advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

How To Defend Against a Cookie Monster

May 2nd, 2013

Epic Marketing offered a service to retailers to allow them to engage in behavioral marketing of customers— even those customers who had deliberately made a decision not to accept cookies, and who took efforts to protect the privacy of their Internet browsing activity. Rather than relying on the cookies themselves, Epic developed a technology called “history sniffing.”

Every browser has a history file, a file that lists all of the websites that browser (and therefore, presumably, that consumer) has visited over a period of time. If you visit a website twice, a feature in the browser can change the color of the URL displayed.

It’s easy to see—try doing a Google search for something, and you will see that all of the results are hyperlinked in blue. Click on one of the results. Then go back to Google and do the search again. You will notice that the one link you previously clicked on is now displayed in purple, not blue.

Epic took advantage of this feature to essentially sniff the browser history files of consumers and gather data for behavioral marketing. The company created a network of more than 24,000 domains, including Papajohns.com, Cnn.com, Orbitz.com, Redcross.com and others, and was able to collect and analyze data across these domains.

Epic then profiled consumers based on this information, sometimes gleaning sensitive health data from the sites visited. Epic could tell whether a consumer was interested in things like arthritis remedies, memory improvement, and pregnancy or fertility issues. It sold this data to other merchants.

So there were two (not mutually exclusive) categories of merchants here—those who gave their customers’ data to Epic, and those who purchased aggregated and analyzed data from Epic. Both of them have potential FTC or civil liability, depending on the circumstances.

When a diligent and privacy-minded consumer visits a merchant’s website, they may look at that merchant’s privacy policy. They may also take precautions like blocking or deleting their cookie files.

It is unlikely, however, that they will delete their browser history files entirely or use a secure proxy server for Web browsing. The merchant’s privacy policy will typically inform consumers about the data it collects and its policies with respect to things like cookies.

Take Papa John’s for example. Its privacy policy notes that: “Our cookies cannot and do not retrieve any other data from your hard drive or pass on computer viruses. If you are just browsing our website, a cookie identifies your browser and user id (and not your identity). If you place orders with us, we use cookies to assist in storing your preferences and recording other session information (a “session” is a single visit by you to our website). We may provide your personal information to our restaurant affiliates and franchisees in order to enable your local Papa John’s restaurant(s) to better serve you. We also aggregate information about how our online ordering service is used (without specific identification to any particular user) to be able to improve our service and make it more responsive to our customers’ preferences. We also make such aggregate information (without identification to any specific individual) available to our restaurant affiliates and other affiliates in order to obtain information about products, services, offers and notices which we believe will be useful and informative to our website users.”

But Epic was collecting information from the consumer’s hard drive—or at least data stored in the browser’s cache indirectly. And Epic was sharing that information not simply with Papa John’s “restaurant affiliates and other affiliates,” whatever that might mean, but with any subscribers to Epic’s data analytics service.

By participating in the Epic marketing program, companies like Papa John’s may themselves be violating the privacy of consumers, either directly or indirectly. Even by purchasing data that was collected this way, retailers may have liability.

And here’s the other problem for consumers. If you want to know what will happen with data you provide to a retailer, a consumer will typically look no further than the retailer’s privacy policy. The retailer’s vendors and suppliers—like Epic—have their own privacy policies, which may be just as turgid as those of the retailer.

For example, Epic’s privacy policy simply stated that Epic Marketplace automatically receives and records anonymous information that your browser sends whenever you visit a website which is part of the Epic Marketplace Network. We use log files to collect Internet protocol (IP) addresses, browser type, Internet service providers (ISP), referring/exit pages, platform type, date/time stamp, one or more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser, and responses by a web surfer to an advertisement delivered by us.

Now, it is highly unlikely that a consumer would ever read the privacy policy of a company like Epic. The consumer has a relationship with the Red Cross or CNN. But even if they read Epic’s policy, they would have no way of knowing that Epic, on behalf of its retailer customers, was actually sniffing the browser history files to profile consumers.

And this, according to the FTC and the settlement agreement finalized last month, constituted a fraudulent and deceptive trade practice by Epic.

No word on whether it also constituted a fraudulent and deceptive trade practice by Epic’s willing merchant participants. But that is what litigation is for.

If you disagree with me, I’ll see you in court, buddy. If you agree with me, however, I would love to hear from you.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.