Correct… 🧐

The reason I responded at all was because I looked up what he was talking about because anytime someone makes a wild claim supported by a poor source it tends to raise a few red flags.

I don’t mince words and I don’t play it soft.

It is a clear sign of the times when clear pushback on a wild ass claim is met with “your comment is so extreme.” It should be so as to ensure the validity of what I’m trying to say.

If there was more “extreme” out there my country wouldn’t be the utter maga shit hole it is now.

In addition to my first comment response.

What you’re calling “extreme” is simply direct pushback without the usual padding people have come to expect. That padding, hedging, soft language, pretending both sides might have a point, is exactly why misinformation keeps spreading unchecked. It creates the illusion that facts are negotiable.

Now, if the goal is to gently reassure everyone and avoid discomfort, then yes, a softer tone would be more appropriate. But that approach routinely fails to correct anything. It prioritizes feelings over accuracy.

If the goal is to actually challenge bad information in a way that’s unambiguous and difficult to misinterpret, then a firmer tone is not only justified, it’s necessary. You don’t have to like the delivery. But dismissing it as “extreme” avoids engaging with the actual issue, whether the claim being challenged holds up. If it doesn’t, then tone becomes a secondary concern.

Every single retail store in the known first world does this. They have cameras in their stores that record video and audio. They collate data about sales and if you have an account they’ll link it to your name.

I don’t know what part of the world you’re from but here in the states we have a chain called Kroger and if you want discounts you got to put your phone number into their system. That tracks everything that you do for marketing purposes.

This has been going on since the dawn of retail.

What the person above is describing isn’t that.

You’re mixing a real issue with a bunch of claims you can’t back up.

Yes, Home Depot uses Flock ALPR cameras. That part is true. They scan license plates and log vehicles in parking lots. And yes, that data can be shared with local law enforcement. That’s all documented.

But “tracking you” like some kind of live surveillance grid? Not really. It’s point-in-time plate reads. It can be aggregated into movement patterns, which is where the privacy concern actually exists, but that’s not the same thing as constant tracking.

Now the bigger problem, where are you getting that they “sell the data to advertisers or highest bidders”? There’s no credible reporting supporting that. Flock’s entire business model is selling the system and access, not dumping raw data on the open market. If you have a source, post it.

Same with “given to cops and feds for free.” It’s not that simple. Local police can access or integrate with these systems, sure. And federal agencies might get data indirectly through them. But that’s very different from Home Depot just handing it out freely to anyone with a badge.

So yeah, there’s a legitimate surveillance concern here. But when you start throwing in unsupported claims, it just weakens the argument. If you’ve got actual sources for the “advertisers” or “highest bidders” part, let’s see them. Otherwise, you’re overstating it.

What the privacy statement actually says

Where Do We Collect It From?

Directly from you or the devices you use to access digital services, such as websites, mobile applications, and applications for connected devices.

Other customers that may provide us with your information to recommend a product or service, ship products to you, or list you as a recipient of products or services.

Companies that provide services on our behalf (e.g., installers and others that may communicate with you about products or projects).

Security and fraud prevention services that help us confirm that transactions are valid and otherwise help us protect our assets and you.

Marketing companies that help us learn about our customers and the devices they use to access digital content.

Companies that supplement our customer records with additional information.

Shipping providers that update address information.

Social media platforms.

Advertising companies and content publishers that present you with our ads.

Payment and transaction processors.

Communications and mailing vendors.

The signals emitted by your mobile devices when you travel through our stores

I don’t like you or what you do. I’ve seen your posts before, and you keep making declarative claims backed by weak sources that don’t actually explain anything. On top of that, you’re clearly making things up and framing it as some grand conspiracy about people being tracked.

Yes, tracking exists to a degree, but you strip out all nuance and turn it into fear-mongering. It’s not useful, it’s not informative, and it’s not a service to anyone. Just stop.

I don’t understand why these courts charge a set fine for stuff like this. This is clearly an extremely unique case. The man is 20% to being a trillionaire.

Or needs to be done is they need to charge a percentage of his profits. Say 20 to 30%?

HP is one of those companies whose products you can easily avoid. I don’t understand their dominance in the printer market, or why people continue to buy their products when many of them are objectively poor. I also don’t recall a time when HP had a particularly strong reputation to begin with.

At this point, most competitors offer better alternatives than HP.

I will never ever never ever use one drive. I’ll raise my kids never to use it.

I WILL NEVER USE ONE DRIVE!

You’re right, I was overgeneralizing.

I assumed most legal systems relied on precedent, but that’s not accurate globally. The majority of countries follow civil law systems, like France and Germany, where precedent isn’t binding in the same way.

Where I was coming from is that many of the largest and most economically influential countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and India do use precedent-based systems, which probably skewed my perception. So yeah, globally I was wrong, but I can see why I thought that.