11 ms·

You're already being tracked by the grocery stores, wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart vs. t

by jvm___ 4y ago

You're already being tracked by the grocery stores, wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart vs. the grocery industry who just wants to sell you more?

hericium 4y ago
> You're already being tracked by the grocery stores With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no. > wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart But this is not the case here.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  > With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no. Several stores track your phone inside the store. Some also use facial recognition. I haven’t seen any store use automatic license plate readers on customer cars but It wouldn’t surprise me if some do.
  - ftyers 4y ago
    In England they definitely do for parking purposes. Like, you get two hours free parking and after you have to pay. And they track it via licence plate readers.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Several stores track your phone inside the store phones made in the last few years have mac address randomization to thwart this type of stuff. It's not perfect, but it suffices to prevent them from building a profile of your purchases between visits. >Some also use facial recognition. good thing covid made face masks socially acceptable ;)
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  "With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no." Oh, but you are. You are lumped in with other folks using cash and no loyalty card. There is a demographic like you, in other words. You might very well be tracked through the store so that they can study where you go and what you stop at as well. > wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart Ok. Except that they might just use it to do good overall too. I very highly doubt you can be any more sure than the rest of us.
  - Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
    > You are lumped in with other folks using cash and no loyalty card. More than that you’re lumped in with other folks who have the same habits and brand preferences as you, which may very well be a lump of exactly one person.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  >> You're already being tracked by the grocery stores > > With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no. Assuming no facial recognition, phone tracking or license plate reading, all that means is they aren't tracking you between visits. Certainly the items purchased together are tracked. And they get lumped together into the "cash, no card" group. And if you buy any age restricted products where they can see your ID, your birthdate is entered into the system, which is probably unique enough among cardless cash users in any grocery store.
DrJokepu 4y ago
It doesn’t look like this will stop supermarkets from tracking people, this will just require them to share that information with the government, so this tracking will be in addition to the existing tracking, not replacing it. I would say that’s objectively worse.
- AlbertoGP 4y ago
  It also creates the incentive for the government to allow more and more invasive tracking by the shops.
DeathArrow 4y ago
Now you are tracked by both private entities and the state. I don't want to be tracked by anyone, without my explicit consent, which I should be able to withdraw anytime.
- verisimi 4y ago
  But you agreed to be managed by the government right? Remember when they came round and you signed the contract? To pay 40%+ in taxes? For the ability to vote once every 4-5 years for someone to represent you? You don't? Nor me. Governments presume to have authority over everything in their domain. The belief in the false idea of 'government' by the majority is what sustains their power. It is actually immoral and fraudulent. They are meant to serve us - and a servant is less than a free man/woman. That is not how they see it though - they are only serving themselves.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    - verisimi 4y ago
      I'd move to 'Individuland'! Where is it? Don't tell me that states have claimed everything and everyone?! Must I accept the authority of government and rule by the worst of us? Why do you accept it? Cos you were born somewhere? Do I have the right to create a new country, and make you a citizen? If not, where does the government's right to do that come from?!? In fact, it has no right - all the pieces of paper they write, don't count! It is really an invention by tyrants, who want to you to think your voting is doing something. And you do!
      - epgui 4y ago
        verisimi 4y ago
hammock 4y ago
Grocery stores who track me are subject to the pressures of competitive enterprise. The government is not. And that's to say nothing of the fact that, at least in the US, about 50% of the entire population at any given time tend NOT to believe that the government has their best interest in mind
- jonahbenton 4y ago
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    >between Walmart and Amazon I doubt Walmart is a major player in Norway.
  - wutbrodo 4y ago
    Yes, in the mundane literal sense, they are subject to competition in a way government is not. This is blindingly obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been rotted by extremist populist discourse. We (rightfully) worry about excessive market power when companies are still nowhere close to the degree of monopoly that govt has by design. I constantly make decisions at a moment's notice to patronize stores other than Amazon and Walmart. I don't recall the last time I was able to choose to live a la carte under a specific German or Chilean law. I say all of this neutrally. Government is coercive and monopolistic, because it's the institution that we chose to channel as much of society's coercion as possible. It's why we have nominal democratic control over it: because there's no alternative to it. It's absurd how people too dim to understand this need to shove everything into the framing of "govt has no downsides, the market has no upsides" and warp reality into claims that even famously powerful companies like Amazon are more optional than govt is.
    - jonahbenton 4y ago
      With respect- I know what you mean when you say "government is monopolistic" but with a moment's reflection perhaps you will agree that- certainly in the US- it is an incorrect statement. There is the abstraction called "government" which in its definition implies a singleton-ness- even this in practice fails the test because every US jurisdiction is overseen by multiple overlapping "governmental" authorities, and people interact with different ones often in conflict with each other all the time. However the more significant objections to "government is monopolistic" are these: In the "monopoly" sense there is literally no actual service in which any layer of US government is the sole provider. Mail delivery? Nope- UPS, Fedex, etc. Rule making? Ha. Contract law exists and in simple obvious ways even supercedes constitutional protections. Policing? Lots of private security around. Education? Tons of private schools around, including frauds that siphon public dollars while excluding public kids. Health care? Don't make me laugh/cry at the private predatory brutally expensive evilness that is so much of the US healthcare "system". Money supply? Nope, nearly all dollars are created and manager by private entities. Military? Also plenty of options here, none in any sense "well-regulated". Which brings me to the "-olistic" suffix of monopolistic, which implies an intent to monopolize, a set of behaviors that prevents competition and the existence of alternatives to the singleton. In this way, as the above shows and which is plainly evident- there is virtually no domain in which the US government acts as a predatory singleton. The "-ilistic" is the most deceptive and incorrect sense of the statement "government (in the US) is monopolistic" because it simply isn't. Amazon and Walmart, however- are defining the practice. And when it comes to "nominal democratic control"- don't get me started. A responsive customer service agent is the devil's version of democracy. No thank you. Cheers.
ratsmack 4y ago
>tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart I don't know if that was sarcasm or you being really naive.
- Frost1x 4y ago
  The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm fairly certain this is how many view this issue and supporting government over privatization in the current environment. They may not be your friend but they may help compete against and regulate those currently suppressing you. For that to change, privization needs to stop focusing on minimizing its alignment for personal gain and has to look at shedding a bit back towards society, realigning more at a slight loss of gains, not capturing gains purely for itself. If that doesn't happen, you're going to continue to see surges of support for government, ideas of socialism, etc.
  - codewench 4y ago
    Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
- epgui 4y ago
  I don’t think the view that “government is bad” is any less naive than the alternative, and it’s a rather less sophisticated viewpoint. Assuming you live in a functional country, I’d even go so far as to say it’s a juvenile viewpoint.
Tryk 4y ago
This is a false dichotomy, we don't need to be tracked by either.
more_corn 4y ago
So, “it’s ok because someone already tries to do it and they’re worse?” This is the second worst argument against privacy I’ve ever heard after “I have nothing to hide”. Privacy is essential for human dignity. Tracking everything a person does and buys is dehumanizing and ripe for abuse. But there’s no precedent for personal data being misused mishandled or abused right?
taylorius 4y ago
At least you (hopefully) know what the Supermarket is up to - as you say, they just want to sell you more stuff. The government on the other hand - who knows what plans they might cook up.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  This was my take on it. The supermarket can't reach into my paycheck and take more money at their whim, nor can they put me in jail.
- philistine 4y ago
  That's incredibly facile. The supermarket can, and will, sell all your data because there's profit in it. Now try to make sense of how you know what they're up to. At least with the government, you have a ton of elected representative who can help you if the government does something dumb with the data.
  - dvdkon 4y ago
    I know Norway isn't in the EU, but the GDPR prevents (or rather lets users decide on) sales of data like this. Not sure how it would interact with mass collection of data by a government agency, but any such transfers might be exempted by an additional law.
MontyCarloHall 4y ago
Realistically, what is the worst possible consequence of a supermarket being able to track you? At worst, I suppose you be could be charged more for purchasing a certain item at that particular chain. I highly doubt this has ever happened, since it's bad for business. The usual consequence for getting tracked at the supermarket is getting a discount on certain groceries via a loyalty program, with zero downsides for you. What is the worst realistic consequence for a government (which has orders of magnitude more power than a lowly supermarket chain) tracking all grocery purchases? As many other posters have noted, it's reasonable to imagine a progressive sin tax: for example, your sales tax rate increases as your purchase more meat or liquor. This has a much more profound impact than anything the supermarket is powered to do as a result of tracking your purchases.
- mdavis6890 4y ago
  Corporations cannot put me in jail. Corporations cannot (for the most part) just take my money. Other than denying me service, corporations have little power over me, except that which is granted to them by the government itself. Government tracking has the potential to be much worse than corporate tracking. (I think I'm agreeing with your post, but I'm not sure)
  - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
    Yes, we are in 100% agreement.
  - beowulfey 4y ago
    In theory, a democratic government is supposed to be beholden to its people, but the problem you are describing occurs when the government is no longer under the power of the population.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Or if you’re part of a disfavored minority.
jelling 4y ago
You should consider reading “Seeing Like a State” for a history of how even well intentioned social engineering policies can go seriously off the rails.
Siddarth1977 4y ago
The people in government (and/or lobbyists and special interest groups controlling them) absolutely do not "have your best interests a heart". I'm way less concerned about someone who just wants to sell me more than about the government. It's trivial for me to not buy a new package of sugar-snacks no matter how much they advertise it, whereas governmental actions can ruin my life.
macinjosh 4y ago
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart This sounds like a fantasy. I much prefer the supermarket getting my data and trying to sell me more because their motivations are _clear_ to me. The government is supposed to have my interests at heart yet, it is impossible to even come close to knowing everyone's interests. It is even more difficult to simultaneously satisfy them unless this "everyone" happens to be incredibly homogeneous in culture, values, and lifestyle. Kinda like a small northern country. Additionally, this assumes an altruistic leadership in the first place. In reality what happens is the interests of the factions in power are what are held up by government at any given time. In democracy those factions change routinely and so do the things they care about. This creates uncertainty and risk. So yeah I prefer the predictability of a corporation to the ever changing and ever more powerful politics of government. At least I know what I am dealing with.
paganel 4y ago
The grocery store can’t send me to prison nor can it order a judge to block my bank accounts based on my political believes and actions.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
The assumption that anyone beside yourself has your best interest at heart is the one thing that I simply cannot comprehend. Time and time again, humans have shown that they do not care about others beyond what is expected within the rules of the society ( and even then it really depends on how well those rules are enforced - see recent pandemic's 'we are all in this together' messages but from yachts ). Realistically, only you can have your own interests at heart. Obviously, exceptions in the form children and mental handicaps comes in, but, well.. does government and corporations see the population at large as children? In other words, being tracked is not good for the individual regardless of who is tracking you. It doesn't matter if government tracking is better or worse. They are both bad and they erode your ability to do things as you see fit.
asiachick 4y ago
The Norwegian government may have a reputation for actually putting my best interests at heart but on the balance I think most governments do not have a good track record of putting my best interests at heart either unintentionally or that the people in charge are outright corrupt.
bobthechef 4y ago
karaterobot 4y ago
> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart vs. the grocery industry who just wants to sell you more? Oh man, if somebody with the power of a state tracked everything I did in order to improve my life, and for no other reason than that, I would love it. Sounds like a guardian angel. Sign me up. But... what if they didn't care about me very much, never really thought of me at all, and really just saw me as one person among tens of millions? What if instead of helping me, their main motivation was to get re-elected? And what if the government in power was somebody I actively didn't like, and had even protested against? Maybe I felt they were evil and irresponsible. Would I still want them tracking me and trying to change my behavior? I can think of people I would want to give that kind of power to, but it's the people I don't know about yet that worry me.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
The grocery industry can't put you in jail or kick your door in.

by jvm___ 4y ago

hericium 4y ago

> You're already being tracked by the grocery stores With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no. > wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart But this is not the case here.

alasdair_ 4y ago
> With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no. Several stores track your phone inside the store. Some also use facial recognition. I haven’t seen any store use automatic license plate readers on customer cars but It wouldn’t surprise me if some do.
- ftyers 4y ago
  In England they definitely do for parking purposes. Like, you get two hours free parking and after you have to pay. And they track it via licence plate readers.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Several stores track your phone inside the store phones made in the last few years have mac address randomization to thwart this type of stuff. It's not perfect, but it suffices to prevent them from building a profile of your purchases between visits. >Some also use facial recognition. good thing covid made face masks socially acceptable ;)
Broken_Hippo 4y ago
"With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no." Oh, but you are. You are lumped in with other folks using cash and no loyalty card. There is a demographic like you, in other words. You might very well be tracked through the store so that they can study where you go and what you stop at as well. > wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart Ok. Except that they might just use it to do good overall too. I very highly doubt you can be any more sure than the rest of us.
- Tabular-Iceberg 4y ago
  > You are lumped in with other folks using cash and no loyalty card. More than that you’re lumped in with other folks who have the same habits and brand preferences as you, which may very well be a lump of exactly one person.
HWR_14 4y ago
>> You're already being tracked by the grocery stores > > With cash and no store "loyalty" app - no. Assuming no facial recognition, phone tracking or license plate reading, all that means is they aren't tracking you between visits. Certainly the items purchased together are tracked. And they get lumped together into the "cash, no card" group. And if you buy any age restricted products where they can see your ID, your birthdate is entered into the system, which is probably unique enough among cardless cash users in any grocery store.

DrJokepu 4y ago

It doesn’t look like this will stop supermarkets from tracking people, this will just require them to share that information with the government, so this tracking will be in addition to the existing tracking, not replacing it. I would say that’s objectively worse.

AlbertoGP 4y ago
It also creates the incentive for the government to allow more and more invasive tracking by the shops.

DeathArrow 4y ago

Now you are tracked by both private entities and the state. I don't want to be tracked by anyone, without my explicit consent, which I should be able to withdraw anytime.

verisimi 4y ago
But you agreed to be managed by the government right? Remember when they came round and you signed the contract? To pay 40%+ in taxes? For the ability to vote once every 4-5 years for someone to represent you? You don't? Nor me. Governments presume to have authority over everything in their domain. The belief in the false idea of 'government' by the majority is what sustains their power. It is actually immoral and fraudulent. They are meant to serve us - and a servant is less than a free man/woman. That is not how they see it though - they are only serving themselves.
- runnerup 4y ago
  - verisimi 4y ago
    I'd move to 'Individuland'! Where is it? Don't tell me that states have claimed everything and everyone?! Must I accept the authority of government and rule by the worst of us? Why do you accept it? Cos you were born somewhere? Do I have the right to create a new country, and make you a citizen? If not, where does the government's right to do that come from?!? In fact, it has no right - all the pieces of paper they write, don't count! It is really an invention by tyrants, who want to you to think your voting is doing something. And you do!
    - epgui 4y ago
      - verisimi 4y ago

hammock 4y ago

Grocery stores who track me are subject to the pressures of competitive enterprise. The government is not. And that's to say nothing of the fact that, at least in the US, about 50% of the entire population at any given time tend NOT to believe that the government has their best interest in mind

jonahbenton 4y ago
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >between Walmart and Amazon I doubt Walmart is a major player in Norway.
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  Yes, in the mundane literal sense, they are subject to competition in a way government is not. This is blindingly obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been rotted by extremist populist discourse. We (rightfully) worry about excessive market power when companies are still nowhere close to the degree of monopoly that govt has by design. I constantly make decisions at a moment's notice to patronize stores other than Amazon and Walmart. I don't recall the last time I was able to choose to live a la carte under a specific German or Chilean law. I say all of this neutrally. Government is coercive and monopolistic, because it's the institution that we chose to channel as much of society's coercion as possible. It's why we have nominal democratic control over it: because there's no alternative to it. It's absurd how people too dim to understand this need to shove everything into the framing of "govt has no downsides, the market has no upsides" and warp reality into claims that even famously powerful companies like Amazon are more optional than govt is.
  - jonahbenton 4y ago
    With respect- I know what you mean when you say "government is monopolistic" but with a moment's reflection perhaps you will agree that- certainly in the US- it is an incorrect statement. There is the abstraction called "government" which in its definition implies a singleton-ness- even this in practice fails the test because every US jurisdiction is overseen by multiple overlapping "governmental" authorities, and people interact with different ones often in conflict with each other all the time. However the more significant objections to "government is monopolistic" are these: In the "monopoly" sense there is literally no actual service in which any layer of US government is the sole provider. Mail delivery? Nope- UPS, Fedex, etc. Rule making? Ha. Contract law exists and in simple obvious ways even supercedes constitutional protections. Policing? Lots of private security around. Education? Tons of private schools around, including frauds that siphon public dollars while excluding public kids. Health care? Don't make me laugh/cry at the private predatory brutally expensive evilness that is so much of the US healthcare "system". Money supply? Nope, nearly all dollars are created and manager by private entities. Military? Also plenty of options here, none in any sense "well-regulated". Which brings me to the "-olistic" suffix of monopolistic, which implies an intent to monopolize, a set of behaviors that prevents competition and the existence of alternatives to the singleton. In this way, as the above shows and which is plainly evident- there is virtually no domain in which the US government acts as a predatory singleton. The "-ilistic" is the most deceptive and incorrect sense of the statement "government (in the US) is monopolistic" because it simply isn't. Amazon and Walmart, however- are defining the practice. And when it comes to "nominal democratic control"- don't get me started. A responsive customer service agent is the devil's version of democracy. No thank you. Cheers.

ratsmack 4y ago

>tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart I don't know if that was sarcasm or you being really naive.

Frost1x 4y ago
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm fairly certain this is how many view this issue and supporting government over privatization in the current environment. They may not be your friend but they may help compete against and regulate those currently suppressing you. For that to change, privization needs to stop focusing on minimizing its alignment for personal gain and has to look at shedding a bit back towards society, realigning more at a slight loss of gains, not capturing gains purely for itself. If that doesn't happen, you're going to continue to see surges of support for government, ideas of socialism, etc.
- codewench 4y ago
  Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
epgui 4y ago
I don’t think the view that “government is bad” is any less naive than the alternative, and it’s a rather less sophisticated viewpoint. Assuming you live in a functional country, I’d even go so far as to say it’s a juvenile viewpoint.

Tryk 4y ago

This is a false dichotomy, we don't need to be tracked by either.

more_corn 4y ago

So, “it’s ok because someone already tries to do it and they’re worse?” This is the second worst argument against privacy I’ve ever heard after “I have nothing to hide”. Privacy is essential for human dignity. Tracking everything a person does and buys is dehumanizing and ripe for abuse. But there’s no precedent for personal data being misused mishandled or abused right?

taylorius 4y ago

At least you (hopefully) know what the Supermarket is up to - as you say, they just want to sell you more stuff. The government on the other hand - who knows what plans they might cook up.

SoftTalker 4y ago
This was my take on it. The supermarket can't reach into my paycheck and take more money at their whim, nor can they put me in jail.
philistine 4y ago
That's incredibly facile. The supermarket can, and will, sell all your data because there's profit in it. Now try to make sense of how you know what they're up to. At least with the government, you have a ton of elected representative who can help you if the government does something dumb with the data.
- dvdkon 4y ago
  I know Norway isn't in the EU, but the GDPR prevents (or rather lets users decide on) sales of data like this. Not sure how it would interact with mass collection of data by a government agency, but any such transfers might be exempted by an additional law.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago

Realistically, what is the worst possible consequence of a supermarket being able to track you? At worst, I suppose you be could be charged more for purchasing a certain item at that particular chain. I highly doubt this has ever happened, since it's bad for business. The usual consequence for getting tracked at the supermarket is getting a discount on certain groceries via a loyalty program, with zero downsides for you. What is the worst realistic consequence for a government (which has orders of magnitude more power than a lowly supermarket chain) tracking all grocery purchases? As many other posters have noted, it's reasonable to imagine a progressive sin tax: for example, your sales tax rate increases as your purchase more meat or liquor. This has a much more profound impact than anything the supermarket is powered to do as a result of tracking your purchases.

mdavis6890 4y ago
Corporations cannot put me in jail. Corporations cannot (for the most part) just take my money. Other than denying me service, corporations have little power over me, except that which is granted to them by the government itself. Government tracking has the potential to be much worse than corporate tracking. (I think I'm agreeing with your post, but I'm not sure)
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  Yes, we are in 100% agreement.
- beowulfey 4y ago
  In theory, a democratic government is supposed to be beholden to its people, but the problem you are describing occurs when the government is no longer under the power of the population.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Or if you’re part of a disfavored minority.

jelling 4y ago

You should consider reading “Seeing Like a State” for a history of how even well intentioned social engineering policies can go seriously off the rails.

Siddarth1977 4y ago

The people in government (and/or lobbyists and special interest groups controlling them) absolutely do not "have your best interests a heart". I'm way less concerned about someone who just wants to sell me more than about the government. It's trivial for me to not buy a new package of sugar-snacks no matter how much they advertise it, whereas governmental actions can ruin my life.

macinjosh 4y ago

> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart This sounds like a fantasy. I much prefer the supermarket getting my data and trying to sell me more because their motivations are _clear_ to me. The government is supposed to have my interests at heart yet, it is impossible to even come close to knowing everyone's interests. It is even more difficult to simultaneously satisfy them unless this "everyone" happens to be incredibly homogeneous in culture, values, and lifestyle. Kinda like a small northern country. Additionally, this assumes an altruistic leadership in the first place. In reality what happens is the interests of the factions in power are what are held up by government at any given time. In democracy those factions change routinely and so do the things they care about. This creates uncertainty and risk. So yeah I prefer the predictability of a corporation to the ever changing and ever more powerful politics of government. At least I know what I am dealing with.

paganel 4y ago

The grocery store can’t send me to prison nor can it order a judge to block my bank accounts based on my political believes and actions.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

The assumption that anyone beside yourself has your best interest at heart is the one thing that I simply cannot comprehend. Time and time again, humans have shown that they do not care about others beyond what is expected within the rules of the society ( and even then it really depends on how well those rules are enforced - see recent pandemic's 'we are all in this together' messages but from yachts ). Realistically, only you can have your own interests at heart. Obviously, exceptions in the form children and mental handicaps comes in, but, well.. does government and corporations see the population at large as children? In other words, being tracked is not good for the individual regardless of who is tracking you. It doesn't matter if government tracking is better or worse. They are both bad and they erode your ability to do things as you see fit.

asiachick 4y ago

The Norwegian government may have a reputation for actually putting my best interests at heart but on the balance I think most governments do not have a good track record of putting my best interests at heart either unintentionally or that the people in charge are outright corrupt.

bobthechef 4y ago

karaterobot 4y ago

> wouldn't it be better to be tracked by someone who at least tries to have your best interests at heart vs. the grocery industry who just wants to sell you more? Oh man, if somebody with the power of a state tracked everything I did in order to improve my life, and for no other reason than that, I would love it. Sounds like a guardian angel. Sign me up. But... what if they didn't care about me very much, never really thought of me at all, and really just saw me as one person among tens of millions? What if instead of helping me, their main motivation was to get re-elected? And what if the government in power was somebody I actively didn't like, and had even protested against? Maybe I felt they were evil and irresponsible. Would I still want them tracking me and trying to change my behavior? I can think of people I would want to give that kind of power to, but it's the people I don't know about yet that worry me.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

The grocery industry can't put you in jail or kick your door in.