Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProllyInfamous | Hacker News Reader

Home Depot's self-checkouts are using this facial ID to build/maintain their shoplifting database — this tracks thefts by the same person across multiple visits, and is used over time to build up a case against errant self-checkout-ers (i.e. to get them above a theft threshhold, at which point prosecution becomes easier).

There is also CCTV AI (whether artificial intelligence, or actually indians) which can intervene with your self-checkout process to "remind" you that you didn't actually scan everything.

View on HN

Beware that face detection may not be an issue under BIPA if it's not storing biometric markers [1], only a hash. As an engineer, and concerned citizen, I'd say that's a thin line as far as privacy protections go, but apparently the law disagrees and face detection tech suppliers are well-aware on how to monetize on the discrepancy [2]

In any case, the plaintiff will most likely be able to take the case to discovery.

[1] https://lewisbrisbois.com/newsroom/legal-alerts/2024-bipa-de...

[2] https://alcatraz.ai/blog/face-authentication-vs-face-recogni...

Probably discovery and a settlement to avoid a trial on this. BIPA has statutory payouts which will cripple you (rightly or wrongly). Statutory fines can be an awesome way to vindicate the public's rights and stop companies being assholes. It's way easier to litigate and settle a case than using torts.

I've noticed at supermarkets here that of the dozens of times those 'you haven't scanned something' warnings have come up, only one time the item hadn't actually scanned when I thought it had. Every other time has been a false positive for me. They're pretty dodgy, the workers always seem pretty frustrated with it as they go around clearing them for people (sometimes a handful of people waiting, falsely accused by the machines)...

All of the places around here that had first-gen units with a scale on the packing side (to make sure you actually scanned eg a banana and not a two pound block of cheese, yet were constantly wrong) have replaced them with newer versions that don't have scales or any other way that I can see to validate that what you scanned is what you put into your bag.

I'm not sure where I would find the data to back this up, but since it seems like an across-the-board change I imagine the labor savings have proven to outweigh (heh) the inventory shrinkage.

To me, the Uniqlo system where everything has an RFID tag and the machine just automatically scans the contents of your basket is the platonic ideal but I know that comes with issues of its own in different retail contexts.

The horrible scale system of self-checkouts brought my anxiety to a fever pitch. Any slight adjustment to the bag or moving anything around would literally set off an alarm for "assistance." Still gives me low-key ptsd even though I know they don't use them anymore.

Still here at Kroger which consistently calls for assistance.

And then there’s fucking Costco where after the system calling over a rep after I scanned something. apparently I am only to use the scanning gun for things that are staying in the cart, when I bagged it it called them over.

We still have them in the UK. As you say, any attempt to adjust your packing sets the alarm off so I find it's quickest to place everything directly onto the scales and only pack once I've paid.

At my local grocery store, if the item doesn't end up on the scale in about three seconds, the machine locks up and requires an attendant to unlock it. Makes bagging as you go nigh impossible. Infuriating.

The worst part for me is when they prevent you from scanning the same item twice.

Yes, I want 2 boxes of cereal.

I just find it easier to go to a cashier.

There's a smaller grocery store here where the self checkouts actually advertise that you can scan two things before putting them away (and you can!). It really should be standard.

We should all go to the cashier anyway. I’m not a store employee and I don’t do their work. Besides, if the cashier fucks up it isn’t my problem.

I've watched too many cashiers put their fingers in their nose right before someone came to their line. I'd rather skip out on their gross fingers.

Yeah, use the touchscreen instead.

You should mention that to the store manager, wtf

I always go to a cashier. Every damn time the self checkout is open, there are two or three employees standing around doing nothing while one runs around fixing all the errors and does all the ID checks. If those people has just been in a regular checkout area, all those customers waiting at self checkout would have been out of the store already. Self checkout is a fucking joke 90% of the time.

Or the ones that prevent you from scanning item2 until you bag item1.

Wastes a lot of time for those of us working with >=2 hands.

Thank god Aldi’s just let you scan and go about your day.

you have to put the item on the scale before it lets yo uscan the next item. So you can scan the same item twice if you scan it once, put the other item on the scale, and scan the item again.

My go-to grocery store does not use a scale in the bagging area. You don't even have to bag anything, you can just scan items and put them back in your cart, which is what I normally do. There is one employee standing there monitoring 7 or 8 self-checkouts, but they've never confronted me about allegedly not scanning something, and I've never heard them confronting anyone else.

Another nearby mega-chain still uses the scales and makes you bag every item before you can scan anything else. I don't ever shop there, almost entirely for that reason alone. I would definitely never knowingly shop at a store that was scanning my face and storing it in a database.

Not necessarily. In my case I will often buy a few bunches of bananas, which don't all fit on the scanner’s scale at once. If I try to weigh them once bunch at a time, I will get a “too many scans of this item” alert and a staff member will have to come unlock the machine for me (and they'll usually scold me for not weighing all of my bananas, which can't all fit on the scale, at once).

Fun fact: the self checkout attendant usually has a button on a portable device that can remotely unlock your session.

They aren't allowed to use it and instead are required to physically walk up, move the customer out of the way, and push the same button on your screen.

I think CostCo's self-checkouts are best designed/staffed. Other than not accepting cash, they are my favorite (even though still verify scanning of each item, verified by bag-area weighing).

WalMart has two popular designs within my city (not sure if one is just un-updated, yet¿) — their type which accepts half dollars is my favorite cash design.

I have seen designs which don't weigh each item, allowing simultaneous scanning... that also call an attendant to verify if it thinks you snuck an item by (then plays a loop/clip of its alleged violation).

Personally, I have a family member that works as attendant to a dozen self-checkouts... and it seems like it would make more corporate sense to have more human checkers and only allow cash with them.

This is an important observation as you now have a mechanism to obtain free things from the megacorp of your choosing.

Ok so Ive heard this rumour spread around a lot and I still have yet to hear anyone back this up with anything beyond just speculation and hearsay. It also doesn't make sense.

This premise assumes two things for it to be true:

1. These stores have the technology to detect when you started a checkout transaction with an item, but said item was not scanned. 2. These stores have the additional technology to detect the cost of this item (afterall, if they're aiming for a threshold then they have to have some sort of monetary figure here).

I don't doubt that machine learning object detection can say, track a banana versus an apple. But I sincerely doubt its reliable enough where it can classify Mandarin oranges versus regular oranges. If the tech was reliable enough to do EITHER of these two technical abilities (let alone both of them at the same time), then the grocery would simply employ this technology as part of the self checkout process itself. Screw prosecuting people, just have them use this wizzbang auto detection self checkout where no scanning is needed.

Finally, I sincerely doubt that even with enough instances that you'd be successful in a prosecution that you actually could prove intent to shoplift versus say the much more likely fact that you forgot to scan an item or poorly scanned it. Again, to prove a serious intent then would subsequently have to build some sort of pattern analysis (i.e. you always stole expensive cheese or something) to make it obvious.

Has there been even a single prosecuted case someone can actually point to? It really doesnt make sense. I also could see this being thrown out because an argument could be made that the company sitting back and letting this continue to occur without intervention is tacitly allowing it to continue and thus sets a precedence that its allowable.

> There is also CCTV AI (whether artificial intelligence, or actually indians)

That's a new one. It's clever but I feel guilty having laughed.

Why guilty? The Indians are doing their job that stupid tech companies pay them for. The phrase has nothing to do with Indians but rather with unmasking the "AI washing" done by companies trying to drive up stock prices.

¿Por qué no los dos?

It's not new. The term dates to at least 2024; probably earlier.

Not just easier, they’re probably waiting until the cumulative value leads to felony theft charges.

Without justifying the theft, isn't it weird that they get rid of cashiers at registers which would scan your items, and thus prevent theft, put computers in place and then rely on software to shift the burden of solving theft to the public?

How would that work? If they have video from a year ago that looks like a person pocketing some item, what good is that without them showing that the person actually had possession of the item after they left the store?

I've seen a lot of discovery in these criminal cases from Walmart. They do typically wait until the loss reaches a certain point before acting and then they will come with a mountain of photos and videos showing the offender picking up the items all the way to them leaving the store on each visit.

I remember one I saw where the guy was filling two shopping carts with laptops at each Walmart, each one so high he could barely see over them. Then pushing the two carts out through the tire shop area. Did this at multiple stores. Walmart only called the cops once it was over $60K estimated loss.

I don't recall ever seeing a Wally World where the laptop boxes are just out for the taking, not in a locked cabinet.

That being said, Target stores in Washington do something similar, as the threshold for felony theft is $1,000, they'll pull the trigger on LE / LP involvement if you hit that threshold over multiple events, and bring the receipts for the previous.

I _somewhat_ think that's ripe to be challenged on proving intent in the previous instances, but I also know that serial retail thieves are not likely to be the most sympathetic cause there.

I thought the same thing. I saw photos and videos. I couldn't see any security devices on any of the laptops, but they were piled high on both carts. I saw a spreadsheet Walmart provided of each theft (from a single offender) breaking down how many items were taken and what the total was on each theft. It was like $7000, $13000, $6000 etc etc. The offender got an offer of 6 years DOC, which is served at 50% in Illinois for non-violent. They should get an additional 6 months "good time" on top of that, so maximum 2.5 years. Bearing in mind they were selling the laptops for 50 cents on the dollar from what I understand, they probably took in maybe $30K cash for 2.5 years locked up. (also bear in mind their family will have to support them through this process with a lawyer, about $5K, and probably another $5-10K in commissary and phone calls)

It seems like a good lawyer should be able to win. Evidence that shows a person picking something up on camera and then leaving the store without paying for anything doesn't feel all that strong.

Yeah i feel like there are exact same pictures when i buy something, if you happen to leave out the pictures from when i was standing in line and at the checkout. you could totally make it look like i stole stuff.

I mean, you could, but when walmart sees you walking out the door, they'll go trace your entire route and keep the film off of each of the cameras from entrance to exit of the store.

They tend to put up a very good prosecution.

In the end though, unless they stop you and find the merchandise or have you on video with the stuff outside of the store, there's no proof you stole anything. It's circumstantial which is relatively weak.

Plus, Walmart doesn't prosecute anybody. They hand the evidence over to the police and the the district attorney decides if they want to prosecute. Walmart can file a civil suit which I'm wondering if that's what they actually do. There (as I understand it), they only have to show that you likely stole something vs a criminal case where they have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you stole something. It's a much lower bar.

In that sense you're correct.

What Walmart can and does you at the time they file with the state is trespass you. Which counts for all Walmart stores and properties. That's where things like facial identification probably come back in so your caught the moment you walk in a store.

Trespass is very easy to prove.

From much experience in this, I've never seen Walmart file a civil suit.

They don't technically prosecute anyone, but in the county where I was witness to prosecutions for Walmart shop-lifting they were putting a lot of pressure on the DA office. They would bring a ton of muscle, investigators, attorneys, print outs, DVDs, etc. They would push their prosecutions hard when they wanted to.

Walmart is pretty political too.

https://corporate.walmart.com/purpose/esgreport/governance/e...

>Walmart works with policy makers and public safety officials to ensure we are providing a safe workspace for our associates and a safe, enjoyable shopping experience for our customers. The nature of retail crime varies across our stores and geographies, and includes complex organized retail crime. Walmart works closely with our trade associations to support efforts to pass laws (such as the Combatting Organized Retail Crime Act) that ensure these crimes incur meaningful penalties, and that law enforcement have resources to appropriately prosecute these crimes.

Needless to say the can help sway local elections based on how they push certain political figures.

If you are on video pushing a cart through the parking lot with the items clearly visible, that could be a pretty strong case.

If all they have is a dozen videos where it looks like you are shoving something in your pocket but no other hard evidence, that wouldn't go anywhere in court.

This is another example of the poor being punished harder. A desperate mother who steals repeatedly will reach felony levels and spend years in prison or face deportation, but a rich teen who steals for fun will stay below felony and get away Scott free.

Rich kid can also keep stealing and face felony. Don't defend stealing.

Also if you're stealing as an immigrant, you should be deported without any questions asked.

WOW. Look, being in the country without "authorization" isn't even a crime. It's an administrative matter. Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.

The act of entry without inspection is a misdemeanor crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Repeat offenses can be felonies. It is just a civil violation if they have once entered with permission but lost it, e.g. a visa overstay or violation, adjustment denial, status expiration or revocation. So the Biden era catch-and-release rules created millions of such cases.

You missed the bigger point to focus on the technical inaccuracy:

> Don't go implying that actions are somehow worse when someone who took the risk of moving to a new country does them as opposed to someone who won the birth lottery.

Im not sure we should allow such premeditated charge stacking, it is just further weaponizing the law and fueling our prison industrial complex for zero gain to society. Who is to say many of those people wouldn't have stopped after being caught and charged the first time? Imagine if cops sat on the side of the road not pulling people over, just recording minor traffic offenses in a file, and then a year or so later drop 10+ charges on a person all at once and turning the collective charges into felony reckless driving charges? People would be outraged and nothing of worth would be gained.

I thought it was because the stores can't press charges if it's a small thing, so the only way they can bring any action is to build a case.

I have yet to see any actual evidence of such a problem, just a bunch of outrage from social media commentators who also claim things like Portland was burnt to the ground by BLM and other hyper-exaggerated crap.

And even if it is true, I still don't see why premeditated charge stacking should be allowed. If someone comes into the store that they know will steal, they should be banned from the store and arrested for trespassing then and there. Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors. Having 25% of the world prison population, along with all the costs that go along with it does not benefit us, it only hurts us. And it has repeatedly been shown that stiffer criminal charges do not prevent crime, if it did the US would be one of the safest 1st world countries, not the most dangerous 1st world country by a large margin that makes countries without actual functioning government seem peaceful.

>Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors.

As we say over here, bless. your. heart.

...if you only knew how bad things really are [deadpan.face]

We are nations of loopholes, inside and out.

>I thought it was because the stores can't press charges if it's a small thing, so the only way they can bring any action is to build a case.

Firstly, stores don't "press charges." A store may report a crime, but it is the state that "presses charges" and prosecutes alleged criminal activity, not the store.

Secondly, in the US, we have statutes of limitation[0] which limit the time in which criminal charges can be brought. These vary by state and by offense, but IIUC Petit (sometimes referred to as 'Petty') Theft usually has a one or two year statute of limitations.

I bring that up as, again IIUC, other countries (notably the UK) do not have such limitations.

IANAL, but I'm not sure if multiple petit thefts (usually misdemeanors) can be aggregated into a single charge of grand theft[0] (a felony). I'd expect that also varies by state. YMMV.

[0] Once again, this varies by state, but petit theft (larceny) is typically charged for stuff valued at less than $5,000.00, while grand larceny is for stuff valued at USD5,000.00 or more.

Stores don't decide whether to charge someone with a crime, the prosecutor does. They probably wait for small to become big because shoplifting a small amount doesn't reach a high enough bar to make prosecuting likely.

Pedantics aside, it's more or less the same thing. Prosecutors in some places aren't charging misdemeanor theft. Stores know this.

Or if your dealing with forgetful / tech confused old people. Now your putting 75 year olds in jail when a sooner alerting system would've made them notice if they were not using it correctly.

I'm not a trained cashier, if I forget to scan something it's not the same as theft. Not sure how it would play out in a court situation but this is always my go-to when I get accused of fucking something up in the store; also why I decline the receipt check at the door (legal in my state).

Most professional cashiers are only trained in one merchant's POS. Suddenly, me a layman consumer is supposed to be a flawless operator of every variant of self-checkout POS that I encounter. It's a bit crazy to me that a court would side with a merchant unless some egregious evidence or pattern had could be demonstrated.

> also why I decline the receipt check at the door (legal in my state).

Costco can't enforce the receipt check, but they can terminate your membership - but that's only because they're a membered organization in the first place.

I've heard this but also I've never shopped there

It's thankfully still an option not to use self-checkouts. I sometimes do that if I have one item only, but basically always queue to an actual cashier.

That's not always the case.

Lowes got rid of all cashiers and went to 0 armed bandits (self checkouts).

Menard's has hidden policies which you don't find out until you're at the receiving end. Hut they have human cashiers.

I loved the early days when nobody touched the self-checkouts and it was like an additional choice.

Not surprising that they’ve titrated the cashier lines to always be much longer.

At least it’s not a government again giving you quick service if you sign away your rights with a lineup around the block for those that with to assert their rights.

I’m also thankful that my local grocery store is subject to a massive development proposal, so they’re not bothering with capital improvements like self-checkout.

The option is becoming rare amongst most large retailers I frequent and only exists in my local Home Depots if I go stand through the contractor lines in the lumber section.

I've gotten used to the expectation that I will be my own cashier at most places, but I'm not OK assuming any liability that comes with my lack of cashier skillset/training which is what they want.

If we weren't making shoplifting not a crime, then we wouldn't be having that worry right now.

Seems like proper punishment is only way to get deterrent effect. Or the courts to do their job. So to me this sounds like workable way, stack up the habitual offenders and send them to jail for a few months to few years setting them on straight path.

Do you have ANY evidence that sending someone to jail for a few months to a few years sets people on a straight path?

I am pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite.

Best available evidence is that:

- Punishment works to deter crime when it's immediate and high-likelihood. Particularly, if someone gets caught and faces some immediate consequence on one of the first few times they shoplift (especially the first time) then that makes a huge difference to the probability that they'll become a habitual shoplifter

- The vast majority of shoplifting is done by a small number of essentially lifelong career shoplifters. Imprisoning them is unlikely to set them straight, but taking them off the streets for long periods makes a significant impact on the amount of shoplifting the community experiences

So why we are even using it anymore? Why not then close down all the prisons? If there is no deterrent effect or rehabilitation effect. Wouldn't it be greater savings just to close it all down and let everyone out?

People don't need "rehabilitation", they need help. Nobody would need to shoplift if they could afford what they need. Prices should always be indexed to the customer's income. That's it - make it so everyone can afford things, and crime ends overnight. It works for healthcare. People with insurance pay for those without. Why not for groceries and TVs?

It's more complicated than this.

I agree that prisons are literally useless in stopping criminal behavior, and almost certainly accelerate it for most. Prison is only scary the first day on your first bit. The second time you get locked up you already know the system, know all the staff and know all the other inmates. It's less of a deterrent each time.

The issue is that a vast proportion of offenders aren't committing crimes out of necessity. A large proportion are doing it because it appears to be quick, easy money and regular jobs aren't considered manly or cool.

source: a lot of time spent inside

>prisons are literally useless in stopping criminal behavior

"Con College" — where you learn tricks of the trade, and further divide with racism / hatred.

>stealing ... [because] regular jobs aren't considered manly or cool.

This, but also too many lazier-mindset people think this will be an easy lifestyle to sustain long-term (it's not).

So if I report less income, prices for me go down and no penalty if I get caught.

This is only a half-response, but I think one beneficial policy to increase food-access would be to remove regressive sales taxes from grocery purchases. Replace lost revenue with a progressive tax.

Several states tax a considerable amount on even basic foodstuffs (e.g. Tennessee).

It seems like would require every business to be able to directly access every customer's income and credit history and would normalize price discrimination.

I think UBI would be better. Expecting capitalists to work against their own self-interest is doomed to fail.

No. When you look at it that way you need to consider the crime that's never committed due to the risk of being imprisoned poses. Given how shitty people in the US treat each other, just during minor disputes/traffic/misunderstandings/etc, I think it's safe to say we'd be a country overrun by murderous rapists in no time without a prison system. It would devolve into anarchy pretty quick. Think the wild west with cars and ARs and without the sheriffs. GTA becomes reality.

Yes.

Lol, I'm all for letting them all out in whatever county you live in, at least.

Because private for profit prison businesses can make money off them. Public is paying for private profits.

Doubly so since the 13th amendment enshrined slavery as a sole ownership by the state, if found guilty of a crime.

And who's the group who is overpoliced in this country? And who up-thread said to target black women? Yep.

The 13th amendment was terrible. It should have never had an exception for punishment for a crime. Instead, we have a states controlled slave state.

The USA should do, perhaps, four fifths of that. Despite having 4% of the world's population it has 25% of the world's prisoners, and one of the highest crime rates in first-world countries so it'd obviously not working.

They could also consider banning substances that make people more aggressive... There's a particular artificial pesticide whose name I don't remember, which is coincidentally banned in all the places with much lower crime rates, and has been shown to alter behaviour in monkeys.

It's shocking at times to see such these ideas parroted in a community that prides itself on critical thinking. Punishment isn't rehabilitation!

Rehabilitation and support is not what "people" want. Political parties that want more punishment seldom want to spend money even on punishments. So it becomes impossible to put people on a straight path. Having courts do their job is very expensive as well so instead people build their careers on getting fast convictions of people. The thing that helps is consistently building a society that cares, you have to know that the society will certainly react to your actions.

Having a hidden social credit system hidden and managed by a private actor seems like the worst way of doing it.

Pro money/business party wants/needs more people in prison so their private for profit prison businesses can make more money on legal slavery.

>stack up the habitual offenders and send them to jail for a few months to few years setting them on straight path.

I'm not sure if you have been to an American jail but they do not set folks on the straight path. They are basically Crime University, and the folks on the inside trade all kinds of information about how to crime more effectively, where to crime, what tactics police use and what neighborhoods are safest or most dangerous for police activity.

I was thrown in lockup for a weekend for not changing my tags after moving and letting it escalate out of control and what I saw in that inner city lockup truly shocked me. Folks had incredible amounts of illegal goods on them (despite having been searched and thrown in jail) and were openly performing transactions, sharing "industry secrets" and coordinating for future work once they were out.

If you have spent any time in an American jail or prison, I think you would be disabused of the notion that you can simply lock a criminal up for a few months and "fix" them. I would suggest that it's the opposite, a few months in jail turns a newbie criminal into a true amateur or journeyman with networking, education and future opportunities.

No, that's been disproved. Most people don't consider that they'll be caught and so the penalty isn't relevant to their thought process. What does deter is a high likelihood of being caught - so a small fine will be more effective if the detection/enforcement is sufficient. Also, it's often not feasible to tie up the courts and jails with minor offenders (e.g. speeding, using a bus lane etc).

cut off their hands as a punishment

I feel like if the rules are going to change like this, they should change fairly. A few months in jail for what would have been petty crime if not for the repetition seems excessive. If right now there's a lower cash value threshold for prosecution, the fair thing is that there should be a lower rate threshold. For example, someone shouldn't be jailed for stealing a thousand dollars worth of batteries over the course of ten years, I don't think.

Blame jurisdictions that made shoplifting up to $900 or similarly large amounts practically not-a-crime.

What you're describing is essentially the exact point system used for traffic infractions in many countries over the world. Driving 10 km/h above the speed limit? No biggie, you pay a fine. Do it three times? We take your license.

No, not "do it three times". "Get fined for it three times." That's the key difference; there's feedback from the system that's supposed to act as a corrective. What's being discussed here would be taking away someone's license sight unseen, with no previous lesser punishment having been administered.

In the U.K. you get points on a license for being caught speeding (and other offence). Typically 3.

Knock 12 points up over 3 years and you lose your license.

The problem is the time it takes from being caught to getting the letter can be a couple of weeks. You could literally go from 0 points to license loss for driving 10 miles on an empty road with changeable speed limits and have no idea until a week or two later when you get 4 letters arrive.

Now until the court takes away your license you’re still allowed to drive, but it gives you no chance to change your behaviour.

That's an imperfection of the system, not a designed feature of it. It's also possible you sometimes go over the speed limit and there are no sensors around to detect that condition.

*loicense

You are correct, I didn't realize this nuance.

I mean, if they walked out with a felony amount of stuff the first time the system would have tossed them directly in jail.

I can understand why the stores will do it this way. Each prosecution is very expensive. If you're going to go though the effort with the legal system bring a case that stops the culprit. More so, doing this tends to scare the hell out of people that think they've gotten away with something. Kinda like the thievery version of the Santa Claus song.

"Walmart knows when you are sleeping. Walmart knows when your away, Walmart knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake".

Well, maybe there should be some sort of public registry where this sort of in process evidence would be publicly viable for you and others. Then you could regularly check it.

If the store is going to be tracking this information, it could just as easily show a message to the offender. "Hey, we're on to you. Knock it off, or else." Going straight for the jugular is just rude.

How about stealing is just rude. Theft is terrible. Trying to justify stealing power tools “bec it’s a big corporation” further degrades society and creates a dishonest low-trust culture.

I live in Illinois and look forward to collecting my $2k check for this but the reality is that the only person to blame for the theft is the person committing the theft. The same way we don’t blame women for how they dress or just because someone is trusting that doesn’t make it right to attempt to steal.

If the company prefers to allow the theft to continue as long they get to press charges, instead of taking more immediate measures that would stop the theft outright, such as banning the person (which must be feasible if they're tracking the person by facial features), somehow I don't think it must be having much of an impact. Note that I'm not defending the thieves here. I'm just saying that this approach seems unnecessarily vindictive and not useful to solve the problem which, let's remember, is "people steal", not "thieves go unpunished".

> stealing is just rude. Theft is terrible.

you, I, and probably most people on HN have the privilege of seeing it this way. for others, it's sometimes not a moral question, but a question of survival or at least dignity.

I know, how terrible the thieves are so hard-up they have to eat that pair of Jordans. Or those Milwaukee power tools. Oh my, what a terrible world...

I’m not familiar with any stores that have Jordans that can be purchased via self checkout.

how easy the world is if you limit the examples to the ones which reinforce your way of seeing things.

You realize goods can be exchanged for money right? Also tools can be used for jobs which earn money.

The difference is that you are informed and penalised each time, rightly giving you the option to change your behaviour. A police officer following a speeder to deliberately have enough offences to take their license immediately would be at least frowned upon in most jurisdictions.

Target is also known for building cases over time until more serious charges can be used.

Time to change your laws and/or prosecutors I'd say so those 'minor thefts' can and will be prosecuted resulting in fines which need to be paid - no ifs and buts. Get them early and get them (hopefully not that) often and you may be able to keep the majority of 'proletarian shoppers' on a somewhat less crooked path. If crime pays more people commit crimes, if shoplifting is not dealt with more people shoplift.

> i.e. to get them above a theft threshhold, at which point prosecution becomes easier

This feels like it should be illegal. Holding back on reporting or prosecuting until you think you're more likely to get a conviction or a bigger conviction, feels close to entrapment.

To do otherwise is just unnecessarily vindictive, showing that it's the punishment that matters more than the prevention.

The issue is that in many states now prosecutors refuse to prosecute for crimes under a certain threshold, cops often won’t even bother taking a report.

A year ago my wallet was stolen. The guy went on a shopping spree until my cc companies started denying charges. In each store he made sure to spend less than $500, so individually there was no crime worth reporting. I did file it as $2k+ of stolen goods but afaik the cops never pursued it and the thief got away with it.

The point is that from the store’s point of view the only way to prevent it is to wait for it to be a crime the SA will prosecute. It’s honestly shocking to me that people in these comments rush to defend thieves stealing power tools and stuff from Home Depot. There’s no argument to be made about them “stealing food for their staving families” this is very clearly purely about crimes of opportunity by selfish degenerates who have no interest whatsoever in the betterment of society.

And btw, it’s possible that Home Depot does report every crime, but the only time anything happens is once it reaches that threshold that progressive SAs determine is worth prosecuting.

> I did file it as $2k+ of stolen goods but afaik the cops never pursued it and the thief got away with it.

Hah. I had pretty good evidence when it came to my stolen laptop and iPhone when I was given a lead to the person selling them on eBay (essentially, someone bought the phone on eBay, tried to convince me to unlock it, and when I refused and the seller refused to take it as a return, he said "I know the real owners info and I'm giving him your info").

His eBay page was a treasure trove. Probably 100+ phones for sale, most "without charger". Same, 50+ laptops, "no chargers or accessories".

Contacted the police.

"He probably didn't steal them himself" - Uhh, isn't selling knowingly stolen property still a crime?

"..."

They could not possibly have cared less.

Crime itself is 100% political issue as well, and you show a case of that.

Someone steals enough from big box store, and the cops DO RESPOND and charge etc.

Individual has proof of multiple thefts, and cops don't give one fuck, as in your case.

Now speaking of retail theft, by far the biggest retail theft is time-theft against employees. Do you know wwhat happens when you report that? You're told its a civil matter.

Individual wronged == civil matter

Big company == criminal matter

I doubt it has anything to do with "progressive". It has to do with limited resources and spending them where they think they will do the most good.

but it's been proven time and time again, that any form of fraud of theft, leads to at least 3x more in the future.

If they get away with it, they never stop, and just keep stealing more and more. Most never hit any repercussions. Yet in amount of actual numbers of people committing those acts, it's a very small number compared to the number of thefts.

So stopping it early is just smarter. Better to stop someone stealing 250 euro, rather than wait a year, let that same person steal more and more, just until they steal 5000 euro and it's worth it to prosecute. It's still the same person, same amount of effort. Just more damage to society.

Is it really any different than the thief who steals things just under the felony limit...but does it every day?

In Texas the felony limit is $2,500. Is stealing $1000 on Monday, $1000 on Tuesday, and $1000 on Wednesday really so much better than stealing $3,000 on Monday?

The delay gives you time to arrange a refund from Visa/Mastercard or to make an insurance claim, if you're a business. You don't really have to lose anything from theft. It's just a business expense for your insurance or card issuer.

It's pretty sad that it's so normalized in our society that it's just a business expense

It shouldn't be. It's a crime

> feels close to entrapment

It doesn't feel close to entrapment at all.

Maybe you could argue they aren't doing their best to minimise losses and such aren't eligible for a full recovery of their losses, but not that the perpetrator didn't commit the offense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com