4 ms·

I mean, I see your point, but if that's what they have to do to stop fraud, and the fraud is something they really care about, then yeah, they should do that. S

I mean, I see your point, but if that's what they have to do to stop fraud, and the fraud is something they really care about, then yeah, they should do that. Surely it's no great tragedy that stores have cash registers and bill checkers.

mikeash 9y ago
Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. This changes if the level of fraud/theft increases. Stores places where few people steal are nice and open, have nobody watching the doors, and basically rely on the honor system to ensure that you pass by a cashier before you leave. Stores in places where theft is common have all sorts of unpleasant security measures. Society only works because most of us behave. Look around you, and you'll see an incredible number of structures that only work because 99% of people are basically decent and honest. Don't be in the 1% who aren't, and definitely don't encourage that 1% to grow.
- techsupporter 9y ago
  > Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. This changes if the level of fraud/theft increases. Yep, and people can easily see this for themselves. It is incredibly telling to note the difference between going into the Rite Aid on Rainier Ave S in Seattle and the Rite Aid on 35th Ave NE in the same city. They're almost directly due north/south of each other and separated by less than ten miles. However, the Rainier one has at least one visible store security guard, tags on the shopping trolleys to prevent leaving the store with them, locked-down shaving razor refills and baby formula and small electronics, and "you are being recorded" security televisions prominently placed. The one on 35th has none of those. If there is a security guard or loss-prevention specialist, that person is often hidden. Shave refills are easily accessed (though do have removable security tags), there are corrals outside so customers can use the trolleys to load purchases into their vehicles, and the store simply feels more open and accessible.
- popcorncowboy 9y ago
  > Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. ... 99% of people are basically decent and honest. Don't be in the 1% who aren't This is dangerous thinking. People don't generally steal because they're bad vs "nice", they steal because they have an incentive to do so (economically speaking). Heaping moral judgement on them is unhelpful and in many cases actively detrimental [because it obscures causal underlying issues and excuses bad policy designed to address symptoms]. 'I mean, have you noticed that like, in white, "nice" places, where people are "nice", the stores are all open and nice and people are friendly, but in those dirty poor black neighborhoods the corner stores have got bars on the windows and grills in front of the cashiers, because blacks steal more and make up more of that nasty 1% obviously' </valleygirlvoice> I hope it's obvious where this line of reasoning leads. Dangerous places. Theft controls are functions of behavioral economics, not how "nice" people are (store owners included). ALL stores suffer from some level of theft, and thus _could_ implement HYPER security to eliminate the problem. They don't, mostly because the costs (direct and indirect) outweigh the benefits of deterring a given level of theft. So for most stores, the expenditure on theft prevention comes down to the minimum spend necessary to reach a tolerable level of theft. And levels of theft have everything to do with a very careful balance of cost:benefit to do with economic and social incentives for the actors involved. This "most people are nice but 1% of people are bad and mess it up for everyone else" type thinking excuses awful systemic abuse and places blame in entirely the wrong place.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    It's dangerous thinking to observe that stores in poor areas have more security, because there's a twisted line of thinking that leads from there to racism? How about, it's the racism that's dangerous thinking.
    - popcorncowboy 9y ago
      Haha, wow, you really missed the crux of my reply.
      - mikeash 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. This changes if the level of fraud/theft increases. Stores places where few people steal are nice and open, have nobody watching the doors, and basically rely on the honor system to ensure that you pass by a cashier before you leave. Stores in places where theft is common have all sorts of unpleasant security measures. Society only works because most of us behave. Look around you, and you'll see an incredible number of structures that only work because 99% of people are basically decent and honest. Don't be in the 1% who aren't, and definitely don't encourage that 1% to grow.

techsupporter 9y ago
> Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. This changes if the level of fraud/theft increases. Yep, and people can easily see this for themselves. It is incredibly telling to note the difference between going into the Rite Aid on Rainier Ave S in Seattle and the Rite Aid on 35th Ave NE in the same city. They're almost directly due north/south of each other and separated by less than ten miles. However, the Rainier one has at least one visible store security guard, tags on the shopping trolleys to prevent leaving the store with them, locked-down shaving razor refills and baby formula and small electronics, and "you are being recorded" security televisions prominently placed. The one on 35th has none of those. If there is a security guard or loss-prevention specialist, that person is often hidden. Shave refills are easily accessed (though do have removable security tags), there are corrals outside so customers can use the trolleys to load purchases into their vehicles, and the store simply feels more open and accessible.
popcorncowboy 9y ago
> Most stores have far fewer controls than they could, because they'd rather be nice to their customers. ... 99% of people are basically decent and honest. Don't be in the 1% who aren't This is dangerous thinking. People don't generally steal because they're bad vs "nice", they steal because they have an incentive to do so (economically speaking). Heaping moral judgement on them is unhelpful and in many cases actively detrimental [because it obscures causal underlying issues and excuses bad policy designed to address symptoms]. 'I mean, have you noticed that like, in white, "nice" places, where people are "nice", the stores are all open and nice and people are friendly, but in those dirty poor black neighborhoods the corner stores have got bars on the windows and grills in front of the cashiers, because blacks steal more and make up more of that nasty 1% obviously' </valleygirlvoice> I hope it's obvious where this line of reasoning leads. Dangerous places. Theft controls are functions of behavioral economics, not how "nice" people are (store owners included). ALL stores suffer from some level of theft, and thus _could_ implement HYPER security to eliminate the problem. They don't, mostly because the costs (direct and indirect) outweigh the benefits of deterring a given level of theft. So for most stores, the expenditure on theft prevention comes down to the minimum spend necessary to reach a tolerable level of theft. And levels of theft have everything to do with a very careful balance of cost:benefit to do with economic and social incentives for the actors involved. This "most people are nice but 1% of people are bad and mess it up for everyone else" type thinking excuses awful systemic abuse and places blame in entirely the wrong place.
- mikeash 9y ago
  It's dangerous thinking to observe that stores in poor areas have more security, because there's a twisted line of thinking that leads from there to racism? How about, it's the racism that's dangerous thinking.
  - popcorncowboy 9y ago
    Haha, wow, you really missed the crux of my reply.
    - mikeash 9y ago