[trs8080]

> Loss prevention is there to prevent loss - not make moral judgements.

So that's just the way it is and it will never change? Maybe we should have less jobs where someone is authorized to use violent force and can check their morals at the door.

[jnovek]

I have no idea why you were downvoted for this.

“Loss prevention” is just private security and it’s definitely problematic. Through profiling it reinforces racism and classism. Can you imagine how unpleasant it must be to be treated with suspicion every time you walk into a Target?

I think retailers could absolutely develop more compassionate ways of preventing things from being stolen, but why would they? There’s no incentive.

[logifail]

> “Loss prevention” is just private security and it’s definitely problematic. Through profiling it reinforces racism and classism.

(Full disclosure: I'm currently working with a client on a loss prevention project, big retail stores are the customers)

I've got a CCTV video in front of me right now showing a retail store being robbed late at night, a guy wearing a hoodie broke into the store, violently attacked three checkouts, and left with an estimated three figure cash payday, in approximately three minutes. The physical damage done to the store done during the attack, and lost revenue when the store was closed the following days for repairs, far exceeded the value of the cash the attacker escaped with.

Loss prevention is about stopping the bad guys from stealing your stuff (whether that's goods or cash).

I've no idea why one would think profiling (or racism) should have anything to do with this?

[jnovek]

Yet… 2/3 of black people have reported to being treated with suspicion in a retail setting.

What’s the disconnect? You, someone who ostensibly works in the loss prevention industry claim that racism is not a factor; but black people, as polled by Gallup, don’t seem to agree.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/shoppi...