TR Forums

are you kidding me? why should I shop there......... at ANY gamestop??

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/gamest ... games.html

south side sammy wrote:

are you kidding me? why should I shop there......... at ANY gamestop??

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/gamest ... games.html

BRILLIANT!

This'll go over like a lead balloon. Once this hits the national news it'll vanish, along with the brainiac that thought it up.

1. This is in response to a local law, not a company policy.
2. GameStop can give cash for trade-ins, so it makes for a good place to sell stolen goods for cash.

The second point is important because the linked story claims that GameStop is not required to do this, but having worked there for several years, I can say from experience that they have to deal with people trying to cash in on stolen goods.

I know there is little love for GameStop, but they're often an easy target when they really aren't the problem...

superjawes wrote:

1. This is in response to a local law, not a company policy.
2. GameStop can give cash for trade-ins, so it makes for a good place to sell stolen goods for cash.

The second point is important because the linked story claims that GameStop is not required to do this, but having worked there for several years, I can say from experience that they have to deal with people trying to cash in on stolen goods.

I know there is little love for GameStop, but they're often an easy target when they really aren't the problem...

All it has to do is give off the merest whiff of racism (even falsely), and this could easily turn to a shiat storm for the local gov't.

What I thought was interesting was when Gamestop tried to invoke the "pawnbroker" clause, but they fail to meet that requirement. Sounds like an overreach on someone's part.

Common sense policy. Gamestop is similar to a pawnshop. I have no problem with them following pawnshop ordinances, especially in high crime areas.

Meanwhile the people complaining likely have no problem with EA's origin, f2p, or day1 dlc, and as such they'll capitulate just as easily to gamestop's new policy.

It's a voluntary process. You don't want to leave your fingerprint there? Don't do it - sell or buy your games elsewhere. No need to get butthurt over it or start folding new hats out of tinfoil

In the article, they claim they are doing it "at the request of the police department". As a retail business, it's generally a good idea to stay on the good side of the local cops.

As JohnC notes, nobody is forcing you to do business there. If you live in Philly and don't like the policy, then don't trade in your games at GameStop. Or head out to the 'burbs, as the policy apparently applies only within city limits.

Someone at my university once found his stolen laptop at a pawnshop, somehow.

He had to call the police in order to get his laptop back because the shop owner was hesitant about handing over their inventory for free. Dunno if the thief who cashed in the laptop ever got caught.

I'd imagine Gamestop would be popular to cash in stolen games.

Whoo, finally! Now I feel a little safer. When the cops request hair and blood samples from their friendly neighborhood retailer's customers I'll feel even safer.

What's the big deal? So we're presumed guilty until proven innocent so what? These are scary times. Oh sure it's backwards from the way we were all taught but hey, if I don't like it I just won't shop there. I can look the other way and never think about it. Brilliant!

just brew it! wrote:

As a retail business, it's generally a good idea to stay on the good side of the local cops.

Yea, it usually is, even if you don't have to legally do that, especially if it's a perfectly reasonable request. But hey, some paranoid sheeple will always believe in such fictional concepts as "privacy" or that "teh government will know my fingerprints and will frame me next time they will want to fake a terrorist attack on some skyscraper or they will start collecting my DNA samples and invent a virus targeting my DNA or DNA of all the [insert your ethnicity] people!!!!!11111oneoneoneeleven"

Tinfoil hats aside, I would never give my fingerprint to a retail store regardless of the situation. Just a matter of principle.

That's why I'm a Sovereign Citizen, and refuse to give my fingerprints to anyone.

Hilarious video. The annoying retard really deserved that, whether it was "legal" or not.

My question is how do they match the fingerprints to the game? Is there some supersecret Serial number on the disk? (I looked over a few games laying around and couldn't find anything 'identifiable' on them.)

This is will just force more digital distribution IMHO.

tanker27 wrote:

My question is how do they match the fingerprints to the game? Is there some supersecret Serial number on the disk? (I looked over a few games laying around and couldn't find anything 'identifiable' on them.)

There's nothing stopping them from tagging it with an identifying number when someone trades it in.

tanker27 wrote:

This is will just force more digital distribution IMHO.

That was going to happen anyway.

canoli wrote:

Whoo, finally! Now I feel a little safer. When the cops request hair and blood samples from their friendly neighborhood retailer's customers I'll feel even safer.

What's the big deal? So we're presumed guilty until proven innocent so what? These are scary times. Oh sure it's backwards from the way we were all taught but hey, if I don't like it I just won't shop there. I can look the other way and never think about it. Brilliant!

It's really not about the customer or your presumed anything in this case. GameStop takes a risk by accepting trade-ins at all, as they do not want to be found liable for accepting stolen merchendise. This is why you have always needed to be 18 with a valid driver's license in order to trade for cash--and the employee will record your name and address during the transaction. If the laws for pawn shops get more strict, they will follow the new rules to protect themselves (it's not about GameStop treating its customer like criminals).

This is really a question about the Philly law, and whether or not that is an overreach by the local government. I can understand why it could happen...if you have major issues with stolen goods ending up in pawn shops, then you want a way to track the thief and return the goods. The question is whether or not fingerprinting goes too far (and in my honest opinion, it does).

tanker27 wrote:

My question is how do they match the fingerprints to the game? Is there some supersecret Serial number on the disk? (I looked over a few games laying around and couldn't find anything 'identifiable' on them.)

This is will just force more digital distribution IMHO.

For games, they really don't need to track 1:1. That will be more important for systems, which already have serial numbers. If there were only stolen games on the transaction, what the police would probably look for is a list of games that match what was stolen. That wouldn't be enough for an arrest, but they would be able to investigate based on the information taken on the transaction (name, address, and in this case, fingerprints). And with this new law, they would also be able to check whether the person turning in the games has a criminal record.

Why are people taking games to Gamestop in the first place? If you really want to dump a game at a fraction of its value, sell it to Amazon. They foot the bill for shipping even, and you can use the credit on anything.

If this is a local ordinance to fingerprint every customer selling something, I'm not really OK with that either, from an R&P (I'll stop) standpoint.

Getting what felt like pennies for games that I might want to play again at some point was reason enough to stop taking them to Gamestop.

derFunkenstein wrote:

If you really want to dump a game at a fraction of its value, sell it to Amazon.

Not very convenient if you just stole the game (or gaming console) from some property and need to dump it faster to get a cash for another dose of crack/heroine/whatever

derFunkenstein wrote:

Why are people taking games to Gamestop in the first place? If you really want to dump a game at a fraction of its value, sell it to Amazon. They foot the bill for shipping even, and you can use the credit on anything.

Because crack dealers don't accept... er, I mean... I dunno...

south side sammy wrote:

are you kidding me? why should I shop there......... at ANY gamestop??

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/gamest ... games.html

When I was in college I watched people walk out of target, pull a new game out of their pocket and walk into the game stop next to it for quick cash. Cash for goods this is a constant issue. Magic cards it was huge too. Guys would lift booster packs then sell the cards.

JohnC wrote:

Hilarious video. The annoying retard really deserved that, whether it was "legal" or not.

I'm assuming you don't know that hundreds of people have died as a result of being tasered. 'They were being annoying' is not a legitimate justification for tasering someone. Also, allowing law enforcement to operate outside of what is "legal" is a great way to screw up the justice system.

Put yourself in the guard's shoes for a minute though. The guy was clearly mentally unbalanced, ranting semi-coherently, and attempting to force his way into an occupied courtroom. While tasering may have been a bit much, IMO it wasn't totally unwarranted either.

just brew it! wrote:

The guy was clearly mentally unbalanced, ranting semi-coherently, and attempting to force his way into an occupied courtroom.

No, no, no, it's all about "democracy, privacy, constitution, freedom!!!!11111111" and evil parasites called "police" and other law enforcement agencies who only exist to intentionally abuse, tase and murder thousands of innocent people every day!!!!11

just brew it! wrote:

Put yourself in the guard's shoes for a minute though. The guy was clearly mentally unbalanced, ranting semi-coherently, and attempting to force his way into an occupied courtroom. While tasering may have been a bit much, IMO it wasn't totally unwarranted either.

Meh. There was really no reason to taser the guy. He wasn't getting physical or making any threats. Between the two at the hall and the third against the wall behind the guy, there is no reason they couldn't have at least tried to walk him out the front. If he resists or gets physical, then yeah use the taser. But at the point where he's just standing there being an ass, it was uncalled for.

Law enforcement has gotten way too eager to use force these days, in my opinion.

And we've headed into R&P. Please stop.

superjawes wrote:

It's really not about the customer or your presumed anything in this case. GameStop takes a risk by accepting trade-ins at all, as they do not want to be found liable for accepting stolen merchendise. ... (it's not about GameStop treating its customer like criminals).

of course it's presuming guilt. How does it work? You walk in with a game you want to sell - "we need your fingerprints first"- now they have them. What can they do with them except check them against known felons - and whoever else is in the police (FBI? NSA? Homeland Security? Immigration?) database. If that isn't presuming guilt then nothing is.

But it gets much worse - what happens when they come up with a match, now what? It's Joe Blow and Joe's in Philly's court records; he was busted a few years ago for smoking weed in the park. Today he sold a used game to GS - a $50 title they gave him 6 bucks for. How does GS prove that Joe's copy is "hot?" Must he produce an original receipt to avoid arrest? What if he doesn't save receipts? What if it was a gift? Joe Blow's got a record nobody's gonna believe his scrawny ass. Imagine if his 2-year old rap was for shoplifting. In any case the burden of proof is on Joe now and the stakes are high; getting arrested is no joke. GS has prints of a guy who was convicted 2 years ago for smoking grass in public. Now he's selling stolen goods...or is he?

Am I'm missing something obvious? I hope I am. Well I expect the "invisible hand" will speak loud and clear: fingerprinting customers is ridiculous.

edit: I hope I don't sound high and mighty, I just don't like it that's all. Put aside everything else, I think you agree this just doesn't pass the "smell test."

I understand Gamestop's predicament, but fingerprints are just too invasive for the application. They need to explore other methods.

I've never personally sold anything to Gamestop (so I don't know their current practices), but I think a good start would be for Gamestop to create a central seller's database which encompasses every storefront in the company. Entry to the database would be REQUIRED to sell games, and it would be tied to the seller's drivers license number. From there, they could implement things such as a 3-5 day waiting period for all new sellers, or limitations on the amount of games that can be sold within a given time period. Since thieves want their money quick (and they need to sell more than a couple games to make any decent amount of money) those two things alone should discourage many of them, especially when all the stores are linked together and they can't just drive across town.

With a central database, they could also use certain algorithms to determine which sellers are the highest risk. For instance, if someone attempts to sell the same title more than once (for the same system), it should throw up a huge red flag, as there's almost no chance this would happen legitimately. Also, if someone is always selling the max amount but never buying anything, this could cause the computer to rate them as a higher risk, and further restrict the amount of games they're able to sell in a time period. For the highest risk, they could even take away the option of cash and only offer store credit, or payment through some other method (personally identifiable to the seller).

These are just off the top of my head. Someone paid to handle these sorts of things should be able to do better.

canoli wrote:

of course it's presuming guilt. How does it work? You walk in with a game you want to sell - "we need your fingerprints first"- now they have them. What can they do with them except check them against known felons - and whoever else is in the police (FBI? NSA? Homeland Security? Immigration?) database. If that isn't presuming guilt then nothing is.

But it gets much worse - what happens when they come up with a match, now what? It's Joe Blow and Joe's in Philly's court records; he was busted a few years ago for smoking weed in the park. Today he sold a used game to GS - a $50 title they gave him 6 bucks for. How does GS prove that Joe's copy is "hot?" Must he produce an original receipt to avoid arrest? What if he doesn't save receipts? What if it was a gift? Joe Blow's got a record nobody's gonna believe his scrawny ass. Imagine if his 2-year old rap was for shoplifting. In any case the burden of proof is on Joe now and the stakes are high; getting arrested is no joke. GS has prints of a guy who was convicted 2 years ago for smoking grass in public. Now he's selling stolen goods...or is he?

Am I'm missing something obvious? I hope I am. Well I expect the "invisible hand" will speak loud and clear: fingerprinting customers is ridiculous.

edit: I hope I don't sound high and mighty, I just don't like it that's all. Put aside everything else, I think you agree this just doesn't pass the "smell test."

This is just paranoia. For starters, this is a private company taking your information, not the police, so your use of the system is entirely voluntary. Second, the description of the Philly law suggests that GameStop has little insight on what happens after the fingerprints go into a database. Rather, it seems that fingerprints are getting stored so the police can see who sold games to GS for cash, and--as I've said before--if those games match a reported theft, the police would be able to track down that individual (I assume this would apply to any goods sold anywhere in Philadelphia).

Yes, there are issues with this, and I believe that it is overreach by the city, but there is nothing to suggest that you could get arrested for pawning something when you have a criminal record. Not only that, but you would be protected by the Fifth Amendment (you cannot be tried for the same crime twice). The absolute worst case I can see is that Joe Blow would be unable to sell anything to GameStop or pawn shops in Philadelphia.