Price Check In Aisle Four

Information empowers businesses and consumers, so it’s little surprise that stores with horrible pricing dislike it when people record said pricing in store.

Shopping: Over it

Tesco’s staff dislike it so much, they threatened The Guardian’s Patrick Collinson, saying that it was against the law to write the store’s prices down in a notebook:

“The security cameras had spotted me with a pen and paper in hand, noting the prices of goods on the shelves. “Excuse me, what are you doing?” he said. I told him I was, well, writing down prices.

‘You’re not allowed to do that. It’s illegal. Where are you from? Are you from the media?’…

It’s illegal to write things down and you can’t take any photographs, either. If you want to check the prices, take the item to the till and pay for it there. The price will be on the receipt,’ he said, pointing me to the exit.”

A Guardian commenter accurately analyzes this:

“Just for the avoidance of doubt, in legal terms this is what is technically known as ABSOLUTE BALLS.”

This intrigued me, so I decided to test it out in New Zealand’s supermarkets.

The test

I visited Countdown, FreshChoice, New World and Pak’nSave with notebook in hand and hunted down six items in each store:

  • Toothpaste
  • Baked beans
  • Coke
  • Kiwifruit
  • Bread
  • Milk

I thought this would be a good range, and took me down the toiletries aisle, which invariably seems to be under video surveillance.

And…

Nothing happened. I wasn’t approached by anyone, and left each store without buying anything and without being questioned.

Because it would be anti-climatic to end on that note, let’s end with an exciting price comparison competition pseudo-table.

The prices

Toothpaste

Toothpaste on shelves

Colgate Triple Action, in various sizes. ($price) is per 100g.

Countdown:

  • 80g $1.99 from $2.55 ($2.49) (non-special: $3.19)
  • 110g $2.99 ($2.72)
  • 160g $2.99 from $4.08 ($1.87) (non-special: $2.55)
  • 220g $5.00 ($2.27)

FreshChoice:

  • 110g $2.99 ($2.72)
  • 160g $2.99 from $4.65 ($1.87) (non-special: $2.91)
  • 220g $5.10 ($2.32)

New World:

  • 110g $2.79 ($2.54)
  • 160g $4.09 ($2.56)
  • 220g $3.99 from $5.56 ($1.81) (non-special: $2.53)

Pak’nSave:

  • 110g $2.67 ($2.43)
  • 160g $2.99 from $3.79 ($1.87) (non-special: $2.37)
  • 220g $3.95 from $5.45 ($1.80) (non-special: $2.48)

Winner: New World. Everyone else is disqualified for their batshit pricing, like the 110g and 160g tube prices being the same, and stores thinking it’s cool to keep the 110g one on the shelf; and the 220g bulk value tube actually ending up more expensive.

Baked beans

Wattie’s 300g can.

Countdown:

  • $1.85

FreshChoice:

  • $1.89 from $2.03

New World:

  • $1.85

Pak’nSave:

  • $1.79

Winner: Pak’nSave

Coke

1.5L Coca-Cola.

Countdown:

  • $3.05

FreshChoice:

  • $3.05

New World:

  • $3.05 or three for $6.00

Pak’nSave:

  • $1.89 (this was apparently on special but I couldn’t find the non-special price)

Winner: Pak’nSave

Kiwifruit

Cheapest per kg

Countdown:

  • $3.98 or $3.95 depending on what sign you look at

FreshChoice:

  • $3.69

New World:

  • $3.99

Pak’nSave:

  • $3.99

Winner: FreshChoice

Bread

What looked like the cheapest 600g and 700g loaves (there are lots of loaves). ($price) is per 100g.

Countdown:

  • 600g $1.69 ($0.28)
  • 700g $3.99 ($0.57)

FreshChoice:

  • 600g $1.71 ($0.29)
  • 700g $2.79 ($0.40)

New World:

  • 600g ???//klhlk
  • 700g $1.99 ($0.28)

Pak’nSave:

  • 600g $1.65 ($0.28)
  • 700g $1.89 ($0.27)

Winner: Pak’nSave

Milk

Cheapest 2L trim.

Countdown:

  • $3.49

FreshChoice:

  • $3.49

New World:

  • $3.49

Pak’nSave:

  • $3.49

Winner: If we were in school: EVERYONE!!! But because this is the real world, no one wins.

Pak’nSave is the grand winner. New World and Pak’nSave win bonus prizes for actually doing price per 100g etc. price comparison on their labels.

See, that was fun.

Image credit: Richard Giles and Erin! Nekervis

What Would Jesus Do?

On Friday I went to the Canterbury A&P Show. The usual mix of anti-abortion and Christian stalls were there.

Pro-choicer

Voice for Life

This is the description the anti-abortion people (Voice for Life – Canterbury) gave the Show organizers:

“Recapture the wonder: an educational stall focusing on the amazing development of the child in the womb using pictures and life sized models.”

Read: ABORTION IS MURDERRRRRRRR!!@@@@

Opposing viewpoints

The lack of stalls with balancing viewpoints (pro-abortion1 or agnostic/atheist) concerns me. This isn’t the case of having the choice of whether to buy a tractor or not. It’s “buy this tractor or burn in hell for eternity”. This is what was in one of the booklets we were given (Are You a Ewe?) from the Christian stall:

“Rebellion against God deserves death and punishment forever in hell.”

They also had Atheism is definitely wrong leaflets.

Agnostics, atheists and pro-abortionists: where you at?

1: I’m pro-abortion (and not pro-choice) because all woman should have access to abortion services. That doesn’t mean I want to abort everyone’s children.

Image credit: Steve Rhodes

Parks and Recreation: Censorship Edition

Odd Future Toronto

Calum Bennachie complained about Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All being scheduled to play at the Big Day Out in Auckland’s Mt Smart Stadium because of their homophobic and misogynistic lyrics.

He sent the email to aspiring Chief Censor Sandra Coney, Chairperson of Auckland Council’s Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum, among other people. She did some Youtubing, got in touch with John Brockies, the CEO of Regional Facilities Auckland who manages Mt Smart Stadium, and just like that, after a discussion with BDO organizers, OFWGKTA are playing Auckland’s BDO no more.

Change of heart?

This is clearly as a result of pressure from well-connected people and not BDO organizers realizing that they don’t want Odd Future as part of their lineup–they’re still playing the other BDO shows, and BDO’s promoter is organizing a solo show for them in Auckland. I await the results of many an official information request as to what the discussion with BDO organizers actually entailed.

Freedom of speech

There would be no issue if Odd Future weren’t invited to any BDO shows at all, or if, instead of being banished, they performed on a stage separate to the other acts.

I’ve read people talking about “a line” that can be crossed, referring to how far freedom of speech can go. That line doesn’t exist. You can take freedom of speech or leave it. It doesn’t exist to protect inoffensive speech or only popular viewpoints. Just because you know you’re right, doesn’t mean that “wrong” speech should be protected any less.

Image credit: Theo Grontis/thecomeupshow

Unintended Consequences: Shifting The Risk Of Young Drivers

Teen driver laws are mixed on curbing fatal crashes (via):

“For more than a decade, California and other states have kept their newest teen drivers on a tight leash, restricting the hours when they can get behind the wheel and whom they can bring along as passengers. Public officials were confident that their get-tough policies were saving lives.

Now, though, a nationwide analysis of crash data suggests that the restrictions may have backfired: While the number of fatal crashes among 16- and 17-year-old drivers has fallen, deadly accidents among 18-to-19-year-olds have risen by an almost equal amount. In effect, experts say, the programs that dole out driving privileges in stages, however well-intentioned, have merely shifted the ranks of inexperienced drivers from younger to older teens.”

BMW 5 Series InteriorBasically, since the program started in 1996, there were 1,348 fewer fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers, which looks great on the surface. But, there were 1,086 more fatal crashes involving 18-year-old drivers, which could be because young drivers are waiting until they are 18 to bypass restrictions.

This could support that inexperience is a greater factor in young driver accidents as opposed to immaturity–if there were more unrestricted novices on the road at 18.

It’s seems unlikely that this would be the case in New Zealand, because the only exception to our graduated licence system based on age is reducing the time you have to stay on your restricted licence, if you’re over 25, before being able to apply for your full licence.

At 16 and 18 there are differences of who is involved with the driver, which is more relevant to New Zealand. Is a 16-year-old’s parents while they are living with them more likely to be involved with their driving, compared to an 18-year-old who is likely not at home and away from parents?

Bonus points for spotting the similarities with consuming alcohol responsibly.

 

Maybe the real question is why is driving our own cars such a non-negotiable?

“If reducing car injuries and fatalities is the purpose, this can also be achieved – and for all ages – by providing and promoting ubiquitous, affordable and on-time public transport systems. A nice plus would be the benefits to the environment, a decreased [dependence] on oil and a firm middle finger to Big Oil’s influence on politics and society as a whole.”

Image credit: Rob Ellis

The Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage

Is, in reality, not so slippery. (ht: @hamfritta, from reddit)

Explaining gay rightsThe toaster part is hilarious, but here’s something to think about from SuperStuff01:

“Me and my toaster actually have more rights than a gay couple do.

If I bought my toaster in another country, I could bring it into the US.

If I’m sick in the hospital, I can bring my toaster in with me.

If my toaster breaks, I’m given the legal power to make decisions as to how best to fix it.

I don’t risk getting attacked when I carry my toaster with me in public.”

mistermordancy points out that would make a great ad:

“Does anyone else think this would make a really good gay rights/equality advert? Like you see this guy walk around with a toaster, holding on to the toaster, having the toaster with him in hospital, bringing the toaster into work and all his co-workers crowd round and congratulate him.

Then the ad repeats with two men…”

Jagex’s War On Bots ft. Scare Tactics, Subpoenas and PayPal

Jagex, the makers of RuneScape are suing Impulse Software et al. in relation to their sale of bot software that effectively plays the game for a person without needing much human interaction. It’s part of their crackdown on bots; Jagex claims using bots to play violates their rules, is unfair to other players and ruins the game.

Subpoena

As part of the Impulse court case, Jagex subpoenaed Google and PayPal seeking further information about email addresses, YouTube accounts and PayPal accounts.

The information provided by PayPal included personal information on 70,000+ customers who had bought Impulse’s bot software.

Code on wallDéjà vu

An “outside counsel eyes only” protective order was issued for the information PayPal provided, which meant that the information couldn’t be shared with Jagex employees. Jagex didn’t seem to be happy with this though, so in a different court (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) and using the same legal counsel, on July, 1, 2011, they subpoenaed for the same information in a different case, Jagex Limited v. John Does, and were allowed to share the results with their employees.

[Quotes used in this post are mainly from a PDF of the case that used to be available at http://www.mediafire.com/?ba2nu8puj96tq5b]

“[The] Plaintiff and its counsel misrepresented the scope of this pending lawsuit by stating that the action involved ‘a developer and seller of Bot software.’ The Notice failed to state that Plaintiff already accused Defendants of having used one or more Bots to allegedly circumvent Jagex’s automated technological measures thus making Defendants a party to both suits.” “Plaintiff and its counsel also failed to inform the court in the Central District of California (CDC) lawsuit of this Court’s Protective Order.”

“Even though Plaintiff and its counsel were bound by the Protective Order entered by this Court and were fully aware that Defendants’ customer information was CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY, using the subpoena power of the Central District of California, Plaintiff’s counsel undertook a calculated clandestine action to serve a subpoena on PayPal to obtain Defendants’ customer information and turned Defendant’s customer information over to its client who then misused the information.”

Mass email

On October 25, 2011, Jagex sent out a mass email, presumably to those whose information they gained from the PayPal subpoena:

[The forum post is now gone, probably because the very fact that they have to clarify the legitimacy of an email shows that it wasn’t a very effective cease and desist notice.]

26-Oct-2011 06:44:16
Last edited on 26-Oct-2011 06:49:30 by Mod Timo

Hello everyone,

As a part of the update some people will have received the following e-mail communication:

Dear Player,

We have strong evidence that you may have purchased and used botting software in the past, specifically ibot software.

Botting and the cheating it brings is destroying your game, violates Jagex’s rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and any player that continues to engage in botting activity has no place in our community.

As part of bot nuke week we are offering you a 1 time amnesty and settlement lifeline, which is a chance to reform and change your ways. We’d like you to contribute to the community in a positive way, to compete on a level playing field as everyone else does and play in the true spirit of the game, with integrity. All of your accounts, main and otherwise, are now on our watch list and will be monitored for the use of ibot and all other inappropriate third-party software. Regardless of who you are or how long you’ve been with us, if you decide to cheat and bot ever again we will have no hesitation in: (1) permanently removing your account from our wonderful community in order to protect Jagex’s rights under the DMCA, and (2) naming you as a defendant in Jagex Limited v. John Does, which is a lawsuit based on DMCA violations that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Civ. Action No. SACV11-00969-CJC).

Please note that this amnesty and settlement offer is protected under Fed. R. Evid. 408. If you ignore our offer and instead continue use botting software, we reserve our rights to pursue statutory damages against you for between $200 to $2,500 per act of past, present, and/or future botting in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 1203(c)(3).

We do hope you make the morally sound and lawful choice of turning your back on bots. We look forward to seeing you in game having fun in a way that is true to the spirit of fair play and respectful to your fellow players.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Gerhard

I can confirm that this is an official statement from Jagex to the recipient. Please note that there are no website links in the main body of the e-mail. Should you receive any e-mails that contain the above text with website links or additional information, they are likely to be phishing e-mails and should be ignored.

Kind regards,
Mod Timo

Jagex cross referenced those subpoenaed email addresses with their own records, and the next day began sending the same message through the internal Jagex messaging system to individual players.

Interestingly, Jagex recently started giving an increase in bank space, where a player stores items in the game, as an incentive for registering your email address with your account (when RuneScape started, email addresses weren’t required).

Although Jagex claims RuneScape has a large adult player base, it is almost certain that minors received the messages as well. They’re full of legal jargon and are similar to the extortionate letters the music industry (or their lawyers) send. It strikes me as unethical to send threats like that to children.

If Jagex are confident in their bot detection system, how about instead of going from one extreme: no action “we’re watching you”, to another: legal action, they use their in-game powers and just ban accounts if the re-offend. Legal action seems like an unnecessary and scaremongering threat.

Privacy and a chance to response to the subpoena

“In the cases cited by Plaintiff… the individuals… were given a specified amount of time to object to the subpoena through a Motion to Quash and/or Motion to Dismiss… The first time Defendants and their customers learned of the CDC lawsuit is when their customers began receiving a copy of an email from Jagex on October 25, 2011 followed by the message post on October 26, 2011.”

The forum posts I’ve read support this.

Jagex’s counsel say “it was and is our understanding that PayPal would have notified the account owner(s) of the account(s) associated with any email address in the subpoena in order to provide that account owner(s) an opportunity to address the subpoena, prior to releasing the requested information or documents.”

The reply:

You know that PayPal did not notify my clients of the pending subpoena in the Boston suit when you served the first subpoena without first noticing Defendants’ attorneys. Therefore, to now state that Banner and Witcoff understand/understood that PayPal would notify the Defendants is suspect.”

“This lawsuit’s different”

Jagex disagree that they’re focusing on Impulse Software’s customers and say they just want to “identify [our] own customers who [we] believe may be in violation of S1201(a)”.

The reply:

“Your claim that the John Doe action does not involve our clients is illusionary at best. Not only did [you]… seek to obtain permission to subpoena my clients’ records from PayPal, but the identification of the Doe’s in the Complaint filed described my clients as well.”

“Under the discovery requirements in our pending case and the Local Rules… you had a duty to inform us of the John Doe action… Even when we sent you a letter inquiring about a Press Release issued by Jagex suggesting a violation of the Protective Order, you consciously omitted disclosure of the John Doe action.”

The suggestion of the protective order violation comes from this paragraph:

“We are constantly looking into ways of making the game experience the very best possible for all of our players and as part of our on-going programme to rid the game of bots, Jagex is actively pursuing companies that support the macroing market as well as those who bot. As such we are currently pursuing various bot developers through multiple legal channels, although sadly we cannot yet disclose the full details of our actions for legal reasons. Separately, as part of normal legal process and procedure, we have also taken steps to acquire the details of all players who have purchased bots. Once we have the information regarding the players involved we will take action specifically to ensure that these players are not compromising the game’s integrity through the use of a third party programs.”

This is turning into a very interesting case. Maybe it’s not the best time for business for Impulse Software, but if they come out of this in one piece this could turn into the best advertising money can’t buy.

Image credit: Nat Walsh

The Conservative Party Keep iStockphoto In Business

If you enjoy this post, you might want to subscribe to get sent new posts of mine by email: click here.

The Conservative Party and I don’t get along. Their use of stock images of people in their advertising material (ht: The Egonomist) is one of the many things we disagree on.

Using the magic that is Google Image Search, I present to you the faces from the Conservative Party advertising that might seem familiar, but not because you would have seen them in real life.

But wait. If you want to play along at home, you can download their mailers that they’ve helpfully uploaded to their website and image search your heart out. By my count we’ve only had three delivered, so if you want a spoiler of what’s to come in your letter box in the coming weeks, here’s four and five in advance.

IIIIIIIVV (pdfs)

Mailer One

Nice Conservative Party People in Mailer One

Conservative Party image

Father and Son

Mama’s Health

Joshua from Switchup

SwitchUp (and I’m pretty sure they just made up that name and quote)

Online Counseling

Addiction Discussion

iStockphoto BusinessmaniStockphoto

Conservative Party Family

Conservative Party image

Family InvestmentsANG Investments

Conservative Party Safety

Conservative Party image

Drs Pedi

Doctors’ Pediatric

Therapy Virgil Roberson

Teacher Spotlight Building Blocks Early Learning Center (is this even a real teacher?)

ProsperityConservative Party image

VA MortgageVA Mortgage Center

Cleaning Sala de Terapia

New Zealand Farmer

Conservative Party image. You’d think that maybe they’d use a real New Zealand farmer for this image, but you’re not the Conservative Party or their graphic designers.

Dog Training Tallahasse Dog Training

You want familyConservative Party image

My CommunitymyCommunity

It takes a villageConservative Party image

Elbebe

Elbebe

Community and wage training

Conservative Party image

Square Mile

EAUK

Painter dude and friends

Conservative Party image

DcttbioDcttbio

RedhouselaneRedhouselane

Studying

Conservative Party image

Dec-sped Dec-sped

MotherConservative Party image

Pregnancy Treasures Pregnancy Treasures

Mailer Two

Test matchConservative Party image (featuring dog guy from above)

Farm insurance

Cooperators

Update: Apparently the woman in this photo wasn’t good enough for the Conservative Party:

Less MPsConservative Party image

Not good enoughThe original (ht: 2011 Election)

Update: Stock Stucker picks up a few I missed, as well as the keywords used for some of the photos on stock sites.

First Three Strikes Notices & a Centralised Notice System?

First notices

The New Zealand Herald is reporting that the first(?) notices under the new Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) three strikes law have been received by ISPs. They’re from the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) for songs by Rihanna, Lady Gaga and Taio Cruz.

It would be extremely interesting to know the specifics: what songs were downloaded and what downloading method was used.

Centralised system

The Pirate Bay Street ArtStuff reports that rights holders have been in discussion with ISPs over creating a centralised system to make it easier for ISPs to deal with copyright notices.

Tech Liberty has found two companies, IPSafe and Datacom, that seem to be interested in that centralised system. The letter they received from the Ministry of Economic Development in response to an Official Information Act request is here (pdf).

No word on how a centralised system would ensure the privacy of ISP customers.

Image credit: Jakov Vilović

“We need all types of blood from all types of people”

Red Cross Blood Ad

I’ve written about the men who have sex with men blood donor ban before. Christopher Banks basically wins the debate with this comment. TL;DR: there is a huge list of deferral criteria, MSM aren’t being singled out and NZ Blood Service aren’t trying to be dicks, just trying to make the blood supply as safe as possible for people who find themselves in a situation where they need it.

“What’s more, gay men are not being singled out for deferral – if you look at the eligibility criteria on the New Zealand Blood Service website, you can be turned away for a variety of reasons, including your age, whether you’re on certain forms of medication, have been recently vaccinated, are pregnant, had sex with someone from a country with a high HIV prevalence, or lived in the UK for more than six months between 1980 and 1996 (due to the outbreak of variant CJD, or “mad cow” disease).

Dr Peter Flannagan, the medical director of the New Zealand Blood Service, is himself prohibited from giving blood due to the latter reason.

Though I’m sure the guilt trip from ads like the above isn’t appreciated.