Amazon launch UK check-out-less stores

[ik9000]

So how do people feel about stores where you're monitored and surveiled so much they can let you walk out without having to go through any kind of checkout and let them charge you what they feel is appropriate? Am I the only one saying hell no - no-one gets unlimited access to my credit card? Amazon's tentacles creep further.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56266494

[Scryder]

I've seen these stores when they trialled them in the US. Not sure I feel too comfortable about that. And auto-charging... I'd prefer to know what I'm buying, heck they do it online at "check-out". Not a fan at all!

Also this is just another way for make their employees redundant... as it's all automation. No thanks.

[BobF64]

The only potential good side i can see to such technology is that shoppers are charged when they remove it from the shelf, and only get the money back if it goes where it came from, unlike the current trend of leaving items anywhere a shopper feels like.

Now, if they can do the same for shopping trolleys, charging people £50 for not returning it to a proper place, i'll be happy.

[Saracen999]

So how do people feel about stores where you're monitored and surveiled so much they can let you walk out without having to go through any kind of checkout and let them charge you what they feel is appropriate? Am I the only one saying hell no - no-one gets unlimited access to my credit card? ...

No, you're not the only one saying "hell no", and I doubt that my view on that will surprise any regulars here.

I object onseveral levels, the first being that they can apparently identify me when I walk in (a barcode scan, apparently) and then accurately track my movements .... which guarantees I will never just walk in.

Secondly, well

The US firm is so confident of its tech that it says shoppers are not under any obligation to check all the items were accounted for.

"When you're finished, you're free to walk out," said Matt Birch, director of Amazon Fresh Stores and an ex-Sainsbury's executive

So, when you get you card bill (or check online) and it seems higher than it should be so you check the items it decided to charge you for and dispute with them that you actally bought such-and-such, they'll just refund you then? Or is it acase of "computer says ...". And of course, this may be weeks later. Whuch is my next objection.

Credit cards alone are inherently dangerous by breaking the direct psychological link between buying something and paying for it, but use this system and you don't even know what you paid until/unless you manually check .... which defeats the point of the ease of use of just walking out.

Sorry, Amazon, but no bleeping way. I want to know what I'm paying for before I authorise it.

Oh, and about 99.9% of my casual shopping is paid for by cash anyway. I generally don't even take a card with me, not since card NFC became so prevalent (though my current wallet has built-in protection, but it didn't a few years ago in my previous wallet). So if I don't want to identify my daily purchases with NFC, there's beggar-all chance of me scanning some bar code on my phone, if I even have my phone with me (50/50 at best).

All told, I'm as likely to go here to shop as I am to visit the lower circles of hell to do so.

TL : DR = Bog off, Amazon.

[Ttaskmaster]

I feel that Saracen's post lacks language of sufficient strength and harshness to accurately convey the shared sentiment among Hexites...
In any other situation, it would see a user banned, but in cases such as this I believe it would actually be a requirement.

Now, you may laugh and scoff and heap scorn upon Amazon for this, and rightly so... but does anyone remember this advert?





Frighteningly prophetic....!

[Saracen999]

I feel that Saracen's post lacks language of sufficient strength and harshness to accurately convey the shared sentiment among Hexites...
In any other situation, it would see a user banned, but in cases such as this I believe it would actually be a requirement.

Now, you may laugh and scoff and heap scorn upon Amazon for this, and rightly so...

Oh, goody. Now, where'd I park that snowplough?

As for my language, I broke and had to replace my HexFilter three separate times in the making of that post.

[Scryder]

.....Now, you may laugh and scoff and heap scorn upon Amazon for this, and rightly so... but does anyone remember this advert?


<<SNIP vid>>


Frighteningly prophetic....!

Wow, just wow. They actually made an ad like this?

I suppose the only difference is that it'll be an AI and algorithms watching the person. Also I recognize that actor...

[Ttaskmaster]

Wow, just wow. They actually made an ad like this?

I actually think it was meant to be a warning, but people clearly did not listen....

[BobF64]

I like the quote from this article : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1812423.html

Not everyone was on board. One elderly gentlemen with a walking stick was told by an Amazon worker at the door he would have to download an app and put in his bank card details.

“Oh f*** that, no, no, no – can’t be bothered” he replied, before marching off in the direction of Sainbury’s.

[Spud1]

So how do people feel about stores where you're monitored and surveiled so much they can let you walk out without having to go through any kind of checkout and let them charge you what they feel is appropriate? Am I the only one saying hell no - no-one gets unlimited access to my credit card? Amazon's tentacles creep further.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56266494

Well, this already happens in most of the larger stores - granted there isn't an AI or human watching you every step around the store (unless you trigger suspicion) but there are enough cameras and tracking systems in most of the larger retail stores I would argue you are already being tracked.

I don't have a problem with this at all and would be very keen to try it. The less interaction with staff or cash that I can have the better imo, and I consider the privacy ship to have sailed a long, long time ago for most of us.

Plus the sooner cash can die out the better!

[Scryder]

Plus the sooner cash can die out the better!

I agree with this sentiment... to a point. Reason being that most of joe public is not tech savvy enough. Here's an example... I was in a video call yesterday with some people. It took 15mins for the meeting to start as the organiser had "tech issues". Then when we connected, there was an older lady having basic tech issues, she was saying she couldn't see everyone on the call... it was a so simple for me, but for her it was complicated. Then everyone was told to mute. Half an hour in, a gentleman forgot to mute his phone... so the screen kept going to him throughout the call whenever a noise was picked up on his mic and the presenter was not talking. Another couldn't figure out how to increase their volume on their mic. This is just a single example of something I experienced first hand.

But I think we need to educate the public more before relying on tech only solutions. As otherwise bad actors will take advantage of people's ignorance.

--------
My main problem with all this is that it's Amazon and Bezos. He's already got his claws of a lot of pies... I don't want physical stores from them and chase out more small stores. The supermarkets have already done this (and Amazon already has a deal with Morrisons), but I don't want them to have a monopoly on brick and mortar as well. As their tactic is to sell at a loss and run the competition out of business... and then at some point they won't sell that product anymore. And the business that was producing it exclusively went bust. In 10 years I don't want everything to be "An Amazon company".... Weyland-Yutani future is not a good one folks!

[Spud1]

But I think we need to educate the public more before relying on tech only solutions. As otherwise bad actors will take advantage of people's ignorance.

Definitely - I think we're at least 50 years or so away from cash getting to close disappearing from modern economies - although I think it will become less and less common much sooner than that...and I absolutely expect the number of stores/venues that simply refuse to accept it grow much quicker, assuming that various discrimination acts are not triggered to stall the process.

[Ttaskmaster]

Plus the sooner cash can die out the better!

Dare I ask why?

[Spud1]

Dare I ask why?

Sure, I find it an inconvenience - makes budgeting harder, more things to carry around (Change in particular), easily lost or stolen. Add to the fact that the majority of the underground economy is built on cash transactions too, so it enables a lot of nefarious activity (that even things like Crypto can't surpass, given those transactions are not in any way instant)...it's become an outdated method of payment.

The budgeting thing is the key one for me - I know exactly how much money I have at any point from a quick check on my phone/watch, and updates are in real time. So much easier!

From a business POV, cash is expensive to deal with (often costs more to pay in cash to your business account than to take electronic payments, when you account for time as well as the raw % figures), and also leaves you more vulnerable to robbery/fraud.

Finally, I like the traceability of electronic funds when done right, and as a consumer, the additional protection you get in most scenarios from the banking/payment providers.

Now, I know full well that there is a direct opposite view to the above from many - lots of people prefer to budget with cash rather than excel, or see the fraud risk as higher with electronic payments (it's really not, but relies a lot more on common sense and risk education) , or can''t get past the traceability of electronic funds/see that as a negative thing...all fine and valid points, which I happen to disagree with but equally can understand.

[Ttaskmaster]

Add to the fact that the majority of the underground economy is built on cash transactions too, so it enables a lot of nefarious activity (that even things like Crypto can't surpass, given those transactions are not in any way instant)...

Yeah, all those dodgy dealings going down at Blackbush car boot sale, or the church jumble sale...!

The budgeting thing is the key one for me - I know exactly how much money I have at any point from a quick check on my phone/watch, and updates are in real time.

Your bank updates might be in real time, but there are still times when a transaction takes days to show up on the account, even though it went through well-known high profile payments systems owned by mainstream banks, like Barclay's.

and also leaves you more vulnerable to robbery/fraud.

You can still be robbed, even in a completely cashless situation. It either just takes a quick hack or dodgy card reader, or involves violently forcing someone to transfer money electronically and in a number of cases that will be the last thing those people ever do in life.

Finally, I like the traceability of electronic funds when done right, and as a consumer, the additional protection you get in most scenarios from the banking/payment providers.

I can agree with this part.

lots of people prefer to budget with cash rather than excel, or see the fraud risk as higher with electronic payments (it's really not, but relies a lot more on common sense and risk education)

People are physical beings, so having something they can physically interact with and physically gauge is always going to be easier. Virtual and digital versions lack that physicality, so have far less meaning. Various studies have shown that people paying with cash spend less and save better, while the opposite is true of digital money, and for the same reason people overspend with both digital and foreign currencies (like on holiday) - It doesn't feel as real to them.

or can''t get past the traceability of electronic funds/see that as a negative thing...

I think it's more the idea of having all your private, personal doings being recorded and digitised, not to mention all that being sold so you can be profiled and marketed to. Heck, just buy something on any number of well-known sites that BS about how their systems are highly secure and offer you total privacy... and within hours, you're getting spam emails and ads pop up with stuff related to the things you just bought in 'total privacy'.

[Saracen999]

Finally, I like the traceability of electronic funds when done right, and as a consumer, the additional protection you get in most scenarios from the banking/payment providers.

Some scenarios. The strongest consumer protection is that from the Consumer Credit Act (s.76) and strictly speaking, that isn't about electronic payment methods but about buying on credit. That can be simply via credit, if you got the cash by credit as part of the transaction, but I grant you, the most likely scenario is credit card. Note: not debit card, not payment by phone ec unless it's via credit card, and even then, there's a game of legal ping-pong going on where there's a credit card company at the far end, but a non-credit payment processor in-between. The classic example is/was buying on PayPAL, linked to your credit card. But the CCA protection applies to the retail purchase, on credit. That example actually sets up two contracts - retail purchase by PayPAL (credit not involved) and settling your PayPAL bill (via credit card), but then the PayPAL to credit card company bit, which is via credit, doesn't involve the goods so they aren't CCA protected. Or weren't. I seem to remember a precedent that changed that, but I didn't pay much attention and it could have been overruled since.

But even without that, he CCA only applies to purchases over £100 (and under £30k), and I'd argue most, especially in supermarkets etc, aren't. Sure, some are but the CCA criteria are a bit more convoluted than even that.

Debit card etc have some protections, sure, but they're pretty much discretionary at the whim of the bank/card-issuer and can't be relied on in the way anything with statutory power behind it can.

My main point though, as someone that usually pays cash, because I prefer it, is that I can pay by card when it suits me. Or online, etc. I don't do it often because it doesn't suit me often. You, of course, carrying your phone and/or cards, aren't required to carry cash. You just said you don't. So your choice is to avoid it and you can. Just ignore it.

I don't (and don't want to) carry my phone with me everywhere. It's not what I got it for, not what I want it for, and a downright invonvenience to be expected to lug it everywhere just to pay for a coffee, or whatever. Oh, and it's a few hundred quid if it gets lost, let alone stolen, and that's not accounting for the hassle and cost of insurance, the backside-ache of ensuring security/encryption, the nuisance of sync/backup, etc, or the cost of a calling plan (which I neither need nor want).

Your non-cash route is so "convenient" because, and only because, you carry a fairly expensive, relatively delicate and vulnerable computer around with you all the time. Oh, and kept it charged.

Maybe you have to, perhaps for business. I don't have to, and my business needs (before I retired) were whatever I decided they were. That most emphatically did not include being on the end of soeone else's telephonic leash 24/7. The hell with that. A phone, to me, is a convenience only when it suits what I want. The rest of the time, it's a right pain in the rear.

Cash can be ignored by people that don't want it, so ignore it. But if it dies out (not likely any time soon, despite the best efforts of those with a vested interest, including those interested in mass data accumulation and aggregation) it will be a huge pain for those that don't want your phone solutions. Or, like my mother-in-law, that can barely switch her TV from BBC1 to ITV with a remote, and doesn't want and won't even consider a computer. She couldn't get her head around a smartphone if her life depended on it, mainly because she absolutely doesn't want to.

For many of us, cash works best. Don't like it? Fair enough. Don't use it. You have a choice, and one that you seem to want to deny those of us that do want cash.

Also, as a side note, don't think those of us that prefer cash need "educating" about the alternatives. Mother-in-laws aside, there's plenty of us that understand full well. We just don't like what we see. The pro's, fr me, are far outweighed by the con's. Pun intended.