by media or Big Tech's social apps and search engines, 90% people will be voting in unison for the same candidate. 10% left are constantly being squeezed out, until we have basically North Korea.
Tell me you haven't spent much time in California talking to Californians without telling me you haven't spent much time in California talking to Californians
North Korea, lol. Excuse me as I go get some $0.50 mouth orgasm street tacos.
Mind blown, I stopped going to the Hollywood TJs the moment the sign went up that it was coming. We go to silverlake now even though the selection is not as good. Glad to see someone else cares. Now I feel like I could call them and tell them why without being ignored.
I had to download a app to park on campus at college, giving them the cars license plate etc. and they ended up getting hacked(License plate etc. DB was dumped).[1] I dislike places forcing people to download apps just to be able to park.
I would expect better writing from the LA Times than this yellow journalism filled with clickbait...
There is a kernel of a news story here, but blaming it on Trader Joe's in the headline, only to retract it half-way through the story? The section with big scary words about how terrible it is to log an IP address?
JBG Properties did this in Reston Town Center, Reston Virginia. I avoid parking in any of their garages unless during a free window, and while a few restaurants provide reimbursement the number of businesses that have left and not been replaced is sad. At some point, maybe the rent or parking costs will drop. But the failure to consider the privacy discomfort is what keeps me away. I work about a quarter mile away and avoid the Apple store or CVS for stores miles away but which cost less for parking.
Who are companies like this selling the data to, and who is validating that the data is real? Would it be possible to generate a fake data set and sell that?
> “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?
Of course they do. They have a contract with the landlord. They rent the space and pay for parking. If you are a customer of a retailer, why would you go complain to their landlord?
> Why highlight that one specifically?
Why not? Journalists can either cover something in breadth, or in depth, and in this case the journalist decided to go in depth on a specific location.
> 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.
Since they’re already in the space, they’ve already agreed to a lease. Maybe in 10 years when their lease is up for renewal, they can try to negotiate that, but it’s very unlikely they can do anything about it now.
The appropriate place to complain would be the landlord. TJ’s didn’t choose the parking vendor and likely has no say.
Of course they can do something about it. Just because they agreed to a lease doesn't mean the landlord can change the conditions however they like. From TJs response it does not sound like TJ agreed to the app requirement in their lease. Suddenly requiring customers to install an app is a pretty material change.
TJ could ask the landlord friendly to not require the app, they could sue them, or maybe they could even withhold some payments until the owner of the building complies with their agreement again.
And I really doubt that the landlord wants to risk pissing off a major tenant over a parking app. I don't know what the market is currently like in LA, but in my part of the world lots of commercial spaces are free and landlords seem to be struggling to find tenants after businesses closed during the pandemic.
Sure, TJ's can complain, or the article could name the landlord directly, who actually has the contract with the parking vendor. Leases generally don't give you any control over parts of the building that are not leased to you. Why would they? TJ's might be pissed off, but there's not much they can do without expensively breaking a lease and relocating an entire store to some other place, which they probably aren't going to do over a parking app. Withholding rent is going to get them sued and evicted unless the lease specifically states that they get to choose who the parking vendor is, which it almost certainly doesn't.
Even with a large backpack, it's more efficient to drive because 4-5 bags is about the limit of carrying without a vehicle. And when you don't have time to fo 2x/week, either drive or Instacart.
This kind of market is why I am amused when people are concerned about the government spying on them. The government does not need spies. It just buys the data on the open market.
262 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 261 ms ] threadIt's good that they are exposed and people discuss them in order to (hopefully) reach the politicians, but none of this is surprising at all.
So... for some old timer who pulls up without a smartphone they'll turn them away? Sounds like an empty threat to me.
Edit:
Should have read more before commenting, later in the article:
> customers “also have the option of entering their license plate number into one of four kiosks as a means of validating their parking.”
So it's just a difference of convenience, much ado about nothing.
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).
What if Amazon is the only shop for miles?
This is an entirely different situation from a legal and social point of view.
And that's before you get into "need[ing] to monitor people’s unrelated web browsing and links they click" ostensibly in order to "understand how customers are coming to Metropolis" (emphasis added).
When you look at the privacy policy, everything I see there is in line with a somewhat lawyerly description of what every web server receives. IP Address, Carrier (in the rDNS or WHOIS of the IP), HTTP referrers, HTTP User-Agent details, etc. Cross-device tracking is a side effect of logging into their website from multiple devices. Geo-location could be a bit intrusive, but again pretty useful to auto-identify the parking structure that you're in, and browsers allow you to deny the request for that data.
They also collect "cellphone number, email address, license plate number and credit card information, as well as the make, model and year of your vehicle.", but that's needed to provide the service.
The framing here is pretty alarmist, and all of it is based on a read of the privacy policy. A deeper dive would MITM the traffic and actually see if they were collecting data beyond the basics. Without that, the article just ends up on picking on one specific vendor/industry, without helping the reader understand how this vendor compares to other vendors and other apps.
And to assume that companies are profitable is even farther from the reality of the last decade (for better or worse).
One important thing to remember, just because management doesn't plan to do it this year, doesn't mean next year's team won't.
If additionally intrusive data gathering was happening, that would justify an article at this level of alarm. As it is, without additional research or evidence, this is within the scope of the data available to any website host.
- Yes, providing a service that isn't necessary! :-D
- But you can't realistically shop here without,
- Because we decided it's profitable to sell your whereabouts, cross-device phone, email, car data, and financial details to advertisers. So we're forcing you.
I don't think it mentions in the article, but the system takes a photo of your car with you in it and does OCR on the license plates. That's how it identifies you.
Convenience is a tossup, strictly worse for new users, and the cost is higher. Old system was a free/validated anonymous ticket that worked just fine. When a system is forced on people that is 98% to the advantage of a business and 2% to the customer, people are rightly going to get upset.
There is an app:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/metropolis-parking-mobility/id...
I continually would have to tell them that I'm not downloading their damn app and that they are big enough that they can have the correct information on their website.
Joe Biden and the Democrats decided to give large ISPs an additional 65 billion dollars with the Infrastructure Plan shortly after this incident.
Comcast has probably already discontinued the practice, as it's been 2 weeks since the policy statement was issued.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/10/ftc-r...
Amusingly, two weeks after i get my regular cable bill in the mail, i now get a very large Braille version of it, as well.
At least i think that's what it is.
Usually he goes after wheelchair access and stuff but I think he’d jump on this.
I think I am the only customer at my gym that uses a physical fob.
Push back. Say "no, sorry, I can't install apps". Or use a dumbphone for a month per year.
They do this because they can get away with it.
Make them bring you a printed menu.
If you need an app on my phone to take my money for normal, everyday transactions, you don't need my money.
Side tangent - I used to be incorporated as a consultant, and think I need to be again because of crap like this, so it can own things for me. I haven't had a car in a long time, and think I need to lease one from MeCo instead of buying one.
> “This isn’t a TJ’s thing,” said Tara Miller, a Trader Joe’s spokesperson. “It’s being implemented by the landlord
I feel like the headline is misleading and shouldn't mention Trader Joe's if it isn't Trader Joe's direct fault.
Anyhow this totally involves TJ and they will need to do something about it, as more customers will get pissed.
They probably will have their legal team take a look at the agreement for this location now that it's made the news, but can we cut them a little slack before fetching the pitch forks?
Just say you don't own a mobile phone and that you're willing to pay parking with cash or credit card.
The ball is now in their court to figure out what to do.
Trader Joe’s is subjecting their customers to this and should be held responsible if if it was through their landlord. They still are an accomplice to this data harvesting by the fact they have a business relationship with the company doing this.
Did you guys remove Facebook from the Cambridge Analytics scandal post? After “they” weren’t the ones doing right?
When users disagree about which title is better, we have to make a call. My call in this case is that (a) it's really not that big a deal and (b) it's best to go by HN's first principle, which is that we try to optimize for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). It's much better to err on the side of curiosity than indignation.
That's why dumb devices are getting harder and harder to find. It's much easier to take advantage of users and steal their data with 'smart' devices.
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 might buy one to watch movies on.
Also on the front page
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29218381
Vizio makes more money spying on people who buy TVs than TVs themselves
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 remote that floats around your coffee table.
In evolutionary biology, there's this idea that "evolution is stingy" – in most cases, a species doesn't have substantially more capability than it needs to survive (human brains are an often cited exception). I kind of expect that, outside of a computer, most product design should be err on the side of being stingy too. If I buy a toaster, I don't need it to be wi-fi connected so it can send me a text notification when the toast is done. I say this satirically, but I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if one existed. Frackin' toasters.
https://www.engadget.com/2017-01-04-griffin-connects-your-to...
The problem is that — in a not so distant future, where every company makes a large slice of its profit from selling user data — Dumb Inc. products will be a lot more expensive than the competition. As people in general are not technically competent to assess the consequences of their digital actions, they will chose the cheaper option. So, perhaps Dumb Inc. won't have mass market appeal, but I guess it could still sell to the techo elite. :)
I also highly doubt that a manufacturer of smart products would pass a "we profit off your data" discount down to consumers. Better they pocket the additional profit and then market it as a convenience for the consumer, which I think is precisely what's happening right now.
Which is why we have the GDPR to prevent this dystopian shite!
The only people on HN who object to the GDPR are those whos scummy business model exploits user data (and those who don't realise GDPR popups only need to exist because advertisers must now ask permission to use your personal data; and so they should!).
Also, as I wrote in my other comment, there are "dumb" appliances on the market - the fact that most people won't search for them is exactly what makes them rare.
I don’t think it’s there. I’d be willing to bet appliances are already a commoditized market and the margins are already painfully thin. “Absolute killing” it would not be.
But the rest of the population just wants smart appliances and Nest or other smart thermostats, Ring/other key hole cameras, Alexa/other smart devices and Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/…
So, unfortunately it’s not going to be a very successful business because the dumb masses have been brainwashed into accepting these smart devices.
I think Framework would be a good test. If they are successful it may imply that there is a large enough market, otherwise all bets are off.
Similarly, a lot of people are willing to buy a Tesla despite all the monitoring that that car does. And so on.
So, it is obvious that a certain percentage of people don't care about privacy. Now, what is dangerous is that a substantial percentage of these people are so called tech-savvy and even people in the tech industry. So, if they don't care despite them being able to understand the privacy issues, the general population which looks at these people for buying advice is certainly not going to care.
I'm not making a general comment; I bought a washer and dryer for the first time in my life a couple years ago, GE branded, and they have no wifi, bluetooth, or even any kind of electronic display.
As it happens, I got them more for their dimensions fitting the space I had than anything else, as GE hasn't had the greatest reputation for reliability in recent years. But so far, they work fine.
Unfortunately in this case the greed of the manufacturer hoping to monetize their UI has ruined an otherwise decent idea(although the device really should function on some basic level without a phone).
They couldn’t bother since there was no recurring revenue stream so you just have to buy a new dishwasher?
Two of the more popular ones, for those interested:
octoprint.org
cnc.js.org
Personally I don’t like those either. I’ve experienced it with printers (which can only be configured initially via USB and some app), 3D printers (configured by putting an SD card in your computer), and other gizmos. They’re all a pain to deal with, especially if your WiFi details change or their IP does.
Some others expect you to connect to THEIR Wi-Fi network instead. Which is also a complete pain.
I don’t mind having an app to make the device more useful, but it needs to have enough controls on the front to use the thing and preferably reconfigure the Wi-Fi if necessary.
Heck, we've even seen that model simply to use goods you've purchased, as with digital restrictions malignant books, music, videos, and games, where the restrictions-management servers were discontinued and access to the goods (bads) bought requiring them became useless.
Though there is still the prospect of broken or insecure applications. Depending on the specific use case, that might or might not be an issue.
Though there's the casino whose network was hacked through a fish tank:
http://www.businessinsider.com/hackers-stole-a-casinos-datab...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16844462
In concept, I agree. As you mention, in practice, the apps used nearly always collect data about you and the use of your devices to send back to the mothership.
That makes their use unacceptable to me. Requiring the use of a smartphone app is a showstopper.
But even if that wasn't the case, it seems odd to require me to provide a device of my own in order to use a machine. There are a lot of people who don't own a smartphone at all (and I will join their ranks once my current one dies). Why exclude that part of the market?
But of course, this lessens the control of the manufacturers, and increases the control of the users. So it won't happen until it's up to the manufacturers.
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.
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 transaction: I give them money, and they give me burger. That's it. No need to get tech BS involved in things.
If Shake Shack is really texting me that my order us ready, it's going to a prison pay phone a dozen states away.
It's still 2021. There's no way I'd go into a Shake Shack without one!
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56517033
It is not just collecting the information, it is also treating customers like idiots and with total contempt. I never set foot in that store again.
There should be a oath (like doctors) for software professionals. I don’t think it will practically change anything, but at least it will create a tiny bit of awareness. People who code shit like this parking app should really ask themselves if it is worth it
"Required form fields" are one of those great power/great responsibility things.
Some cashiers were diligent about the data collection but many, probably most, had a similar approach to mine.
Retail workers are already in a shitty job, no point in making it worse
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.
It’s also funny when telemarketers from other countries aren’t familiar and accept it as a real number.
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.
I hear you though. I failed to receive a flight ticket because the airline accepted but could not use an address with a + before the @; and when I tried to use a website to prove my identity to get a local SIM after moving county, customer service claimed to only support Windows and Android and wouldn’t help me when I connected via a Mac and my phone was from Apple; and the local public transport app didn’t let me buy tickets when it was installed on an iPad, only on a phone; and a few days ago I got an invoice with “click here to pay” text, except the invoice is an image and there is no hyperlink.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgfaYKoQxzQ
And they wonder why Amazon is dominating retail. Definitely heard that food and parking are different.
Related, but when I am forced to read the number instead of just typing it in, I consciously say "Eight Six Seven Five Three Zero Nine" instead of "Oh"!
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.
but also, have no qualms about providing false information. you have no legal obligation in most cases to provide accurate info, and companies often employ deception in trying to elicit oversharing private info anyway.
We would ask during a return and require it. When buying anything with cash it was optional. The sales staff had to maintain an 80% ratio per day.
These private parking things are similar, there is a network of near real-time alerting about vehicle location for repo men.
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
I got a parking ticket from the first parking lot we parked in on that trip, within just a few moments of walking out of the lot.
I had screenshots and everything that showed that I paid, and the language the company used on its tickets and also appeals process was completely foreign to me, an American.
Total nightmare but after many rounds of back and forth I was able to successfully appeal, and then get them to explain to me in more plain language that it actually was successful.
Before you needed simply cash to pay for parking.
Now you need a phone with a non-empty battery, mobile internet connection and a digital mean of payment provided by a third party that takes its share.
So, recently when I had to do something with DMV I just decided to go a little early and use the kiosks they have inside rather than use the online version which mandated that I link my DMV account and share all my personal info, the serious kind that DMV needs and not just name/email, with ID.me
Not sure how long this will be an option, but let's see.
Getting a license or vehicle registration information is sold in certain states.
[0]: https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/02/20/texas-dmv-selling-driver...
I highly recommend getting a PO Box or a PMB and using that as your primary address on your drivers license, for this exact reason.
In this case, you are required to also give the address you physically live at, but this information is not eligible to be shared through the above process.
http://searchpeoplefree.com/
Just to add to above comment, if the record is not for self (i.e. self owned car or own driving license), then it can be fetched only for "permissible use". The bullet points are:
Motor vehicle or driver safety and theft
Legitimate business
Civil criminal administrative or arbitral processing
Insurance purposes
Employer of commercial drivers
All other uses permitted by CA law.
The pdf form at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/request-for-record-inform... in section 4 has more details.
DMV mailed me a licence with street name and "Apartment <my-PMB-number>" even though it wasn't an apartment and I lived elsewhere. That address worked perfectly for years - banks, passport application, etc, everyone accepted it. Online ordering from sites that specifically said "we don't ship to PO Boxes" also worked no problem.
If I ever move back to California I'll definitely do that again. I was 100% truthful on the DMV license application, it's just that they chose to interpret my mailing address as a residential apartment.
The issue is that many validations leave the state for things like commercial carrier endorsements, etc.
North Korea, lol. Excuse me as I go get some $0.50 mouth orgasm street tacos.
> [ Offer to buy subscription ]
> [ Login button ]
The hypocrisy is strong with this one.
Here you go, bullshit-free link: https://archive.md/BG1PM
1.https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/04/parkmobile-breach-expose...
There is a kernel of a news story here, but blaming it on Trader Joe's in the headline, only to retract it half-way through the story? The section with big scary words about how terrible it is to log an IP address?
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.
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 they do. They have a contract with the landlord. They rent the space and pay for parking. If you are a customer of a retailer, why would you go complain to their landlord?
> Why highlight that one specifically?
Why not? Journalists can either cover something in breadth, or in depth, and in this case the journalist decided to go in depth on a specific location.
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.
The appropriate place to complain would be the landlord. TJ’s didn’t choose the parking vendor and likely has no say.
TJ could ask the landlord friendly to not require the app, they could sue them, or maybe they could even withhold some payments until the owner of the building complies with their agreement again.
And I really doubt that the landlord wants to risk pissing off a major tenant over a parking app. I don't know what the market is currently like in LA, but in my part of the world lots of commercial spaces are free and landlords seem to be struggling to find tenants after businesses closed during the pandemic.