[LordDragonfang]

>He had just chased after three shoplifters who had taken off with several packages of laundry soap.

>Mr. Mackenzie adds one or two new faces every week, he said, mainly people who steal diapers, groceries, pet supplies and other low-cost goods.

I feel like this especially highlights how dystopian this is. This isn't a tool being used to prevent organized theft rings[1], this is ratting out people who can't afford diapers.

I agree fully with the need for regulation here. The solution here isn't "allow grocery stores to ban desperate poor people from being able to use grocery stores", it's to fix the problems leading to the desperation.

(And maybe the path to that involves giving these still-wildly-profitable retail stores incentive to turn their considerable lobbying sway in that direction)

[1] I personally encountered a few organized theft rings while working retail. They overwhelmingly steal small, high-value/margin things like makeup, perfume, and skin care. Not bulky, low value things list here.

[geodel]

> it's to fix the problems leading to the desperation.

That is beyond the scope of store owners. They are not the one collecting taxes and deciding on resource allocation in society.

[LordDragonfang]

Right, which is why I wrote this in response to the comment that specifically talked about how regulation was required to prevent them from solving it exclusively within their scope, in the most dystopian way possible, and motivate these companies to direct the lobbying they're already doing to fix the problem.

[brookst]

Agreed. “Instead of this local solution fully within a person’s control, ‘we’ should solve a giant macroeconomic and cultural issue” is never that persuasive.