> The retail chain didn’t believe in using cameras, because they thought it made customers feel “not trustworthy” (stupid)

Uh that depends a lot on how the store executes it. Some ways of doing security largely work against the overall purpose of security, even if they reduce outright shoplifting somewhat.

Cameras, copious signs about prosecuting shoplifters, those fucking blinking monitors on self-checkouts where you see yourself scanning groceries, and the like can certainly cause unintended consequences for the store. The more obvious and extensive your security, the more you're driving away legitimate customers and tempting people to test your limits.

People respond to expectations. When you're treating the customers like criminals you're kind of asking for only potential criminals and people with less money to shop there. People with enough money they don't have any need to take the outsized risk of retail theft don't have to put up with a store that treats them like crap; they can just shop somewhere else. The store takes a real risk of limiting themselves to more problematic, less affluent customers.

And when you treat people like they're already criminals you basically remove the social contract, too. You're making the whole check-and-balance about criminal justice. So any way people can still screw over the store - return fraud, self-checkout fraud, whatever - they're probably more likely to do in a place with an obvious emphasis on security and suspicion.