Collecting ID and Personal Information

Unregistered said:

Seems to me that a "recommendation" from the privacy commissioner in one province to Crappy Tire is not even close to a guarantee that Crappy Tire has done anything at all to change their computer system.

Even if they stopped showing a field for entry of driver's license info on the screen, that doesn't mean that it couldn't still be scanned using a card reader, and stored without being displayed on the screen. Besides, clerks can just write down the driver's license number of a paper form for retention, and it could easily be manually entered into a database later.

We still read reports here and elsewhere of customers having additional information being recorded, and not simply viewed and confirmed without being recorded.

The only way to know your information is safe, is to prevent it from being recorded in any manner.

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

Better call Jesse Ventura

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

Typical confusion by Crappy People on ordinary English usage.

It's not really a 'conpiracy', if its a well-known group that openly meets to plan coordinated activities, LOL!

Just like a 'depection' is not automatically also a 'fraud'.

Or how a 'warranty' isn't a 'return policy'.

So many of examples of CT New Speak, it's hard to keep track.

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

Typical confusion by Crappy People on ordinary English usage.

It's not really a 'conpiracy', if its a well-known group that openly meets to plan coordinated activities, LOL!

Just like a 'depection' is not automatically also a 'fraud'.

Or how a 'warranty' isn't a 'return policy'.

So many of examples of CT New Speak, it's hard to keep track.

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

i like how they write 'faker advocate' when they really mean 'consumer'

or 'truth' when they are telling lies

'lies' when consumers write the truth

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

Super belly laugh at faker advocate. They aren't kidnapping people for ransom in Somalia....it's just entrepreneurship!
Silly faker advocate, Trix are for kids.

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

Now deception isn't "automatically" fraud, before it wasn't fraud at all. I guess faker advocates would like to write and interpret their own rules and laws.....but no such luck.....maybe in Somalia.....LMAO!

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

The difference between you and the pirates is that they actually honor their agreements. Thanks for bringing it up lol.

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

Typical CT lie. Back to his old tricks, I see.

Nobody said that deception wasn't an element of fraud - only that deception by itself does not constitute a crime of fraud. Something that the consumers probably already know.

I guess he thinks he can intimidate customers into foregoing legitimate returns, just to avoid the type of false accusations we see regularly from all the CT Liars both here and in stores.

Nice try, though.

For a long list of common CT lies, check this out: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

The whole 'fraud' debate was lost by the CT Liar back in June on this thread: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...nders-post-so-many-lies-here-24.html#post4625

The definiton the CT Liar posted then included 'elements':

"Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result."

They didn't like losing the debate back then, so are looking for another definition they like better, LOL! A few days ago, it was a lame Wikipedia definition, over on this thread: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...rranty-no-refund-no-exchange-56.html#post5680

Now they are trying another out this thread instead. Good luck with that, LOL!

That reminds me: whatever happened to the proof you were going to provide, of your grandiose claims regarding customers who (allegedly) used a receipt from a new item to return an old, unopened item? I.e:

"I've had several people convicted of both fraud and false pretences. If I catch you even once trying to deceive, the police do come and the conviction rate is 100%"

Also, don't forget to post your evidence that someone posting here did something that meets all five separate elements (especially "injury").

Lookin' forward to it!

(And something releveant to ID and Personal Information might be nice for a change!)

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

Actually, I'd love to give you my examples, but letting some anonymous Internet faker wacko know where I live is out of the question. I mean, we've seen the booze filled tirades and anger management issues, so why chance it. In the mean time, chew on the definition of fraud until you understand it, or until you realize that the majority of this country just doesn't think like you. That's why you're a faker advocate, that's why you're irrelevant, after all. But you already knew that.

Click to expand...

Unregistered said:

So, no examples of all these people you say have been convicted of "fraud"?

You know, all the ones who you said were using a receipt from a new item to return an old, unopened item?

Any examples from your store (assuming you have one)? None from any stores at all?

No, I didn't think there would be.

Gee, are you sure that the "conviction rate is 100%"? It sure doesn't sound like it, LOL!

And, still no evidence to support your claim that any deception is 'automatically' a crime of fraud, huh? Also pretty interesting.

Alos, still no evidence that someone posting here did something that meets all five separate elements of fraud (especially "injury"), huh?

Click to expand...