#retail surveillance systems

[securens-systems]

Are Retail Surveillance and Professional Alarm Monitoring the Keys to Retail Security?

Introduction:

Within the domain of retail security, safeguarding assets and ensuring the safety of both customers and employees is not just a priority but a necessity. Enhancing retail security with CCTV cameras and surveillance systems offers several benefits that can significantly improve the safety and operations of retail businesses. Let’s see the symbiotic relationship between surveillance systems and professional alarm monitoring, elucidating their pivotal role in fortifying retail security and mitigating risks.

The Strategic Deployment of Surveillance Systems:

Surveillance systems, comprising an array of CCTV cameras and sophisticated monitoring technologies, serve as the bedrock of retail security infrastructure. These systems are strategically deployed across key areas within the retail space, meticulously positioned to provide unobtrusive yet comprehensive coverage. By surveilling entrances, exits, sales floors, stockrooms, and points of sale, these cameras act as a formidable deterrent to theft and criminal activity.

Deterrence and Detection Mechanisms:

Beyond their physical presence, surveillance cameras serve as potent deterrents, dissuading would-be perpetrators from engaging in illicit activities. However, their efficacy extends far beyond deterrence, as these cameras are equipped with high-resolution lenses capable of capturing the smallest details. In the event of security breaches, this footage becomes invaluable, facilitating swift detection and identification of suspects. Moreover, with advancements in video analytics and facial recognition technology, surveillance systems are becoming increasingly adept at intelligent threat detection, further bolstering their efficacy.

The Crucial Role of Professional Alarm Monitoring:

While surveillance systems form the first line of defense, professional alarm monitoring serves as the vigilant sentinel, ever watchful for signs of impending danger. Manned by trained security professionals, monitoring centers function as the nerve center of retail security operations. Equipped with cutting-edge technology and real-time data feeds, these centers are primed to detect anomalies and respond swiftly to security breaches. Whether it's unauthorized access after hours, suspicious activity on the sales floor, or triggered alarm signals, professional monitoring ensures a proactive and coordinated response, minimizing the potential impact of security threats.

Harnessing Advanced Features and Functionality:

Staying ahead of the curve requires leveraging the latest advancements in surveillance technology and monitoring capabilities. Cloud-based video management systems afford stakeholders unprecedented flexibility and accessibility, enabling remote monitoring and management of surveillance feeds. Furthermore, AI-driven analytics empower surveillance systems to discern patterns, detect anomalies, and flag potential threats autonomously. This synergy of human oversight and technological prowess enhances the efficacy of retail security measures, ensuring a robust defense against evolving threats.

Tailored Solutions for Optimal Protection:

Recognizing that every retail environment is unique, security experts collaborate closely with business owners to devise tailored security solutions. Through meticulous site assessments and risk analyses, security professionals identify vulnerabilities and develop customized strategies to address them. From the strategic placement of surveillance cameras to the implementation of access control measures, every aspect of the security infrastructure is optimized to maximize protection while minimizing disruption to daily operations. By adopting a proactive and holistic approach to security, retailers can create a safe and secure environment that instills confidence in customers and employees alike.

Conclusion:

Prioritizing security is not just a matter of compliance but a strategic imperative. By harnessing the power of retail surveillance systems with professional alarm monitoring, retailers can fortify their defenses against a myriad of security threats. From theft and vandalism to unauthorized access and emergencies, proactive security measures play a pivotal role in safeguarding assets and ensuring the safety of all stakeholders. As technology continues to evolve and threats become increasingly sophisticated, investing in robust security infrastructure remains a cornerstone of retail success.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Amazon's bestselling "bitter lemon" energy drink was bottled delivery driver piss

Today (Oct 20), I'm in Charleston, WV at Charleston's Taylor Books from 12h-14h.

For a brief time this year, the bestselling "bitter lemon drink" on Amazon was "Release Energy," which consisted of the harvested urine of Amazon delivery drivers, rebottled for sale by Catfish UK prankster Oobah Butler in a stunt for a new Channel 4 doc, "The Great Amazon Heist":

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-amazon-heist

Collecting driver piss is surprisingly easy. Amazon, you see, puts its drivers on a quota that makes it impossible for them to drive safely, park conscientiously, or, indeed, fulfill their basic human biological needs. Amazon has long waged war on its employees' kidneys, marking down warehouse workers for "time off task" when they visit the toilets.

As tales of drivers pissing – and shitting! – in their vans multiplied, Amazon took decisive action. The company enacted a strict zero tolerance policy for drivers returning to the depot with bottles of piss in their vans.

That's where Butler comes in: the roads leading to Amazon delivery depots are lined with bottles of piss thrown out of delivery vans by drivers who don't want to lose their jobs, which made harvesting the raw material for "Release Energy" a straightforward matter.

Butler was worried that he wouldn't be able to list his product on Amazon because he didn't have the requisite "food and drinks licensing" certificates, so he listed his drink in Amazon's refillable pump dispenser category. But Amazon's systems detected the mismatch and automatically shifted the product into the drinks section.

Butler enlisted some confederates to place orders for his drink, and it quickly rocketed to the top of Amazon's listings for the category, which led to Amazon's recommendation engine pushing the item on people who weren't in on the gag. When these orders came in, Butler pulled the plug, but not before an Amazon rep telephoned him to pitch him turning packaging, shipping and fulfillment over to Amazon:

https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-let-its-drivers-urine-be-sold-as-an-energy-drink/

The Release Energy prank was just one stunt Butler pulled for his doc; he also went undercover at an Amazon warehouse, during a period when Amazon hired an extra 1,000 workers for its warehouses in Coventry, UK, in a successful bid to dilute pro-union sentiment in his workforce in advance of a key union vote:

https://jacobin.com/2023/10/the-great-amazon-heist-oobah-butler-review

Butler's stint as an Amazon warehouse worker only lasted a couple of days, ending when Amazon recognized him and fired him.

The contrast between Amazon's ability to detect an undercover reporter and its inability to spot bottles of piss being marketed as bitter lemon energy drink says it all, really. Corporations like Amazon hire vast armies of "threat intelligence" creeps who LARP at being CIA superspies, subjecting employees and activists to intense and often illegal surveillance.

But while Amazon's defensive might is laser-focused on the threat of labor organizers and documentarians, the company can't figure out that one of its bestselling products is bottles of its tormented drivers' own urine.

In the USA, the FTC is suing Amazon for its monopolistic tactics, arguing that the company has found ways to raise prices and reduce quality by trapping manufacturers and sellers with its logistics operation, taking $0.45-$0.51 out of every dollar they earn and forcing them to raise prices at all retailers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

The Release Energy stunt shows where Amazon's priorities are. Not only did Release Energy get listed on Amazon without any quality checks, the company actually nudged it into a category where it was more likely to be consumed by a person. The only notice the company took of Release Energy was in its logistics and manufacturing department – the part of the business that extracts the monopoly rents at issue in the FTC case – which tracked Butler down in order to sell him these services.

The drivers whose piss Butler collected don't work directly for Amazon, they work for a Delivery Service Partner. These DSPs are victims of a pyramid scheme that Amazon set up. DSP operators lease vans and pay to have them skinned in Amazon livery and studded with Amazon sensors. They take out long-term leases on depots, and hire drivers who dress in Amazon uniforms. Their drivers are minutely monitored by Amazon, down to the movements of their eyeballs.

But none of this is "Amazon" – it's all run by an "entrepreneur," whom Amazon can cut loose without notice, leaving them with unfairly terminated employees, outstanding workers' comp claims, a fleet of Amazon-skinned vehicles and unbreakable facilities leases:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/17/revenge-of-the-chickenized-reverse-centaurs/

Speaking to Wired, Amazon denied that it forces its drivers to piss in bottles, but Butler clearly catches a DSP dispatcher telling drivers "If you pee in a bottle and leave it [in the vehicle], you will get a point for that" – that is, the part you get punished for isn't the peeing, it's the leaving.

Amazon's defense against the FTC is that it spares no effort to keep its marketplace safe. As Amazon spokesperson James Drummond says, they use "industry-leading tools to prevent genuinely unsafe products being listed." But the only industry-leading tools in evidence are tools to bust unions and screw suppliers.

In her landmark Yale Law Review paper, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," FTC Chair Lina Khan makes a brilliant argument that Amazon's alleged benefits to "consumers" are temporary at best, illusory at worst:

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox

In Butler's documentary, Khan's hypothesis is thoroughly validated: here's a company extracting hundreds of billions from merchants who raise prices to compensate, and those monopoly rents are "invested" in union-busting and countermeasures against investigative journalists, while the tools to keep you from accidentally getting a bottle of piss in the mail are laughably primitive.

Truly, Amazon is the apex predator of the platform era:

https://pluralistic.net/ApexPredator

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/20/release-energy/#the-bitterest-lemon

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

[amalgamasreal]

So I don't know how people on this app feel about the shit-house that is TikTok but in the US right now the ban they're trying to implement on it is a complete red herring and it needs to be stopped.

They are quite literally trying to implement Patriot Act 2.0 with the RESTRICT Act and using TikTok and China to scare the American public into buying into it wholesale when this shit will change the face of the internet. Here are some excerpts from what the bill would cover on the Infrastructure side:

SEC. 5. Considerations.

(a) Priority information and communications technology areas.—In carrying out sections 3 and 4, the Secretary shall prioritize evaluation of— (1) information and communications technology products or services used by a party to a covered transaction in a sector designated as critical infrastructure in Policy Directive 21 (February 12, 2013; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience);

(2) software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to telecommunications products and services, including— (A) wireless local area networks;

(B) mobile networks;

(C) satellite payloads;

(D) satellite operations and control;

(E) cable access points;

(F) wireline access points;

(G) core networking systems;

(H) long-, short-, and back-haul networks; or

(I) edge computer platforms;

(3) any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including— (A) internet hosting services;

(B) cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage;

(C) machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software;

(D) managed services; and

(E) content delivery services;

(4) internet- or network-enabled sensors, webcams, end-point surveillance or monitoring devices, modems and home networking devices if greater than 1,000,000 units have been sold to persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction;

(5) unmanned vehicles, including drones and other aerials systems, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles, or any other product or service integral to the provision, maintenance, or management of such products or services;

(6) software designed or used primarily for connecting with and communicating via the internet that is in use by greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including— (A) desktop applications;

(B) mobile applications;

(C) gaming applications;

(D) payment applications; or

(E) web-based applications; or

(7) information and communications technology products and services integral to— (A) artificial intelligence and machine learning;

(B) quantum key distribution;

(C) quantum communications;

(D) quantum computing;

(E) post-quantum cryptography;

(F) autonomous systems;

(G) advanced robotics;

(H) biotechnology;

(I) synthetic biology;

(J) computational biology; and

(K) e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces.

(b) Considerations relating to undue and unacceptable risks.—In determining whether a covered transaction poses an undue or unacceptable risk under section 3(a) or 4(a), the Secretary— (1) shall, as the Secretary determines appropriate and in consultation with appropriate agency heads, consider, where available— (A) any removal or exclusion order issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of National Intelligence pursuant to recommendations of the Federal Acquisition Security Council pursuant to section 1323 of title 41, United States Code;

(B) any order or license revocation issued by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to a transacting party, or any consent decree imposed by the Federal Trade Commission with respect to a transacting party;

(C) any relevant provision of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the respective supplements to those regulations;

(D) any actual or potential threats to the execution of a national critical function identified by the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency;

(E) the nature, degree, and likelihood of consequence to the public and private sectors of the United States that would occur if vulnerabilities of the information and communications technologies services supply chain were to be exploited; and

(F) any other source of information that the Secretary determines appropriate; and

(2) may consider, where available, any relevant threat assessment or report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence completed or conducted at the request of the Secretary.

Look at that, does that look like it just covers the one app? NO! This would cover EVERYTHING that so much as LOOKS at the internet from the point this bill goes live.

It gets worse though, you wanna see what the penalties are?

(b) Civil penalties.—The Secretary may impose the following civil penalties on a person for each violation by that person of this Act or any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization issued under this Act: (1) A fine of not more than $250,000 or an amount that is twice the value of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed, whichever is greater. (2) Revocation of any mitigation measure or authorization issued under this Act to the person. (c) Criminal penalties.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. (2) CIVIL FORFEITURE.— (A) FORFEITURE.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, used or intended to be used, in any manner, to commit or facilitate a violation or attempted violation described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States. (ii) PROCEEDS.—Any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, constituting or traceable to the gross proceeds taken, obtained, or retained, in connection with or as a result of a violation or attempted violation described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States. (B) PROCEDURE.—Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, relating to civil forfeitures, except that such duties as are imposed on the Secretary of Treasury under the customs laws described in section 981(d) of title 18, United States Code, shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General. (3) CRIMINAL FORFEITURE.— (A) FORFEITURE.—Any person who is convicted under paragraph (1) shall, in addition to any other penalty, forfeit to the United States— (i) any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, used or intended to be used, in any manner, to commit or facilitate the violation or attempted violation of paragraph (1); and (ii) any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, constituting or traceable to the gross proceeds taken, obtained, or retained, in connection with or as a result of the violation. (B) PROCEDURE.—The criminal forfeiture of property under this paragraph, including any seizure and disposition of the property, and any related judicial proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsections (a) and (d) of that section.

You read that right, you could be fined up to A MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for knowingly violating the restrict act, so all those people telling you to "just use a VPN" to keep using TikTok? Guess what? That falls under the criminal guidelines of this bill and they're giving you some horrible fucking advice.

Also, VPN's as a whole, if this bill passes, will take a goddamn nose dive in this country because they are another thing that will be covered in this bill.

They chose the perfect name for it, RESTRICT, because that's what it's going to do to our freedoms in this so called "land of the free".

Please, if you are a United States citizen of voting age reach out to your legislature and tell them you do not want this to pass and you will vote against them in the next primary if it does. This is a make or break moment for you if you're younger. Do not allow your generation to suffer a second Patriot Act like those of us that unfortunately allowed for the first one to happen.

And if you support this, I can only assume you're delusional or a paid shill, either way I hope you rot in whatever hell you believe in.

[covid-safer-hotties]

9 Places You're Most Likely to Catch COVID as Summer Wave Surges - Published Aug 19, 2024

The answer "damn near everywhere people go" may shock you.

COVID’s surge shows no sign of slowing down as the biggest summer wave in two years continues. In fact, COVID levels are “very high” in 27 states, according to the CDC’s wastewater data. “Currently, the COVID-19 wastewater viral activity level is very high nationally, with the highest levels in the Western US region,” Dr. Jonathan Yoder, deputy director of the CDC’s Wastewater Surveillance Program, said to CNN. “This year’s COVID-19 wave is coming earlier than last year, which occurred in late August/early September.” Fortunately, death rates and hospitalization rates are nothing like they were during previous waves due to greater immunity and vaccines. But catching COVID still comes with risks, including LONG COVID, which can result in chronic, debilitating illness. So how do you stay safe? Use caution before entering these nine places you’re most likely to catch COVID now, as the summer wave surges.

Crowded indoor events COVID spreads primarily through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes, talks, or breathes, especially in close-contact settings or poorly ventilated areas. “People who are higher risk for getting very sick from COVID-19 should consider taking extra precautions for the next few weeks, like limiting time in crowded indoor settings or wearing a mask in crowded indoor settings. People rarely get COVID-19 outdoors, so outdoor events remain quite safe,” say the experts at the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.

Airports, airplanes and public transportation Given the COVID rates right now, the CDC urges travelers to “get up to date with your COVID-19 vaccines before you travel and take steps to protect yourself and others. Consider wearing a mask in crowded or poorly ventilated indoor areas, including on public transportation and in transportation hubs. Take additional precautions if you were recently exposed to a person with COVID-19. Don’t travel while sick.” They go even further for certain folks: “If you have a weakened immune system or are at increased risk for severe disease, talk to a healthcare professional before you decide to travel. If you travel, take multiple prevention steps to provide additional layers of protection from COVID-19, even if you are up to date with your COVID-19 vaccines. These include improving ventilation and spending more time outdoors, avoiding sick people, getting tested for COVID-19 if you develop symptoms, staying home if you have or think you have COVID-19, and seeking treatment if you have COVID-19.”

Shopping malls Studies are just now coming out with an analysis of what happened during the height of the pandemic. Although times are different now, these results can be instructive. For example, one study published in April 2024 “examines the transmission of COVID-19 through casual contact in retail stores using data from Denmark. By matching card payment data with COVID-19 test results, researchers tracked over 100,000 instances where infected individuals made purchases in stores. They found that customers exposed to an infected person in the same store within a 5-minute window had a significantly higher infection rate in the following week. The study concludes that retail store transmissions contributed notably to the spread of COVID-19, particularly during the period when the Omicron variant was dominant.”

Religious gatherings The transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus during religious events has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a communal gathering in which people, well, commune. “The smallest SARS-CoV-2 droplets can remain airborne and travel farther than six feet. The scientific community does not agree upon what is a ‘safe distance,’ but standing near an infectious person is riskier than standing farther away,” says the AMA. Additionally, “the amount of virus a person is exposed to can influence the chance of infection and the severity; consequently, staying in one place for a longer time creates a higher risk of infection.”

Movie theaters The box office is back, as hits like Deadpool & Wolverine, It Ends With Us, and Alien: Romulus pack them in after a few dark pandemic years of low attendance, the rare Barbenheimer proving the exception to the rule. For movie buffs, it’s a thrill. But check your theater’s ventilation before lining up around the block. One study published this year “investigates the risk factors for COVID-19 transmission during an outbreak in a movie theater in Incheon, South Korea, in November 2021. It involved 48 confirmed cases, primarily among theater attendees, with a high attack rate of 84.8% during one screening. The study found that inadequate ventilation and close proximity among audience members were key contributors to the spread of the virus despite most attendees being fully vaccinated. The study emphasizes the importance of proper ventilation in enclosed spaces like theaters to prevent airborne transmission of COVID-19.”

Healthcare facilities “Some hospitals across the United States are reinstating indoor masking rules amid rising cases and hospitalizations of respiratory illnesses including COVID-19 and influenza,” reported ABC News earlier this year. "Ultimately, health systems, hospitals, places that deliver care are going to see some of the most vulnerable and at-risk individuals -- many, with underlying conditions," Dr. John Brownstein, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children's Hospital and an ABC News contributor, told the network. "Those are especially the places where we want to protect individuals, and so when we have this rapid rise in respiratory illness, those are going to be the first places to try to use measures to reduce chances of transmission, both to protect patients, those receiving care, as well as workforce."

Gyms and fitness studios Common sense will tell you transmission of an airborne disease may increase the more frequently people breathe in and out—as you might do at the gym. One “study looked at the number of aerosol particles 16 people exhaled at rest and during workouts. These tiny bits of airborne matter — measuring barely a few hundred micrometers in diameter, or about the width of a strand of hair, and suspended in mist from our lungs — can transmit coronavirus if someone is infected, ferrying the virus lightly through the air from one pair of lungs to another,” reported the New York Times during the pandemic. “The study found that, at rest, the men and women breathed out about 500 particles per minute. But when they exercised, that total soared 132-fold, topping out above 76,000 particles per minute, on average, during the most strenuous exertion.”

Bars and Nightclubs Just when some of us wanted to drink the most, bars were verboten during the height of the pandemic. There was a good reason to use caution. One study published last year “analyzed over 44,000 COVID-19 cases in Tokyo in 2020, focusing on transmission in various settings, including healthcare and nightlife venues like bars and nightclubs. It found that nightlife settings were more likely to involve clusters of five or more infections and were more likely to lead to further spread compared to other settings. The highest case-fatality rate was observed in healthcare settings. The findings suggest that targeting interventions in nightlife venues could be crucial for controlling COVID-19 transmission, especially during the early stages of an outbreak.”

Restaurants and cafés Last year, the Washington Post asked virus experts if they’d eat in restaurants. Joanna Dolgoff, a pediatrician and spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, offered an answer that may be a decent North Star for you today. “At this time, I will continue to eat in restaurants as long as they are well-ventilated and not overly crowded. If somebody near me shows signs of illness, I will be prepared to leave immediately. If covid cases continue to spike and if illness becomes more severe, I will stop eating inside restaurants until cases subside,” she said.

[gaysails]

"If low-wage workers do not always behave in an economically rational way, that is, as free agents within a capitalist democracy, it is because they dwell in a place that is neither free nor in any way democratic. When you enter the low-wage workplace – and many of the medium-wage workplaces as well – you check your civil liberties at the door, leave America and all it supposedly stands for behind, and learn to zip your lips for the duration of the shift. The consequences of this routine surrender go beyond the issues of wages and poverty. We can hardly pride ourselves on being the world's preeminent democracy, after all, if large numbers of citizens spend half their waking hours in what amounts, in plain terms, to a dictatorship. . . My guess is that the indignities imposed on so many low-wage workers – the drug tests, the constant surveillance, being 'reamed out' by managers – are part of what keeps wages low. If you're made to feel unworthy enough, you may come to think that what you're paid is what you are actually worth. It is hard to imagine any other function for workplace authoritarianism. Managers may truly believe that, without their unremitting efforts, all work would quickly grind to a halt. That is not my impression. While I encountered some cynics and plenty of people who had learned how to budget their energy, I never met an actual slacker [. . .] On the contrary, I was amazed and sometimes saddened by the pride people took in jobs that rewarded them so meagerly, either in wages or in recognition. Often, in fact, these people experienced management as an obstacle to getting the job done as it should be done. Waitresses chafed at managers' stinginess toward the customers; housecleaners resented the time constraints that sometimes made them cut corners; retail workers wanted the floor to be beautiful, not cluttered with excess stock as management required. Left to themselves, they devised systems of cooperation and work sharing; when there was a crisis, they rose to it. In fact, it was often hard to see what the function of management was, other than to exact obeisance. There seems to be a vicious cycle at work here, making ours not just an economy but a culture of extreme inequality. [Corporate decision makers and entrepreneurs] occupy an economic position miles above that of the underpaid people whose labor they depend on. For reasons that have more to do with class – and often racial – prejudice than with actual experience, they tend to fear and distrust the category of people from which they recruit their workers. Hence the perceived need for repressive management and intrusive measures like drug and personality testing. But these things cost money – $20,000 or more a year for a manager, $100 a pop for a drug test, and so on – and the high cost of repression results in ever more pressure to hold wages down. The larger society seems to be caught up in a similar cycle: cutting public services for the poor, which are sometimes referred to collectively as the 'social wage,' while investing ever more heavily in prisons and cops. And in the larger society, too, the cost of repression becomes another factor weighing against the expansion or restoration of needed services. It is a tragic cycle, condemning us to ever deeper inequality, and in the long run, almost no one benefits but the agents of repression themselves."

-Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

[anarchywoofwoof]

here's the thing: you've heard "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" but i'd like to propose another sentiment that i feel: ethical employers under capitalism are as prevalent as ethical consumption.

i have worked for three companies. each of them have been extremely unique from the last. i initially worked in retail. then i worked for a call center. now i work in technology.

when i worked in retail, i saw how money and commerce and consumerism affects society. i saw the physical effects of capitalism on your body; managers who were in their 40s looking like they're in their 60s.. yeah, 20 years of retail will do that to you. i saw waste, i saw egregious labor violations, i saw regular people just flat out not get paid for work they did. work i watched them do. all because someone didn't put their punches in a timesheet. i worked in hr during this time, so i saw the truth about how hr is not on the side of the worker and is, in fact, an arm of the shareholders.

then i worked in a call center environment. and i saw the effect that capitalism has on the mind. the psychological warfare of an employer with over 100% attrition, the churn and burn of call center work. the dehumanizing feeling of being absolutely trashed by a drunk person or called slurs and knowing if you hang up, you lose your job. the constant surveillance state that monitors every website, every phone call, every movement you make.

now in technology, i see the The Emperor Has No Clothes. a facade of better wages, better benefits - but only if you're willing to sacrifice your every free minute, every second to the machine. and if you don't, you're cast as an outsider; someone who doesn't want to succeed and move up the ladder and grow. and i've seen that technology in the wrong hands is more harmful than the benefits of technology to a society by a magnitude. and i've seen the absolute terror that private investment eventually has on good, equitable and decent corporations. corporations with leadership that ultimately, in the end, settle on the billions of dollars in payouts over their worker's lives.

private investment companies are just one way that capitalism is eroding the fabric of the american workplace. offshoring, cutting costs to the bare bones and then flipping the company from private to public and making an absolute killing. constant stock buybacks, investing only in the future of their own capital. it's a smash and grab. the victims are the american taxpayer and the american worker.

the truth is that if you find an equitable, fair employer, they will eventually outgrow themselves. corporations are small scale capitalist experiments. success breeds massive growth, out of control, until the system topples or is razed for it's resources.

i'm not saying there's no ethical employment under capitalism but as the days pass, the truth is that unless you are working for a bonafide and vetted non-profit organization, that reality is that boasting you have an "ethical" employer is often going to be a short term claim. capitalism will seep in and poison your employer the moment that the profit motive appears too delicious to deny.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Two Democratic U.S. senators announced Thursday they plan to introduce a piece of legislation that would require large companies to disclose quota practices to workers and prevent those quotas from interfering with a worker’s health.

“The Warehouse Worker Protection Act would put an end to the most dangerous quotas that plague warehouses,” Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a sponsor of the bill, said.

There is no published bill text yet.

Markey said the bill would require companies to notify workers of the quotas they need to meet and ban quotas that rely on 24/7 surveillance or are likely to lead to violations of health and safety laws. He added that companies that don’t comply would be investigated by the Department of Labor and could face fines and penalties.

INJURIES AT AMAZON

Markey was joined outside the U.S. Capitol by workers who shared their stories of being injured on the job at Amazon warehouses, along with Democratic Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith and Sean O’Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Smith said that big companies like Amazon care about “efficiency and cost savings and maximizing their profits.”

“They’re experiencing record profits at the same time that the people whose labor they are earning profits on the backs (of), are experiencing completely unacceptable levels of injuries,” she said.

The speakers singled out Amazon for quota practices that endanger workers, though Markey said the Seattle-based e-retail giant is not the only company that engages in a quota system that harms workers.

“Amazon may be at the front of the pack with an injury rate double the national average, but the rest of the big warehousing companies are close behind,” he said.

Some of Amazon’s quota practices include constant monitoring to measure how many items a worker scans, with automatic flags for workers below a certain percentile, and monitoring how long employees take on bathroom breaks and other “time off task,” according to a Thursday report by the National Employment Law Project.

The Amazon warehouse injury rate is “twice that of the private-sector average for all industries and tens of thousands of warehouse workers each year experience serious injuries requiring medical treatment,” according to the report.

O’Brien said that Amazon’s business model “pushes workers to the brink and creates a culture of fear.”

“Warehouses can be very dangerous places to work if safety isn’t made a priority,” he said.

Wendy Taylor, an Amazon worker in Missouri who is organizing for a union, was injured at work in March.

“I was injured at work because of Amazon’s inhumane work rates, because of the exhausting pace in the physical work me and my coworkers do,” she said.

Taylor said she fell and hurt her knee, but when she went to the company medical center, she said “they (refused) to let me see a doctor when I asked, sending me back to work.”

She eventually went to her own doctor, who diagnosed her with a torn meniscus in her knee.

“This experience (shows) how hard it is to get timely, adequate medical treatment from a company that breaks down my body and speeds up my aging for shareholder profits,” she said.

In a written statement, a spokesperson for Amazon pushed back against some of the comments from senators, including claims that workers lack adequate bathroom breaks and see fixed performance quotas.

“It’s a common misperception that Amazon has fixed quotas, but we do not,” the spokesperson said. “Our Time Logged In policy assesses whether employees are actually working while they’re logged in at their station. Our employees can see their own performance at any time and can talk to their manager if they’re having trouble finding the information.”

The spokesperson also said claims that the injury rate at Amazon is double the industry standard are misleading.

“Many large companies that should be included in these comparisons—companies like Walmart, Target and Costco—report almost all of their injuries under different OSHA reporting categories,” the spokesperson said.

Brian Wild, a spokesperson for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, said in a statement that the industry group does not support the bill, arguing that it could lead to delays and price hikes.

“The bill includes provisions that inappropriately tip the scales to union bosses at the expense of employees and employers by inviting labor organizations to participate in investigations, essentially granting union leaders access to potentially coerce or harass worksites under the guise of ‘worker safety,’” Wild said.

SEEKING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

Markey said there is bipartisan support in the Senate for the bill, as well as the House.

“We just want to build this out,” Markey said. “It should not be a Democrat or Republican thing, it’s a worker safety bill.”

A warehouse protection law went into effect in Minnesota last year, but advocates have raised concerns that Amazon is not complying with the law.

Several other states, including California, New York, Oregon and Washington, have passed legislation similar to what Markey and Smith are proposing.

[cyberpunkonline]

The Cyberpunk Genre: From Fiction to Reality

The Real-World Cyberpunk Narrative

In the realm of science fiction, the cyberpunk genre has long captivated audiences with its vision of a high-tech, low-life future. Cyberpunk, a subgenre that emerged in the early 1980s, combines advanced technology with a layer of dystopian elements, often exploring themes of artificial intelligence, cybernetics, corporate hegemony, and social decay. However, what once seemed a distant future is now becoming a striking reflection of our present reality.

The Cyberpunk Reality of Modern Corporations

As we delve into the corporate world, the parallels between cyberpunk narratives and current events become strikingly clear. This article examines the activities of major corporations like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, SpaceX, and OpenAI, highlighting instances that resonate with cyberpunk themes.

"Google: The Digital Panopticon"

Google, with its vast array of services, has created a digital ecosystem that closely resembles the omnipresent corporations in cyberpunk lore. The company's foray into various sectors, from search engines to smart home devices, has raised concerns about privacy invasion and data control, reminiscent of cyberpunk's surveillance-heavy societies.

"Microsoft: The Silicon Overlord"

Microsoft's dominance in the software industry, particularly with its Windows operating system and Office suite, mirrors the cyberpunk trope of a corporation wielding enormous power over everyday technology. The company's expansion into cloud computing and AI further cements its status as a tech giant with a reach that extends into the very fabric of digital life.

"Amazon: The Corporate Colossus"

Amazon's transformation from an online bookstore to a retail and technology behemoth aligns with cyberpunk's portrayal of mega-corporations that transcend traditional industry boundaries. The company's ventures into cloud computing, AI, and even space travel through its Blue Origin subsidiary evoke images of a corporation with almost limitless ambition and resources.

"SpaceX: Architects of the Starbound Future"

SpaceX, under the leadership of Elon Musk, brings to life the cyberpunk fascination with space exploration and privatization. The company's ambitious projects, including the colonization of Mars and satellite internet services, embody the cyberpunk vision of pushing humanity's boundaries, both technologically and geographically.

"OpenAI: The AI Enigma"

OpenAI, known for its groundbreaking work in AI, reflects cyberpunk's preoccupation with the potential and dangers of artificial intelligence. The development of advanced AI models and their applications in various fields raise questions about the future of human-AI interaction, a central theme in many cyberpunk narratives.

Industrial Espionage: A Cyberpunk Reality

The world of industrial espionage, a staple in cyberpunk plots, is no stranger to these tech giants. The competitive nature of the technology industry, driven by the race for innovation and market dominance, has led to numerous instances of data breaches, intellectual property theft, and corporate spying. These incidents underscore the darker aspects of the corporate world, mirroring the intrigue and deception often found in cyberpunk stories.

Cyberpunk Tropes in the Modern World

Several broad tropes characteristic of the cyberpunk genre are increasingly relevant today:

Technological Advancements vs. Societal Decay: The stark contrast between cutting-edge technology and societal challenges, such as income inequality and privacy concerns, is a recurring theme in both cyberpunk fiction and the modern world.

Corporate Power and Influence: The immense power wielded by mega-corporations, often at the expense of individual freedoms and government authority, is a reality in both the cyberpunk genre and today's corporate landscape.

Ethical Dilemmas of AI and Cybernetics: The ethical and philosophical questions surrounding artificial intelligence, cybernetics, and human enhancement are as pertinent in real life as they are in cyberpunk narratives.

Conclusion: Cyberpunk as a Now Genre

As we examine these parallels, it becomes evident that cyberpunk is no longer a genre fixated on a near future. The themes, concerns, and narratives central to cyberpunk are increasingly manifesting in our current reality. The once speculative fiction has transformed into a lens through which we can view and understand the complexities and challenges of our high-tech, corporate-dominated world. Cyber is no longer a near future genre. It's a now genre.

- Raz

[irlwakko]

OKAY my thoughts on the punishments that Mal gave all of the alters in Total Drama All Stars! Because @fraudulent-cheese asked and I've been waiting YEARS for someone to ask me about my theories!

(Disclaimer: I know the writers probably didn't put this much thought into this. I know that I'm being one of Those Total Drama fans and I categorically Don't Care because I have so much fun thinking about this.)

The reason I use the word "punishments" first of all is that 1. I need an easy name to call them to group them all together and 2. I do genuinely believe these are punishments Mal gives the alters as revenge for forcing him into dormancy. Because I ALSO think that Mal scaled them to how much he hated/blamed that particular alter.

(As an aside, there's a LOT to be said about Mal spending a formative period of time in juvie and then modeling his punishment for the alters after a jail, as Manitoba says. I wish we knew more about Mal's time in juvie so I could talk about this more.)

The first person we see is Mike, who's just all alone surrounded by (it seems like) miles and miles of nothingness. And I think his punishment is the worst, but we'll circle back to him.

Chester's punishment is really obvious: he's stuck selling skateboards because it's a symbol of the youth nowadays, which he absolutely hates. There's also something to be said for the fact that Chester's working a retail job, wherein you have to be constantly standing, and we know Mal took away Chester's mobility aid (which he had in the innerworld in Season 4 and did not have in Season 5). He probably didn't think Chester was capable of escape, but also put him in a position where he'd eventually become so physically incapacitated that he COULDN'T escape.

And ALSO, to skip ahead a little (sorry I have a lot of thoughts on this), Mal knew that even if everyone began to escape, Chester's legs would give out long before they reached the tower (which requires five people to enter). Mal was counting on the assumption that the others would leave Chester behind once he became unable to walk (more on this later!)

Second up is Svetlana, and though I don't know why Mal picked fish, I know why he picked butter: simple, because Svetlana's a gymnast. You can't do gymnastics if your hands are covered in butter. Being unable to do gymnastics would not only physically incapacitate her but also completely demoralize her. More than the physical impediment, the hopelessness of the situation would keep her from escape. I also think the reason he kept Svetlana under such close surveillance (the ears everywhere) was because he knew he might need physical control of her in the future (which we see when he forces her to co-front in order to fight off Alejandro).

Third is Vito, and Vito is my FAVORITE of these because his "punishment" isn't a punishment at all. It plays to all of his strengths! We already know that Vito loves attention; he would love to perform. Secondly, it's obvious by his reaction to his own joke that he REALLY enjoys cheesy jokes. Third-- and this is where I go from reaching to REALLY reaching, but bear with me-- in a very literal sense, Mal chose Vito as the mouthpiece through which he can speak to the rest of the system (the puppet is the only way we see Mal communicate with the alters, outside of the mirror he uses to talk to Mike, and only once).

Also, on rewatching the full scene to write this post, I wanna say two things I noticed: first, Vito seems... not all that surprised that the puppet can talk. He does clarify that he "didn't say nothin'" after puppet-Mal starts to talk, but he's mostly startled that it flew into the air and caught on fire. Everyone screams in terror when the puppet starts talking except Vito. Maybe Mal communicated more with Vito than we saw on camera. Mal must sleep, but we never see him sleeping, so it could totally happen then (<- completely delusional). And second, especially compared to everyone else, Vito doesn't seem all that enthusiastic. His exact words are "Woah, uh, sure" (in comparison to Chester's "I'm with ya", Svetlana's "hoorah!", and Manitoba's "took ya long enough"). It seems like he mostly just follows along because that's where his "audience" is going and also because he wants to find the club district.

So finally Manitoba! It seems like, besides Mal, Manitoba's the alter who feels the most animosity towards Mike, so it's understandable that he'd give Manitoba the job of destroying Mike's dreams (besides the fact Manitoba has lasso skills, I also think any other alter would probably refuse.) (Also, I think Manitoba's the gatekeeper/dreamkeeper/etc. of the system, so he'd be the one with easiest access to the dreams, but all the reasons I think THAT is a different essay for a different day.)

Also, like Vito, Manitoba's "punishment" actually plays to his strengths instead of to his dislikes and weaknesses, so like Vito, I think Mal doesn't feel too much hatred towards Manitoba either. Also understandable! Because it seems like Manitoba has a lot of the same criticisms of the system's inner workings as Mal does.

So what ARE the criticisms Mal has? They show through at the very start and very end of the journey-- how Mal punishes Mike, and how Mal sets up the guard tower.

(By the way, just for the record, I HATE the reset button. But for this post, let's accept the reset button as canon fact.)

The system has been Mike's coping mechanism and support system for as long as Mike can remember. And as much as Mike hates to admit it pre-season-5, he DOES need them. In Season 4, he got through situations that would've been impossible for him to navigate without Vito and beat challenges that would've been impossible to surmount without Svetlana and Manitoba (and he loves Chester too, even if he isn't always the most outwardly useful). That's not even to mention the emotional support (as shown by Svetlana's "Mike is the best" pep talk in Season 5) that he probably received from them over the years as well. As much as he hated them, they're so important to him.

The worst possible punishment Mal can inflict is cutting off all of his access to that support system.

To be fair, he did this to all the other alters too. But for Mike, it was the only thing he did. He felt that taking Mike away from the alters on its own would be enough to incapacitate and demoralize him. And he probably knew that it would prove a point-- you need them. You need us. And now it's too late.

But keep this in mind-- when Mal went into dormancy, he left behind a system that was constantly fighting amongst itself for control, that couldn't agree on anything (except for getting rid of him), and was bickering every time they interacted. So this is the lens that Mal constructs his prison with.

He doesn't count on the system working together! What he hopes for is that, even if one of them managed to escape, they 1. wouldn't bother looking for the others and would try to do everything themselves, which would leave them shut out of the tower, and 2. even once they did realize they needed to gather up everyone else, they would be too distracted by infighting to actually do anything to take him down.

And that's probably what season 4 Mike-- the Mike that Mal knew-- would've tried to do. He wasn't counting on the fact that the system would now be working towards functional multiplicity by the time he came out of dormancy! And it caused them to defeat him much sooner than he would've anticipated.

(Quick note: I know integration =/= death in DID, but I used the term "kill" here in some places because I feel like that's how Mal would view it. Literally none of this has anything to do with accurate DID because Total Drama is so so inaccurate and the absolute worst.)

Also, here's a theory I like: I don't think Mal would've just built a self-destruct button on his own life. He wouldn't build a button capable of killing him and then put it in a place where someone else could access it, even if the chances (in his mind) of them accessing it would be really remote. So I think the button was set up in such a way that whoever pressed it would become the core. It wasn't truly intended to be used by anyone except Mal. It was a final failsafe measure. Even if the system managed to work together long enough to free each other, reach the tower, and ascend the stairs, Mal was hoping that-- upon realizing that this button could give any of them the life they so desperately wanted as of pre-Season-4, and that if anyone but them pressed it, it would kill them-- the alters would return to squabbling, fighting for their lives, for long enough for Mal to intercede and ultimately take control. Just like Mal never counted on them working towards functional multiplicity, he also never counted on them being able to agree upon integration.

Why didn't Mal just press the button at the first opportunity? I don't know. Dramatic villainous timing? Lingering feelings of affection for the other alters? Perchance.

Anyway. I know TDAS is a horribly written season in literally every other aspect, and also that the writers probably didn't put THIS level of thought into things, but I read too deep into Total Drama as a hobby so I will be putting this much thought into it forever and ever and ever. :)

[saintetheldreda]

so in new perspective noah kahan sings

"oh, this town's for the record now

the intersection's got a target, and theyre calling it downtown"

read something in a book yesterday that made me think of this lyric did you know target is actually notoriously one of the business that is the most closely tied to working with law enforcement via surveillance data from people's credit card purchases. its something really unique and unusual about it. according to my book the vice president of target nathan garvis has proudly declared he realised tracking criminals "was really an inventory-management problem." oof!!! it donates loads of data to government databases, makes ties between its employees and law enforcement agencies, provides money to prosecutors, owns one of america's top forensic labs. which is a really really frightening manifestation of surveillance capitalism - a retailer allied with government, capitalism allied with control

and idk man not saying this was intentional cause noah probably just wanted a rhyme with "closet" lol but reading it made me so sad. and immediately scribble "this town's for the record now" in the margins cause like. imagine youre the guy from stick season you try to run away from the world cause the thing you fear most is being seen only to find out theres not really a place for individuality in this world anymore. whoever you are when youre on your own and no one is watching is not really wanted. no matter where you go, youre always performing, youre always held up to standards that are not your own, youre never just you

not to take the side of the character in this song completely cause obviously the song in a lot of ways is about how problematic his attitude is to things, cause hes shutting off from the world, but like. i also feel so sad for him cause you look around at the world and you can really understand why he did it. and i wish we lived in a world that didnt make people feel that way

and i love new perspective so much cause its both a beautifully personal song and also something that really captures the mood of current times. an internet age where were looking around a world where local community ties are eroded more and more and were all just funneled into the same spotlight. the same ideals the same standards the same toxic paradigms the same perspective. we dont look at each other through each others eyes anymore, its just through the same harsh camera lens of cctv or surveillance or social media or whatever. and we cant remember who we are anymore, we forget how to be individuals

its like in no complaints, this target surveillance capitalism really speaks to what it is to trade personal selfhood away in the name of safety - "i filled the hole in my head with prescription medication then forgot who to cry, who am i, who am i to complain?"

(notice the repetition of "who am i" - he forgets to ask the question that is really important to him, "who am i," halfway through asking it, cause he gets distracted by a culture that capitalises on fear pressing you to ask "am i safe? am i safe? am i safe?" to control you; to sell you home security systems and bogus diet plans and health scares or forward policies to collect your credit card data to erode your freedoms)

[securens-systems]

Unraveling the 9 Benefits of Security Camera Monitoring in Retail Stores

In today's ever-shifting retail environment, security has taken center stage for businesses seeking to safeguard their assets, customers, and reputation. One technological marvel that stands tall in the world of retail is the security camera. This unassuming device not only provides surveillance but also offers a plethora of advantages that are often overlooked. Let’s dive into the fascinating world of security camera monitoring in retail stores, each contributing to the overall success and safety of the business.

1. Enhanced Theft Deterrence:

Security cameras cast a watchful eye over the store, serving as a formidable deterrent to potential shoplifters and burglars. The mere presence of these cameras reminds individuals that they are being monitored, significantly reducing theft incidents. The latest technology even employs active deterrence mechanisms, further discouraging unauthorized activities.

2. Improved Customer Safety:

Customers frequenting retail stores are entitled to a safe shopping experience. Security cameras contribute significantly to this aspect by monitoring the premises for any safety concerns. These cameras can identify and respond swiftly to incidents such as slip-and-falls, ensuring prompt assistance and peace of mind for shoppers.

3. Employee Accountability:

A well-placed security camera system fosters a culture of accountability among employees. It discourages internal theft, misconduct, or negligence, as staff members are aware that their actions are under constant scrutiny. Such transparency benefits both the business and the workforce.

4. Reduced Inventory Shrinkage:

Retailers grapple with inventory shrinkage due to theft, mismanagement, or errors. Security cameras play a pivotal role in monitoring inventory, minimizing losses, and reducing shrinkage. Modern systems employ video analytics to pinpoint discrepancies and improve inventory control.

5. Evidence for Investigations:

When incidents occur, security camera footage becomes invaluable evidence for investigations. High-quality video can help identify suspects and provide critical details to law enforcement. Countless criminal cases have been solved thanks to the watchful eyes of these cameras.

6. Operational Efficiency:

Security cameras go beyond safety; they enhance operational efficiency. By analyzing camera data, retailers can optimize store layouts, staffing levels, and inventory management. These insights lead to cost savings and better customer service.

7. Remote Monitoring and Management:

The advent of technology allows for remote monitoring and management of security cameras. Retailers and managers can access live feeds and receive alerts from anywhere, ensuring real-time responses to potential threats or issues. This convenience is a game-changer in retail security.

8. Compliance and Regulatory Requirements:

Adhering to compliance and regulatory requirements is crucial for any retail business. Security camera systems assist in meeting these obligations by capturing necessary footage and maintaining records. Ensuring compliance not only mitigates legal risks but also fosters trust among customers.

9. Customer Insights and Analytics:

Modern security cameras offer more than surveillance; they provide valuable customer insights and analytics. Heatmaps and behavior analysis help retailers understand customer preferences and shopping patterns. This data, when used intelligently, can lead to personalized customer experiences and improved marketing strategies.

Conclusion:

Security camera monitoring in retail stores is not merely about surveillance; it's about fostering a secure and efficient shopping environment while unlocking valuable insights. These nine benefits collectively underscore the significance of these silent guardians in the retail industry. As businesses continue to evolve, embracing cutting-edge security camera technology, including advanced retail surveillance systems, becomes a strategic imperative. Leveraging retail video surveillance systems ensures the safety of assets and customers alike.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

FTC vs surveillance pricing

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

In the mystical cosmology of economics, "prices" are of transcendental significance, the means by which the living market knows and adapts itself, giving rise to "efficient" production and consumption.

At its most basic level, the metaphysics of pricing goes like this: if there is less of something for sale than people want to buy, the seller will raise the price until enough buyers drop out and demand equals supply. If the disappointed would-be buyers are sufficiently vocal about their plight, other sellers will enter the market (bankrolled by investors who sense an opportunity), causing supplies to increase and prices to fall until the system is in "equilibrium" – producing things as cheaply as possible in precisely the right quantities to meet demand. In the parlance of neoclassical economists, prices aren't "set": they are discovered.

In antitrust law, there are many sins, but they often boil down to "price setting." That is, if a company has enough "market power" that they can dictate prices to their customers, they are committing a crime and should be punished. This is such a bedrock of neoclassical economics that it's a tautology "market power" exists where companies can "set prices"; and to "set prices," you need "market power."

Prices are the blood cells of the market, shuttling nutrients (in the form of "information") around the sprawling colony organism composed of all the buyers, sellers, producers, consumers, intermediaries and other actors. Together, the components of this colony organism all act on the information contained in the "price signals" to pursue their own self-interest. Each self-interested action puts more information into the system, triggering more action. Together, price signals and the actions they evince eventually "discover" the price, an abstraction that is yanked out of the immaterial plane of pure ideas and into our grubby, physical world, causing mines to re-open, shipping containers and pipelines to spark to life, factories to retool, trucks to fan out across the nation, retailers to place ads and hoist SALE banners over their premises, and consumers to race to those displays and open their wallets.

When prices are "distorted," all of this comes to naught. During the notorious "socialist calculation debate" of 1920s Austria, right-wing archdukes of religious market fundamentalism, like Von Hayek and Von Mises, trounced their leftist opponents, arguing that the market was the only computational system capable of calculating how much of each thing should be made, where it should be sent, and how much it should be sold for.

Attempts to "plan" the economy – say, by subsidizing industries or limiting prices – may be well-intentioned, but they broke the market's computations and produced haywire swings of both over- and underproduction. Later, the USSR's planned economy did encounter these swings. These were sometimes very grave (famines that killed millions) and sometimes silly (periods when the only goods available in regional shops were forks, say, creating local bubbles in folk art made from forks).

Unplanned markets do this too. Most notoriously, capitalism has produced a vast oversupply of carbon-intensive goods and processes, and a huge undersupply of low-carbon alternatives, bringing the human civilization to the brink of collapse. Not only have capitalism's price signals failed to address this existential crisis to humans, it has also sown the seeds of its own ruin – the market computer's not going to be getting any "price signals" from people as they drown in floods or roast to death on sidewalks that deliver second-degree burns to anyone who touches them:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91151209/extreme-heat-southwest-phoenix-surface-burns-scorching-pavement-sidewalks-pets

For market true believers, these failures are just evidence that regulation is distorting markets, and that the answer is more unregulated markets to infuse the computer with more price signals. When it comes to carbon, the problem is that producers are "producing negative externalities" (that is, polluting and sticking us with the bill). If we can just get them to "internalize" those costs, they will become "economically rational" and switch to low-carbon alternatives.

That's the theory behind the creation and sale of carbon credits. Rather than ordering companies to stop risking civilizational collapse and mass extinction, we can incentivize them to do so by creating markets that reward clean tech and punish dirty practices. The buying and selling of carbon credits is supposed to create price signals reflecting the existential risk to the human race and the only habitable planet known to our species, which the market will then "bring into equilibrium."

Unfortunately, reality has a distinct and unfair leftist bias. Carbon credits are a market for lemons. The carbon credits you buy to "offset" your car or flight are apt to come from a forest that has already burned down, or that had already been put in a perpetual trust as a wildlife preserve and could never be logged:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/18/greshams-carbon-law/#papal-indulgences

Carbon credits produce the most perverse outcomes imaginable. For example, much of Tesla's profitability has been derived from the sale of carbon credits to the manufacturers of the dirtiest, most polluting SUVs on Earth; without those Tesla credits, those SUVs would have been too expensive to sell, and would not have existed:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/24/no-puedo-pagar-no-pagara/#Rat

What's more, carbon credits aren't part of an "all of the above" strategy that incorporates direct action to prevent our species downfall. These market solutions are incompatible with muscular direct action, and if we do credits, we can't do other stuff that would actually work:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/31/carbon-upsets/#big-tradeoff

Even though price signals have repeatedly proven themselves to be an insufficient mechanism for producing "efficient" or even "survivable," they remain the uppermost spiritual value in the capitalist pantheon. Even through the last 40 years of unrelenting assaults on antitrust and competition law, the one form of corporate power that has remained both formally and practically prohibited is "pricing power."

That's why the DoJ was able to block tech companies and major movie studios from secretly colluding to suppress their employees' wages, and why those employees were able to get huge sums out of their employers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation

It's also why the Big Six (now Big Five) publishers and Apple got into so much trouble for colluding to set a floor on the price of ebooks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2012)

When it comes to monopoly, even the most Bork-pilled, Manne-poisoned federal judges and agencies have taken a hard line on price-fixing, because "distortions" of prices make the market computer crash.

But despite this horror of price distortions, America's monopolists have found so many ways to manipulate prices. Last month, The American Prospect devoted an entire issue to the many ways that monopolies and cartels have rigged the prices we pay, pushing them higher and higher, even as our wages stagnated and credit became more expensive:

https://prospect.org/pricing

For example, there's the plague of junk fees (AKA "drip pricing," or, if you're competing to be first up against the wall come the revolution, "ancillary revenue"), everything from baggage fees from airlines to resort fees at hotels to the fee your landlord charges if you pay your rent by check, or by card, or in cash:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/07/drip-drip-drip/#drip-off

There's the fake transparency gambit, so beloved of America's hospitals:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/13/a-punch-in-the-guts/#hayek-pilled

The "greedflation" that saw grocery prices skyrocketing, which billionaire grocery plutes blamed on covid stimulus checks, even as they boasted to their shareholders about their pricing power:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-12-war-in-the-aisles/

There's the the tens of billions the banks rake in with usurious interest rates, far in excess of the hikes to the central banks' prime rates (which are, in turn, justified in light of the supposed excesses of covid relief checks):

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-11-what-we-owe/

There are the scams that companies like Amazon pull with their user interfaces, tricking you into signing up for subscriptions or upsells, which they grandiosely term "dark patterns," but which are really just open fraud:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-10-one-click-economy/

There are "surge fees," which are supposed to tempt more producers (e.g. Uber drivers) into the market when demand is high, but which are really just an excuse to gouge you – like when Wendy's threatens to surge-price its hamburgers:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-07-urge-to-surge/

And then there's surveillance pricing, the most insidious and profitable way to jack up prices. At its core, surveillance pricing uses nonconsensually harvested private information to inform an algorithm that reprices the things you buy – from lattes to rent – in real-time:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/05/your-price-named/#privacy-first-again

Companies like Plexure – partially owned by McDonald's – boasts that it can use surveillance data to figure out what your payday is and then hike the price of the breakfast sandwich or after-work soda you buy every day.

Like every bad pricing practice, surveillance pricing has its origins in the aviation industry, which invested early on and heavily in spying on fliers to figure out how much they could each afford for their plane tickets and jacking up prices accordingly. Architects of these systems then went on to found companies like Realpage, a data-brokerage that helps landlords illegally collude to rig rent prices.

Algorithmic middlemen like Realpage and ATPCO – which coordinates price-fixing among the airlines – are what Dan Davies calls "accountability sinks." A cartel sends all its data to a separate third party, which then compares those prices and tells everyone how much to jack them up in order to screw us all:

https://profilebooks.com/work/the-unaccountability-machine/

These price-fixing middlemen are everywhere, and they predate the boom in commercial surveillance. For example, Agri-Stats has been helping meatpackers rig the price of meat for 40 years:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

But when you add commercial surveillance to algorithmic pricing, you get a hybrid more terrifying than any cocaine-sharks (or, indeed, meth-gators):

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-police-warn-locals-not-flush-drugs-fear-meth-gators-n1030291

Apologists for these meth-gators insist that surveillance pricing's true purpose is to let companies offer discounts. A streaming service can't afford to offer $0.99 subscriptions to the poor because then all the rich people would stop paying $19.99. But with surveillance pricing, every customer gets a different price, titrated to their capacity to pay, and everyone wins.

But that's not how it cashes out in the real world. In the real world, rich people who get ripped off have the wherewithal to shop around, complain effectively to a state AG, or punish companies by taking their business elsewhere. Meanwhile, poor people aren't just cash-poor, they're also time-poor and political influence-poor.

When the dollar store duopoly forces all the mom-and-pop grocers in your town out of business with predatory pricing, and creating food deserts that only they serve, no one cares, because state AGs and politicians don't care about people who shop at dollar stores. Then, the dollar stores can collude with manufacturers to get shrunken "cheater sized" products that sell for a dollar, but cost double or triple the grocery store price by weight or quantity:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/27/walmarts-jackals/#cheater-sizes

Yes, fliers who seem to be flying on business (last-minute purchasers who don't have a Saturday stay) get charged more than people whose purchase makes them seem to be someone flying away for a vacation. But that's only because aviation prices haven't yet fully transitioned to surveillance pricing. If an airline can correctly calculate that you are taking a trip because you're a grad student who must attend a conference in order to secure a job, and if they know precisely how much room you have left on your credit card, they can charge you everything you can afford, to the cent.

Your ability to resist pricing power isn't merely a function of a company's market power – it's also a function of your political power. Poor people may have less to steal, but no one cares when they get robbed:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/19/martha-wright-reed/#capitalists-hate-capitalism

So surveillance pricing, supercharged by algorithms, represent a serious threat to "prices," which is the one thing that the econo-religious fundamentalists of the capitalist class value above all else. That makes surveillance pricing low-hanging fruit for regulatory enforcement: a bipartisan crime that has few champions on either side of the aisle.

Cannily, the FTC has just declared war on surveillance pricing, ordering eight key players in the industry (including capitalism's arch-villains, McKinsey and Jpmorgan Chase) to turn over data that can be used to prosecute them for price-fixing within 45 days:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/07/ftc-issues-orders-eight-companies-seeking-information-surveillance-pricing

As American Prospect editor-in-chief David Dayen notes in his article on the order, the FTC is doing what he and his journalistic partners couldn't: forcing these companies to cough up internal data:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-07-24-ftc-opens-surveillance-pricing-inquiry/

This is important, and not just because of the wriggly critters the FTC will reveal as they use their powers to turn over this rock. Administrative agencies can't just do whatever they want. Long before the agencies were neutered by the Supreme Court, they had strict rules requiring them to gather evidence, solicit comment and counter-comment, and so on, before enacting any rules:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

Doubtless, the Supreme Court's Loper decision (which overturned "Chevron deference" and cut off the agencies' power to take actions that they don't have detailed, specific authorization to take) will embolden the surveillance pricing industry to take the FTC to court on this. It's hard to say whether the courts will find in the FTC's favor. Section 6(b) of the FTC Act clearly lets the FTC compel these disclosures as part of an enforcement action, but they can't start an enforcement action until they have evidence, and through the whole history of the FTC, these kinds of orders have been a common prelude to enforcement.

One thing this has going for it is that it is bipartisan: all five FTC commissioners, including both Republicans (including the Republican who votes against everything) voted in favor of it. Price gouging is the kind of easy-to-grasp corporate crime that everyone hates, irrespective of political tendency.

In the Prospect piece on Ticketmaster's pricing scam, Dayen and Groundwork's Lindsay Owens called this the "Age of Recoupment":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/03/aoi-aoi-oh/#concentrated-gains-vast-diffused-losses

For 40 years, neoclassical economics' focus on "consumer welfare" meant that companies could cheat and squeeze their workers and suppliers as hard as they wanted, so long as prices didn't go up. But after 40 years, there's nothing more to squeeze out of workers or suppliers, so it's time for the cartels to recoup by turning on us, their customers.

They believe – perhaps correctly – that they have amassed so much market power through mergers and lobbying that they can cross the single bright line in neoliberal economics' theory of antitrust: price-gouging. No matter how sincere the economics profession's worship of prices might be, it still might not trump companies that are too big to fail and thus too big to jail.

The FTC just took an important step in defense of all of our economic wellbeing, and it's a step that even the most right-wing economist should applaud. They're calling the question: "Do you really think that price-distortion is a cardinal sin? If so, you must back our play." Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

https://clarionwriteathon.com/members/profile.php?writerid=293388

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/24/gouging-the-all-seeing-eye/#i-spy

[mariacallous]

San Francisco made history in 2019 when its Board of Supervisors voted to ban city agencies including the police department from using face recognition. About two dozen other US cities have since followed suit. But on Tuesday, San Francisco voters appeared to turn against the idea of restricting police technology, backing a ballot proposition that will make it easier for city police to deploy drones and other surveillance tools.

Proposition E passed with 60 percent of the vote and was backed by San Francisco mayor London Breed. It gives the San Francisco Police Department new freedom to install public security cameras and deploy drones without oversight from the city’s Police Commission or Board of Supervisors. It also loosens a requirement that SFPD get clearance from the Board of Supervisors before adopting new surveillance technology, allowing approval to be sought any time within the first year.

Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, says those changes leave the existing ban on face recognition in place but loosen other important protections. “We’re concerned that Proposition E will result in people in San Francisco being subject to unproven and dangerous technology,” he says. “This is a cynical attempt by powerful interests to exploit fears about crime and shift more power to the police.”

Mayor Breed and other backers have positioned it as an answer to concern about crime in San Francisco. Crime figures have broadly declined, but fentanyl has recently driven an increase in overdose deaths, and commercial downtown neighborhoods are still struggling with pandemic-driven office and retail vacancies. The proposition was also supported by groups associated with the tech industry, including the campaign group GrowSF, which did not respond to a request for comment.

“By supporting the work of our police officers, expanding our use of technology, and getting officers out from behind their desks and onto our streets, we will continue in our mission to make San Francisco a safer city,” Mayor Breed said in a statement on the proposition passing. She noted that 2023 saw the lowest crime rates in a decade in the city—except for a pandemic blip in 2020—with rates of property crime and violent crime continuing to decline further in 2024.

Proposition E also gives police more freedom to pursue suspects in car chases and reduces paperwork obligations, including when officers resort to use of force.

Caitlin Seeley George, managing director and campaign director for Fight for the Future, a nonprofit that has long campaigned against the use of face recognition, calls the proposition “a blow to the hard-fought reforms that San Francisco has championed in recent years to rein in surveillance.”

“By expanding police use of surveillance technology, while simultaneously reducing oversight and transparency, it undermines peoples’ rights and will create scenarios where people are at greater risk of harm,” George says.

Although Cagle of the ACLU shares her concerns that San Francisco citizens will be less safe, he says the city should retain its reputation for having catalyzed a US-wide pushback against surveillance. San Francisco’s 2019 ban on face recognition was followed by about two dozen other cities, many of which also added new oversight mechanisms for police surveillance.

“What San Francisco started by passing that ban and oversight legislation is so much bigger than the city,” Cagle says. “It normalized rejecting the idea that surveillance systems will be rolled out simply because they exist.”

The San Francisco Mayor’s Office hasn’t said which type of drone, surveillance, or body-worn cameras police might use under the new rules. Anshel Sag, a principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, a tech research firm, notes that almost all newer drones on the market have forms of face recognition technology built in. Some of Insta360’s action cameras include this, he says, as well as drones made by DJI, the world’s largest commercial drone maker. “DJI’s cameras use it to track a person and stabilize the video capture,” he says.

In some cases, the customer may be able to toggle off tracking options. And, Sag adds, the video-capture technology may be more coarse and not specifically track a face. But this isn’t always clear to users of the technology, he says, “because the object-tracking algorithms operate like a black box.”

Saira Hussain, a senior staff attorney for the the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that San Francisco’ previous ban on face recognition allows the police department to possess devices with the technology built in if it’s a manufacturer-installed capability. (San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors had to update the law to make iPhones, which use face recognition technology to unlock, legal.) The law stipulates that these devices not be acquired for the basis of using them in policing functions.

More concerning to the EFF specifically is how Proposition E allows for a certain level of secrecy around surveillance technologies trialed by SFPD, for as long as a year without being disclosed, Hussain says. "It’s about making sure the police stick to the contours of the law."

[gaykarstaagforever]

The real threat of X is, how desperately eager are millions of people to just keep giving him money for whatever horrible things he does with it? How few people will actually abandon the platform? I mean he is smugly letting pedophiles and Nazis back on, throttling link redirect traffic to websites he doesn't like, and threatening to show up at Mark Zuckerberg's house and hit him. And the majority user response seems to be eye-rolling.

"PEOPLE ARE NUMB TO IT NOW!"

No, what that means is "I have decided to not care about anything other than what I get out of this. Fuck everything, I am staying." And that's my point. THAT is the threat. This complete disregard for personal responsibility and ethics.

Like when Amazon showed up and said "I'm destroying choice in retail and turning employees into constantly-surveilled serfs," and almost the entire Western world shrugged and gave Jeff half their monthly paycheck to bring tomatoes to our houses.

Yes the systems and their masters are evil. But you can still choose. And you keep choosing to support them.

[ailtrahq]

On Sept. 20, the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act passed out of the Financial Services Committee. Republican Senator Tom Emmer said it was, “A historical step in defending against an ever-expanding government surveillance state.” The House Majority Whip has been battling against Federal Reserve moves to develop a CBDC. The first anti-CBDC bill in the United States passed out of the Financial Services Committee today! A historical step in defending against an ever-expanding government surveillance state. — Tom Emmer (@GOPMajorityWhip) September 20, 2023 Anti-CBDC Bill Moves Forward The Act is the first anti-CBDC legislation introduced in the United States. Senator Emmer first proposed the CBDC bill in January 2022, and it was formally introduced to Congress in February 2023. The primary aim is to limit the Federal Reserve from minting a programmable CBDC, which Emmer claims is a “surveillance tool that would be used to undermine the American way of life.” The bill has the support of 60 members of Congress and additional industry groups, Emmer said. He warned that a CBDC is very different from decentralized digital assets in that it transacts on a digital ledger that is designed and controlled by the government. “In short, a central bank digital currency is a government controlled programmable money, if not designed like cash, could give the federal government the ability to surveil and restrict American’s transactions.” Senator Emmer cited China as an example of where this is already happening. The ruling communist party has designed a CBDC to track the spending habits of its citizens, which has been used to create a social credit system that rewards or punishes people based on their behavior. He also cited the Canadian government’s freezing of bank accounts of protesters in the 2020 trucker protests. “That might work in Canada, it doesn’t work here,” he added before concluding: “If not open, permissionless, and private like cash, a CBCD is nothing more than a CCP-style surveillance tool that can be weaponized to oppress the American way of life.” Fed CBDC Prohibitions The bill specifically prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing a CBDC to individuals. Senator Emmer said this would prevent the central bank from mobilizing into a retail bank able to collect personal financial data. The bill also prohibits the central bank from using any CBDC to implement monetary policy. The legislation will now go for a full vote before the House. If it passes, the Democrat-controlled Senate would also have to weigh in on the matter, and many of them, including the vehemently anti-crypto politicians, oppose it. Moreover, US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. agrees with the principles outlined in Senator Emmer’s bill. “That is why I oppose CBDCs, which will vastly magnify the government’s power to suffocate dissent by cutting off access to funds with a keystroke,” he said in May. Source

[goodeye-cyborg]

In case anyone was wondering about the job situation:

They have a system for you personally to document your coworkers errors for QA. They tell you it's anonymous, but your manager and QA can see who reported the error and also every account leaves a note with your name in it when you look at it, so your coworker that you just errored, knows you're the one that got them a talking to. Also, our trainers just upfront said they use it to be petty over extremely little shit that they admitted weren't actual problems. They encouraged us to do the same. "It's a learning tool" then why are you using it for revenge? Hm?

There is a specific way we are supposed to phrase everything in the Slack chat and if we don't we can get in trouble. There are no templates or written guidelines for this. You're just supposed to idk ask your supervisor about your phrasing before posting questions. Which are time sensitive. Cuz you're on the phone. They want us to put this app on our personal phones despite the fact that QA said outright they have access to all of your shit the app has access to. DMs, download files, all that good shit.

That's also the place we go to publicly beg to take lunch. It's a fast moving chat tho, so the single manager present (who's fuckin around on their phone) might not even see.

They also listen in and watch your screen while you take calls. This includes having access to things said while the customer is on hold. It is up to QA whether they mark you down for calling someone a dumbass while they're on hold and can't hear it. People have been fired over this. I've worked in a call center before, this is not common. It usually just mutes your mic when the customer is on hold, cuz normal QA teams don't wanna listen to you mutter and beatbox while you look for stuff.

This is a call center. This is a call center for extremely low stakes calls. Why is there all of this "I saw Goodie Proctor leaving bad notes" shit? Why are you encouraging me to narc on my coworkers for small stuff that only got messed up cuz they're humans with lives? Fucking..... Cop behavior.

And don't even get me started on the fucking phone call rules. There's no script but there's very specific shit you have to say on specific types of calls. There's an AI the QA team uses to measure your tone also.

Calabrio doesn't think you sound happy enough? That's an error. Dead air? That's an error. A prolonged hold while you hop between the six different, necessary but half functioning, programs you need to look at to learn anything about what the customer's after? Oh baby thats an error. Did the call drop and you didn't publicly announce it in the Slack chat? Take a wild guess.

I am making less than a Wendy's employee in my state, and they're allowed to take smoke breaks. If I'm away from my phone for too long they start going through my shit to make sure I'm not goofing around.

Anyway, I'll be opening commissions soon cuz this is not tenable. Like I said, I've worked in a call center before this one. I've worked from home for almost four years now. I've never encountered this shit in my life. There was less surveillance in fucking retail, and those freaks get mad if you're not constantly making up tasks to do.