Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by binz120 1482 days ago
Yeah you could haha I think the majority of the public wouldn't care about their food purchases being tracked.
6 comments

This assumes that the scope of tracking is somehow naturally limited to grocery, and can't extend. Also, the technically easiest way to track grocery purchases can be by tracking all purchases, and then filtering out the non-grocery.

Let's generalize the question: what makes you uncomfortable about the government tracking all your (non-cash) purchases? They already know your income for tax purposes, and much of your large purchases, also for tax purposes. And if you need a pinch of stuff that's illegal, you're not going to swipe your debit card anyway. I suppose a court order will show all your bank operations history, should the government need it for lawful purposes.

So, if there's still anything left to preserve, we need to clearly articulated first, what that is.

Sarcasm? I think most people should care about this.
because I used the same credit card at Whole Foods as linked to my amazon account my last shopping trip there showed up in 'recently purchased' and 'suggestions'. are we upset because the Norwegian government is getting the same information that Amazon is clearly mining?
You don't pay taxes (yet?) to Amazon.
They pay profit instead. What's it matter though?
The ability to collect taxes was shorthand for "the right to use force to compel you to do things as they see fit".

Amazon can not compel you to buy from them, and Amazon can not throw you in jail if they don't like you as a customer.

Mining personal data and using it against the interests of the individual is bad in both cases, but it is far more dangerous when done by the State.

> Amazon can not compel you to buy from them, and Amazon can not throw you in jail if they don't like you as a customer.

Of course they can, by becoming a monopoly and driving all other options for things you need out of business. Also by manipulating you with advertisements and propaganda. Coercion has many forms.

Yes. They start with food and then god knows what else they will track. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
What do you think happens to online food delivery orders? That all gets sold to data brokers.
I feel it's similar to people "not caring" about corporate tracking (e.g. browser tracking, or cell phone companies selling location data) - i.e. by turning a blind eye to it as long as their services work and so on. They accept it as the norm and do not push back against these measures.

They know that it's happening and don't like it, like how they won't like the Norweigan government's decision. But they'll likely put up little resistance and move on to other things.

Really? What if it includes alcohol sales? Do you want the state to know how much alcohol you consume?
In case you were unaware, all liquor stores in Norway are run by the government — “vinmonopolet” as they are called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet

That misses the point.
You can’t buy alcohol at the supermarket in Norway.
You can buy alcohol at the supermarket in Norway, it's just that it's limited to alcohol of 4.5%vol. or lower (i.e. the supermarkets sell beer and alcohol cider and the like).
4.5%, no thanks. Easier to get water intoxication than feel anything about alcohol.
"How many villages does a Man need to Pillage to get a drink in this place?!"
Yes, you can. But only drinks with up to 4.7% abv
The state owns the only alcohol store.
Sounds like Virginia. A lot of states have a similar system in place:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_sta...

See my comment above - you can buy beer elsewhere, unless it's stronger than the typical lager.
And what will stop them from monitoring the alcohol sales?
I replied to the statement "The state owns the only alcohol store." - the only text in the comment I replied to. And as it's factually wrong, I replied with a comment stating just that. There was nothing about monitoring in the comment I replied to, nor in my reply.

As for monitoring - as said elsewhere, if monitoring of supermarket sales will happen or not depends not only on what that particular office wants (SSB - central statistics bureau), but what politicians decide on. And, despite many comments here believing otherwise, it is actually quite common for Norwegian politicians to listen to massive resistance from the people, particularly when the reasoning behind the whole suggestion is quite questionable, as in this case. In any case, whether alcohol is sold here or there it wouldn't make any difference to the monitoring. And cash is still legal tender in Norway, even if there are some that don't like that fact. As for myself I believe only Mastercard really know how much money I use on wine. I don't think they know my preferences though (Italian, as it were)

> The state owns the only alcohol store.

How do they feel about being responsible of delivering poison to people then? Somehow I can rationalize it if it's a transaction between private parties, but if the government acts as the drug dealer it's no better than a cartel.

Given that the alternatives to legal alcohol are well known, I’d imagine they feel fine about it.
the majority of the public wouldn't care about their food purchases being tracked.

Citizen #83238201: You have exceeded your yearly purchasing quota for condoms and thrush medication. Please report to your nearest moral re-education camp.

> wouldn't care about their food purchases being tracked

You dont buy only food in supermarkets these days.