I am a current RS manager in standing, so I'll renege on giving out my name, however, the actual reason for requiring names and addresses is very simple. First, it is listed on the back of every reciept. So it is part of official policy. Second, the rest of our return process is very I suppose lax if nothing else, our products may be returned at any of our stores, following simple rules that are spelled out.

Now the reason the N&A are needed is because it prevents a LARGE portion of theft which is both internal (as spelled out from one of your posters in the comments) and external such as a snatch and grab. If an item is taken from our store, a customer may attempt to return it at several locations around the city as there are numerous radioshacks around, but this is a very big issue, since beyond the name and address, we are liable on our end for issuing the customer credit for potentially stolen merchandise.

This of course is not saying that 99.999 % of our customers are abusing our return policy, but without this, because of our ability to go the extra step, and take care of you, we as a corporation must protect our assets. This also prevents smash and grabs from cars in mall parking lots, as thieves have stolen out of vehicles and attempt to return the items in the store.

The biggest misconception seems to be against a corporation protecting it's items against theft. We in no sense require ID for a purchase (barring unsigned CC purchases) but it HAS to be required since we will help you with out a reciept if at all possible. Since we as a company do attempt to resolve returns in many cases without reciepts, we do have to have some basic measure of fraud protection.

That customer more than likely could have gotten cash returned if needed without the reciept, but in common sense, a store just won't hand out money over the counter without a ticket showing why the money is leaving.

On top of that, we also need the information to verify vs the signature on the return slip, since we have dealt with people stealing from relatives it also helps during holidays where a daughter may try and return something their parents bought to the store, and if the parents come in asking, or we have some one else complaining that they were not the person returning the item, we at least have some paper work showing who did.

Oh, and as an FYI, the Name and Address is actually for warranty info since a bunch of our small parts, batteries, and such have a limited 90 warrenty. If you have like a battery blow up, we can look up your purchase and hand you a new pack. We recently started a lifetime guarentee with some of our AV cables. We have in every store on at least one register a giant 8 x 11 sign stating our name and address policy. We specifically mention the only people that have your info is the company and related parties (if you sign up for ATT it goes to ATT, if you sign up for Dish, it goes to Dish, If you sign up for Greendot prepaid, it goes to Greendot).

Once again, very basic items that have been blown out of proportion. I cannot deny that we used to years ago, but when we stopped doing it, traffic dropped due to customers no longer recieving the RS catalog (That was huge for many many parts nuts). It's a juggling act, so now we ask for it, it's not required for most types of purchases (contractual, prepaid, and service plans are examples of required), and the actual info just goes into a system that we can use to look up your old tickets if you have problems with your items. The last thing we want is to not be able to help our customer find a resolution.

Certain items like routers can be purchased at any electronics store, and then you run into the potential of having shoplifters hitting up one type of store and returning it at another. If we have the capability of preventing this, all in all, everyone can shop a little safer.

We're not sure how any of this is less complicated than keeping track of store inventory and requiring a receipt for all returns. The refund-without-a-receipt policy is the sort of goodwill gesture that this writer feels mainly benefits the careless consumer at the expense of the rest of us, so by all means, do away with it if it will bring an end to ID requirements for receipt returns, particularly for items paid for with cash.

RELATED
"RadioShack Won't Give Refund On Cash Purchase Unless You Show Your Papers"

The clerk told Pete it was for loss prevention. Wait, what? Pete had the parts in his hand, and the receipt that showed he'd paid cash for the parts the day before. You mean there's no way RadioShack can track its purchases more precisely than matching up mailing addresses of anyone who walks into the store?
 
Here's Pete's email:

Dear Consumerist,
 
I have been avoiding RadioShack for ages ever since they started asking you for your street address and phone number just to sell you something. Once they stopped that practice, I reluctantly began returning to buy the odd piece for my electronics projects when I ran out of something and didn't want to wait for an order to be shipped from on-line retailers. At any rate, I was out running errands the other weekend and saw a RadioShack, remembering that I needed a couple of potentiometers for an amplifier I was working on, I stopped to make my purchase. Wading through the overly "helpful" employees I found the electronic components area. But, I couldn't remember the exact values of the potentiometers I needed so I grabbed all they had, paid with cash and was on my way.
 
I went back the following day to return the un-opened potentiometers that I did not need - receipt in hand. The process went smoothly until the clerk asked for my street address. I told him that I prefer not to give that information out. They claimed that it was for "loss prevention purposes". I say "they" because another cashier came over, presumably for moral support to his co-worker. I told them to make an address up - no dice, claiming the "system" "will kick you out". I tried to explain that I have the receipt and the un-opened parts and that I paid with cash so they would have no way of knowing that I was the person who originally purchased them anyway, no luck. I tried for store credit, same result.
 
I suppose, I could have made up an address, or even given them my real one but i didn't feel like it. I shouldn't have to be put through a personal information wringer to complete a legitimate transaction that happens every day at normal stores. I felt like I was being accused of theft or had to in some way, justify my actions.
 
I will say that the employees weren't rude and they were just carrying out what they were trained to do. In the end, I took the ~$10 worth of potentiometers home with me, where they sit waiting for a new project.
 
Is this normal business practice, or is it time for RadioShack to get with the times for its data mining?

(Photo: Brave New Films)

Anyone who has visited San Quentin and is concerned their personal information could be on the flash drive may call Sgt. Rudy Luna, administrative assistant, at (415) 455-5000 or Laura Bowman, community partnership manager, at (415) 454-1460, extension 5400.

"San Quentin loses data on 3,500 visitors" [SFGate]
(Photo: Getty)

Over on Venture Chronicles, some Clear customers have left feedback, calling it "security theatre" and saying it "can cut 15 minutes out of the process"—which we're not sure is worth $100 bucks a year. Some were upset by the idea of retinal scanning and fingerprinting—all of Clear's data is routed through the TSA, so the government gets access to that data, if you worry about that sort of thing. One commenter named Celeste notes that Clear doesn't let you bypass some of the more onerous security activities:

I signed up as well and realize that, for now, I'll be at the front of the line. My two questions are, since I still have to go through all the security checks (i.e., shoes, laptops, bag screening, etc., as I understand it), why do they need a retina scan and thumbprint? Basically, I've paid $100 to bypass 150 people but I've still got to take off my shoes. Also, at $100 a year, won't the FlyClear line be as long as the regular security line in a year, once more airports become available? They haven't reduced the actual screening time. In fact, it's been increased by going through the retina and print scan, haven't they? We'll see if it's a benefit next year before I decide to renew.

I did find myself thinking "crikey I hope they have some killer data security with everything I am giving them".

I guess it's a Faustian bargain at it's heart, paying $100 because our government can't figure out how to have effective AND efficient airport security pisses me off, but I won't be thinking about that as I breeze through the Clear security lane while everyone else is waiting 100 people deep.

I'm less concerned about the prospect that my civil liberties will be infringed because at some point in the future they may share it with some agency, maybe I should be but I just don't get worked up about it for whatever reason.

Leaving San Jose on a flight last week, there was a short line to go through security — but long enough to make trying CLEAR worthwhile. I walked up and handed my card over — strike one, since after scanning my eyes and fingerprints, why do I need a card?

Next, I had to put my right ring finger down. Hard. Like really hard, to the degree it physically hurt, in order to get a good images. Yeah, I'm a big baby. C'mon — it wasn't comfortable. And then the finger wouldn't work.

Next to my "backup" finger, my left index. Again, a hard pressing down that hurt, but eventually an image was captured, and I was me.

So why then was I next asked for picture ID? All these biometrics, and they want my driver's license? Apparently, the CLEAR folks are different from TSA — and TSA wants the picture ID checked.

RELATED
"FlyClear" [Venture Chronicles]
"Using CLEAR To Clear Airport Security — This Is Efficient?" [Daggle]

Neither company bothered to send a lawyer to the hearing—although the day before the hearing, they contacted him with a settlement offer if he agreed not to discuss the case with the media—and last week Karantsalis won damages plus court fees for a total of $756.80.

Okay, so that's clearly not enough money to hurt either company—Sprint easily spends 50 times that every day giving lobotomies and tongue-bobs to Customer Service new hires—but we're impressed with Karantsalis' DIY approach to legal justice. As Evan Schuman notes in a related article, there are lots of ways you can define "winning" in a situation like this, but few of them can beat the odds of wrapping up a small claims case quickly and in your favor:

Is the objective to make the consumer whole, in the sense of getting them to the point financially where they would have been the data privacy booboo never happened?

Is it to make it much more likely that the wrong will never be repeated, sparing other consumers of the headache? Is it to make money for the consumer? Is it, dare I say, to make moneys for the law firms?

The recent TJX lawsuits, for example, could be said to have failed for their consumer plaintiffs on all of those objectives, other than making money for the law firms and even that money was rather paltry.

With this settlement publicized, will tens of thousands consumers now take these frequent breach notification letters and drive to their local small claims court? The onerous nature of a retailer having to defend against literally tens of thousands of virtually identical accusations was precisely the kind of situation that class-action lawsuits were supposed to eliminate. But the civil demands for financial losses create a crack for these cases to slip into.

(Thanks to econobiker!)

"The Librarian Wins In The Data Breach David Vs. Goliath Battle" [StorefrontBacktalk]

RELATED
"Sears, Where America Sues" [StorefrontBacktalk]
(Photo: Getty)

Stephen's card came from Wells Fargo, and he had no trouble getting it replaced:

To do this I called the "800" number on the back of my card. I had to identify myself to an automated system and request the automated system connect me with a banker. When connected with a real person I requested to have a card issues without the Pay Wave feature. Most phone bankers do not know what RFID is. It is best to refer to it by its retail name. The request was taken care of in less than 5 minutes. The current card I have is still valid if I wish to use it. When I receive the new one I can activate it and destroy the old one.

(Thanks to Stephen!)

Iron Mountain says it's been missing for a while, but that even if it was stolen it should be hard to access data on it:

In a statement, Iron Mountain said it notified GE Money of the missing tape in October, and added that there has been no evidence suggesting that the identity of any person had been compromised.

"We believe this is an unfortunate case of a misplaced tape," Iron Mountain's statement said. "We also understand the tape was created in such a manner to make unauthorized access extremely unlikely and difficult, even for experts with specialized knowledge and technology."

Data Lost on 650,000 Credit Card Holders [AP]

RELATED
"Major Retailer's Data Breach Results In Wave Of Credit Card Fraud"
"Shenanigans With Chase Credit Cards?"
(Photo: Getty)

While much of the information is covered elsewhere, the table of personal information and the relative danger of passing out each piece seems apt.

It of course is missing "Birthday Candle Wish - Very High."

The Ultimate Guide to Identity Theft Prevention [Your Credit Advisor]