Given that you almost certainly own a mobile phone, you're already consenting to massively greater invasion of privacy. Worrying about the tracking on a supermarket card doesn't really make much sense by comparison.

>>3346
Crossed my mind as well, but who really gives a shit what you buy? I doubt there is someone rubbing their hands and looking at the list of weetabix, laxatives and rubber gloves.

>How bad is it
Can't you work this out yourself? The supermarket knows about everything you purchase. Are the implications of this too complex for you?

The GCHQ are all over clubcards. Their software can detect likely terrorists by their purchasing profile, and escalate those people for further monitoring. I throw off the profiling by one week buying wholemeal bread and whole milk, and next week buy white bread and semiskimmed!

Loyalty cards are just a small part of the data mix used by retailers to track customers. They have become far less important due to improvements in tracking technology.

If you pay by debit or credit card, then obviously your purchases can be tracked by that. Mobile phones can be tracked via IMSI or MAC sniffing - your phone is essentially a beacon that is constantly transmitting sufficient data to uniquely identify you. Euclid Analytics are one of half a dozen companies who sell off-the-shelf systems that allow retailers to see where in the store you are browsing and for how long, by tracking your phone. Ipsos have a facial recognition product that tracks you via CCTV.

All of these data sources are consolidated and analysed collectively. Timestamps on checkout data can be used to correlate your credit card with your mobile phone and your facial biometric data. That data can be sold and re-sold to third parties, to create a comprehensive picture of your spending habits. Online and offline spending habits, credit reference data, information from social networks, they're all being consolidated to create the most detailed possible picture of your spending habits so that you can be marketed to more effectively. You're being watched all the time and there is basically nothing you can do to stop it.

http://euclidanalytics.com/products/technology/
http://www.ipsos-retailperformance.com/OurSolutions/ShopperProfile

>>3350

Mirth. In all seriousness I couldn't care less about what the supermarkets know about what I buy, but I probably will care when we finally ditch the NHS, healthcare goes private I suddenly can't get health insurance because Tesco's tipped them all off that I spend almost a grand a month on alcohol.

>>3352
>a grand a month on alcohol.
Do you only drink the finest wines known to humanity or something?

>>3353

10 bottles of white lightning a day?

>>3354

They haven't made White Lightning in years, Heineken didn't want to be associated with the brand.

If you don't like clubcards then shop at morrisons or asda. You get the saving straight away without having to save up points.

>>3355

Someone still does 3L of cider in a blue bottle for £3. I can't remember what it's called though.

Last time club cards were brought up on /b/ some posters had an absolute shitfit, mind you this was years ago and it's hard to think of many subjects which haven't resulted in at least one lad having an aneurysm.

I have a nectar card, mainly because there's a Sainsburys petrol station next to work, it's generally the cheapest place for me to buy petrol, I spend about £30 a week on petrol and points mean prizes.

>>3357

White Star.

>>3358

RIP Green Shield Stamps, gone but not forgotten.

I can still taste the glue.

Someone should release a cider called White Pride.

>>3357

Frosty Jack

>>3359
>>3362

I checked in the shop today. I was talking about Zeppelin, but I did see a similar bottle of Frosty Jack. I didn't see White Star though.

A fag packet calculation shows that under the previously proposed Tory minimum alcohol pricing regulation, a £3 3L bottle of cider would have cost about £11. Christ, that certainly would have killed off the alcohol addiction among the proles. It would have probably just caused more heroin sales though, and heroin isn't taxed.

>>3364

Scotland has passed legislation to enforce minimum alcohol pricing, but the distillers are challenging it in the European Court of Justice. A minimum price of 50p/unit would price all of the dreadful tramp juice into irrelevance, as you could have a perfectly palatable bottle of wine for the same cost per unit. Say what you like about the rights and wrongs, but the legislation could seriously class up your local park bench.

>>3365

I don't even have a bench. My local just has a guy in a wheelchair sat outside from 10am to 10pm.

>>3361
"A blend of the lowest quality apples found in a skip outside Asda, indifferently blended in a dirty bathtub on a council estate in Kent. Bitter on the pallet, followed by a bitter aftertaste, vomiting and minor brain damage"

>>3361

I'm waiting for Suicider myself. Might finally get me off the K cider train.

>>3347
Fair enough, though he might want to mitigate tracking wherever he can.

How hard is it today to live without a cellphone?
>>3348
Well, theoretically some egg-head might mine the shopping data sets to find any clues as to who might be a terrorist/paedophile/etc. Mix this with McCarthyism, voila, electric chair, bars, more scrutiny, whatever. Theoretically.
It is hard these days to determine whether something is a real-world scenario or incoherent rambling.

Then, your shopping habits are very likely to be sold to anyone who'd pay. I guess insurance companies might step in with some insidious tactics.
>>3351
> Ipsos have a facial recognition product that tracks you via CCTV.
> > And because no personal image or data is stored in the systems, the anonymity of the shopper is assured.
Sullen mirth.

>>3365
I do wonder why the distillers would be challenging it. Surely their products are those least likely to be affected, and only the "20p lagers" and white cider would get caught by it. 50p/unit works out to £20/L for 40% spirits, and the vast majority are already above that price level, especially for smaller bottles.

>>3371

It wont affect the vast majority of good spirits, I imagine, but it will put the price of Jim Beam and Absolut Vodka up which is a shame because they are a both good quality at a mid range price.

I started drinking Maker's Mark recently though, so it wont make much of a difference to the price of bottle of that. Hopefully.

>>3372
>Jim Beam
>Maker's Mark

Foul septic crap not fit to be called whisky (or even 'whiskey').

I don't see what they think the increased pricing will achieve except for profiteering and pushing people onto harder drugs.

>>3373

>not fit to be called whisky

Well, no. They're bourbons.

>>3374
Bourbon is (supposedly) a type of whisky.

>>3373

There is nothing funnier than a pretentious Whisky snob. Whiskey is just a different way of spelling it, because only stuff made in Scotland can be called Whisky, not an inferior product.

There are many and varied, high quality, Whiskeys on the market.

>>3376
Do you think maybe he's a whiny Scot? He sounds like a whiny Scot.

>>3375

Whisky is just beer, without hops, that has then been distilled. How far down this road do you want to go?

In fact, actually, I'm sure Bourbon is defined by it's use of Corn as an ingredient. Nitpicking about how it's made seems a strange thing to get uppity about.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>3378
I know what whisky is, I was replying to >>3374's assertion that bourbon and whisky are seperate entities.

>>3376
I'm far from a snob, it just genuinely bemuses me why people would spend a non-trivial amount of money on shit whisky when you can get a decent single malt for not much more, or a still superior blend for a similar price.

Also it's not true that 'only stuff made in Scotland can be called whisky'. It's not a protected term like Champagne.

>>3379

The are. By that logic, beer and Whisky aren't separate entities. What did you think I was getting when I mention that before? Whisky can be made from many things, whereas Bourbon is required to use at least 51% corn in it's production, by US law.

It is made by the same process, yes, but the fact you don't like it doesn't make it shit whiskey. It's bourbon, bourbon is the name it has been given to differentiate it from whiskey.

You argument seems to be with the English language's tradition for naming things that aren't like other things.

>>3379

>It's not a protected term

More of a gentleman's agreement.

>>3380
Beer and whisky are seperate entities because neither one can be considered a subset of the other. They could both be considered 'malted beverages' but that's as far as the similarities go really. On the other hand, bourbon is a type of whisky, like Scotch.

Furthermore, I think you'll find the fact that I don't like it is more than sufficient for me to consider it shit whisky. It's a subjective opinion, you know?

>>3382

It's entirely off topic now but I think we can agree that no supermarket-grade bourbon is worth drinking. Apparently Gentleman Jack is drinkable but bog-grade Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, etc is only drunk by teenlads and people who make it to 6am at house parties.

>>3361
It would certainly fit with the branding of other strong white ciders currently on the market that simply sound like Combat 18 splinter groups.