I remember reading a comment here a while back about merchants being offered a discount on the processing fee if they also transmitted detailed data about the purchase (essentially the data that would be on the receipt). That data could then be resold on to advertisers. Does anyone remember this or have links to more data? (Not having much luck with search, maybe I'm hallucinating the whole thing.)
Importantly, there is only an incentive for L2/L3 data on business/corporate cards, which have an inflated interchange rate above personal cards anyway.
This is not a scheme to get enhanced targeting data for personal transactions.
Ive heard of casinos trying to pay out winnings using some kind of prepaid card, where theyd also get info about how people spent their casino winnings. Lots of ways to leverage that data.
Prepaid cards are great for the vendor because they have breakage (the unspent amount before expiry). I doubt the data is worth much relative to that. If anything, they have much less of a tie to the individual.
I would love if it was transmitted to the bank for my own use so I can easily remember what I purchased or run budgeting software against it! Obviously wouldn't be excited about it being resold tho.
It's crazy it is resold but we don't even get it for our own use. Budgeting with credit card statements would instantly become so much more useful with less effort.
It does, at least in some cases. When I book flights directly from an airline, the bank knows the name of the passenger, the date of the flight, the origin and destination airports, as well as the cabin class. For one bank (Chase), the information is printed on the statements; for another they have a web lookup tool.
Flights are one of the very few cases where this happens automatically though the card providers systems. It's called L2 data, and it's sent a little while after the transaction goes through.
Airlines are just about the only business that have the ability to charge credit cards without real time authorization by the network. This is for things like buying a drink while in flight. I wouldn't be surprised if this was all part of the negotiation.
They primarily don’t deal with cash because cash is a pain. It needs to be physically taken to a bank and protected from theft by both staff and random robbers with guns, it needs to be counted all the time, and you need to maintain the right denominations to make change.
I have reservations about businesses getting rid of cash, especially if they’re turning away people who don’t have alternative ways to pay, but I certainly understand why they do it.
It’s also always awkward when a coffee shop is like 95% credit, and you try to hand them cash and they look at you like you’re Rip Van Winkle.
Also anyone handling cash is supposed to wash their hands before handling food, unless perhaps they're using tongs or something. Ideally an establishment dedicates one person to the register, but with the cost of labor that can be expensive without enough sales volume.
Another advantage of credit cards is you normally don’t have to touch anything customers bring into the store, since they can tap their own cards. You probably still should wear gloves to handle food and take them off or switch them to work the computer.
Merchants aren't going cash only to sell your data, they're doing it because it's expensive to handle cash and makes their taxes a whole lot more troublesome too.
> Huh, I thought accepting legal tender was a federal rule, I guess not.
I think the key word is debt when bills state "for all debts, public and private." (And a couple more categories under the law. [0])
At the moment you're asking for the drink, you are not in debt to the coffee shop, they're setting a precondition on an exchange. [1] Now, you might have a case if they let you run up a tab...
[1] Yes, there are a positive number of milliseconds where somebody owes somebody something, but pedantic software intuitions don't always apply to law, and overall that's a good thing.
I don't think this is the reason, cash will always have no fees. In some senses it can have negative fees if you're not very diligent with your tax reporting *wink wink*.
Not accepting cash is probably more to do with not wanting to deal with it, not needing to trust employees with it, keeping poor people out, and preventing robbery.
Credit card companies and banks know basically squat about your purchase except in certain circumstances (buying gas or flights causes more data to follow, called L2 or L3 data), or if they work with a data enrichment provider. There is a lot of action in this space right now, but the banks are hardly equipped to handle more data even if it became available.
I mean, cash is also expensive in its own way. It has to be handled and insured, coins may need to be rolled before being taken to the bank, a register is a mechanical device to power and maintain, petty theft by employees is a concern.
It's not really that hard to see why a business charging $5-20 per transaction from people who all have phones and credit cards anyway might choose not to accept cash.
Transporting and handling cash is absolutely not free, and unlike joe sixpack taking out $20k in a stack of benjamins that one time to buy a motorcycle with cash, it's much worse when
a. a lot of it is coins, so it's heavy and bulky, and
b. it becomes a regular thing that everyone on the street observes you doing over and over
You think the owner is taking the cash to the bank?? Unless they are an one-person operation, they likely have an employee do it (among their other duties).
the main purpose of that data is for fraud detection, anything downstream (i.e. selling it to advertisers) is just the cherry on top. Merchants are always financially incentivized both implicitly and explicitly to do anything that would reduce fraud and increase the rate of successful authorizations.
I ask rhetorically but I also imagine that at some point there will be an app that tells you and then people will vote with their dollars to the places that don't have them.
I know a couple of very tech savvy crews that war-drive and collect data on ALPRs in my city and they were the ones who mapped most of our city back in the day. there's been a big post-50501 DeFlock movement, though, so it's possible that more recent results are lower quality backed by lower subject matter expertise but it's not hard to set-up a good-enough scanner with something like Flock-You: https://github.com/MaxwellDPS/Flock-You-Android
even then, Flock cameras are visually distinctive compared to the Clearview/Motorola solutions that are more traditionally orb-like or are just straight tube CCTV housing. if you see a long black camera attached to a black pole with a solar panel attached, 99.9% chance you've spotted a Flock camera: https://www.wpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Flock_Safety_...
pretty easily - with wifi and BLE scanning. it's not like there's a guy at Flock climbing every pole, sticking in a USB, and then trucking it back to home base
Flock is a new in this market, before Flock there were loads of cameras wired up because wifi was not considered reliable until recent times. I'm asking, how do you detect well placed, subtle wired cameras? My overall point being, these apps are only as good as long as Flock and others don't just go fully hardwired (which before Flock, many were!).
It won’t matter. Slow encroachment. Everyone has learned from Google that slow encroachment gets what you want.
Price sensitive folks going to dollar general, wal-mart, etc., are not going to go shop at whole foods (assuming they even differentiate), and for people who go to ikea or Lowe’s for home goods, it’s not like they’re going to drive 30 miles out of their way to avoid ALPRs.
We can get pols to not deploy them with public monies, but I think that’s all we can do.
>We can get pols to not deploy them with public monies, but I think that’s all we can do.
If we tighten the 4th through 8th amendment case law to reign in the current wild west that is civil enforcement by holding them to the same standards for data access and imposing of penalties that criminal enforcement is the problem would be a lot smaller because then the tracking would be mostly limited to private interests who simply want to screw you out of your money but you can mostly choose not to do business with or will open up themselves to being undercut if they take too much.
Having been on the stage a few times, I have heard that as explicit advice for actors and musicians: Look at the audience, but DO NOT make eye contact with anyone! You risk losing concentration.
I also read something once that resonated, though I can't speak to how accurate it is. The idea is that when people are more introverted or discussing a technical topic, they tend to look away while speaking, then make eye contact to signal that it is the listener's turn to talk. Me staring at my shoes while I concentrate on conveying accurate information, then looking at the listener to see if my words made any sense at all. :-)
When people are more extroverted or on a less technical topic, there is a tendency to make eye contact while speaking, then look away when it is the listeners turn to respond. Perhaps to judge how things are landing as they are speaking?
If this is true one can see how it would lead to misunderstandings. An introvert thinking "This salesperson is making eye contact, but they just keep talking. Why are they so overbearing?" Or an extrovert thinking "This person is telling me terrorists are going to strike the World Trade Center, but they won't even make eye contact. Why do they have so little confidence?"
Anyway, like many signalling mechanisms, I'm sure there is variety across people and cultures.
I would avoid phrasing it as "better". Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours, have to spend more time on household maintenance (don't have a cleaner, can't afford grocery delivery), not to mention the overwhelming stress of struggling to make ends meet. It's not exactly a level playing field.
> I would avoid phrasing it as "better". Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours, have to spend more time on household maintenance (don't have a cleaner, can't afford grocery delivery), not to mention the overwhelming stress of struggling to make ends meet. It's not exactly a level playing field.
Sure, and all of that was included in my comment. It's definitely not a judgement of parents, I am one and it's incredibly difficult even with our relatively high incomes.
> Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours
The top income decile in the U.S. works 10% more hours than the bottom decile. Only a bit over half of low-income kids live in a household where a parent works full time.
I also wonder how it accounts for salaried vs hourly - I work "40 hours" each week but I know that isn't a consistent 40, it's typically less and sometimes more, but I'm always getting paid a set wage whereas an hourly worker is getting paid exactly what they work (barring wage theft that's more common in lower-income jobs)
Always remember the third option: "close the tab and don't give them your time"
If they are willing do sell you to data harvesters then that won't be the only unethical thing they are willing to do. Be thankful that they have voluntarily outed their publication as untrustworthy and move on.
the example is good and those ads are less awful because the same ad it sent to a demographic, rather than an individual, eg everyone in Michigan get the same ad or everyone watching Friends at 8pm in Cincinnati gets the same ad. Facebook's specialty is targeting a user with an ad. And a side effect or bonus is that few others see it to talk about how inaccurate it might be.
This might be true if cable companies did not make a profit.
In the US, at least, I think the lack of competition (almost monopoly pricing in most areas) has led to exactly the opposite situation - plenty of profits for the cable providers.
Do you have evidence for the claim that the monthly fees are not enough to cover the cost of providing the service?
I tried to find numbers but couldn’t, so I’m left with a macroeconomic argument. Better details would be welcome.
I admit I haven't followed the French protests as closely as I should have. Do they shoot protestors in the face with teargas canisters there too? Maybe they do. Do those protestors face the real possibility of medical bankruptcy if they need extensive care? Does France enforce laws that protect striking workers?
Yes. If costs are up AND profits are up or steady, it implies that the squeeze is being felt by consumers rather than by the large companies seeing profits. To me that implies the issue is a lack of competition, itself largely due to failure to enforce existing antitrust laws. It's hard to fix monopolization with interest rates.
Part of the _profits are up_ is synthetic while the squeeze is real.
Tariffs are one of the culprits. The invalid taxes people paid are not going back to them but to the companies that sold the products and services.
Price of goods are not going down after tariffs were invalidated. Majority of companies are keeping the same price point. It is extremely rare for companies to lower it. [0]
Rich keep getting richer and everyone else keeps getting poorer.
Never been happier that I've turned into a retro-gamer. This is more the result of being old than a principled stance, but never the less. Increasingly I don't view myself as actually owning anything that connects to the internet. Minecraft is delightful on my disconnected Xbox-360, thanks. Nobody can break it by forcing an update or shutting down a server.
This is actually very difficult for a significant number of people. Some people really struggle with saying "no" or enforcing boundaries, some people are very wary of negative interactions with strangers. If you are relying on people to explicitly push back on you, rather than reading more subtle queues, you are quite likely adding stress to someone's day.
I choose to embody the society i would rather live in, instead of following along with the friendlessness and disconnection that results from our deteriorated social sphere. Most people are delighted to have a little contact.
I think most will pick up on subtle cues. That said, there is nothing wrong with being direct. And for those people who struggle with saying no, well, practice makes perfect.
My car won't let me flick the windshield wipers while the car is parked. I don't know why, maybe they think I'm throwing rain onto... already wet pedestrians? Similar problem with auto-folding mirrors. My mirror was frozen shut one day, and I didn't notice until I'd been driving for a few blocks (which is on me). Figured I'd just cycle the fold-unfold a few times to pop it free, but the button is disabled when the car is in motion.
Increasingly my vision of retirement is a life of luxury surrounded by hardware from before the internet era, things that do what I tell them, rather than telling me what I am and am not allowed to do.
I'm filling my shop with machining equipment without all the extras, but my first 6 years of retirement will be fixing those machines before I can make anything... (and family history doesn't give me good odds of living that long - which is average.)
reply