3 ms·
As long as there are adequate safeguards for incorrect data (as should be provided by the DPA in the UK), I don't see any problem with this. It's no different
by UVB-76 11y ago
As long as there are adequate safeguards for incorrect data (as should be provided by the DPA in the UK), I don't see any problem with this.
It's no different to companies choosing not to do business with people based on credit history, financial standing, etc.
- falcolas 11y agoImagine, for a moment, that I shoplift as a teenager as a drunken dare. I'm caught, and pay the fines and a bit of community service. Or, perhaps I'm just suspected of shoplifting because one of my friends did shoplift while I was with them, and I'm added to the list. The doubt is reasonable enough that it wouldn't get me convicted, but it's enough for this system to add me and keep me in it. For the rest of my life, I would be treated as a criminal by shopowners, even if I never commit another crime.
- pdkl95 11y agoAny list like that sure sounds like slander/libel. If you are treated as a criminal by a shop-owner because someone else is making claims about your reputation, this is the exact type of situation that slander/libel laws were created for. Also, I could be badly mistaken, but isn't slander strongly enforced in the UK? Wasn't there a scandal involving forced apologies?
- UVB-76 11y agoIt's down to the retailer if they want you on their property, and that's how it should be. If they opt for a stricter system (which would cover the edge cases you describe) that loses them some genuine custom, that's their loss. The target is of course persistent offenders, not the kind you mention.