Not even a "scam" but definitely an example of moral hazard: I used to live next to a pub which had very little parking which was always full. Across the street was a large parking lot which mainly serviced a bank. Posted signs said that the parking lot was for "customers only" (of the bank) and indicated that violators could be towed. But of course, people driving by at night looking for parking to go to the pub would assume that since the bank was closed, there would be "no reason" for them to be enforcing this rule. Unfortunately, the tow company contracted to enforce it did have about a hundred good reasons. From what I could see they managed to catch a few people every single night. The pub knew it was a problem: they put signs inside the pub warning people not to leave their cars there. Obviously, they had probably had some pretty pissed-off designated drivers (or would-be drunk drivers) at 2 a.m. and having to cab it across town to collect their car.
You can always save a hash, change the password, and then restore the hash. Basically, if you have direct access the the DB you can loin to someones account without them knowing or permanently changing the password. Granted, there are some minor issues with salting passwords etc, but protecting an account from someone with long term RW access to a DB and reasonable understanding of the system is next to impossible.
It sounds like a real pisser for the owner of the businesses, but it's hard to take the article seriously when it's so loaded with populist sneering. The first line is the giveaway: "We often hear politicians and pundits denounce property rights" -- do we really? I don't know if I've ever heard a US politician explicitly denounce "property rights" as a broad category. It isn't necessary to keep harping on the broader issue -- just tell the story and it should be clear whose rights are being violated, if any.
