Europe Starts To Crack Down On Retail Data Collection

Written by Evan Schuman
March 10th, 2010

As Google—which has been toying with capturing retailers’ in-store images for its search database—and mobile projects have been pushing the data-capture envelope, retailers have been able to sit back and think of 100 ways to use that data once it’s organized and made accessible. Even the petabytes of free CRM data floating around in social sites are starting to be spidered and analyzed, not to mention payment cards designed for data-sharing and even more wacky ideas.

But we have now seen the first concrete government effort to slow down that data flow, and it comes from European Union data privacy regulators. An EU letter said that not only must Google provide more warnings to consumers before it sends cameras out to shoot street views, but that Google “should shorten the length of time for which it keeps the uncensored photographs it takes from one year to six months,” according to the U.K. news outlet The Telegraph. “Google said its need to retain the original Street View images for a full year is ‘legitimate and justified,'” the story reported.

It’s not clear whether these concerns will move much beyond Europe, although Canadian government officials also take their privacy much more seriously than do U.S. government agents. But if these rulings continue, it raises some fascinating questions.

What if a consumer took similar image captures with her mobile phone? Indeed, aren’t these exactly the type of pictures that European, Asian and American tourists take routinely? Will this six-month rule apply to them? What about retail surveillance footage or, for that matter, police surveillance footage? Is the concern the images or the fact that someone is spending the money to aggregate and categorize those images for easy discovery?

In the U.S., police and some marketers have been accelerating their use of high-speed cameras designed to capture huge quantities of license plates and to record that data for an extended period. Some retailers have been toying with using that data for quite a few store services. Will that type of information be limited to six months? What if a murder is discovered eight months after another crime is committed and police want to go back and see who parked near that location?

What the EU is trying to do is noble and all that, but we’re not so sure it makes sense in an age where millions of consumers are walking around with mobile phones that take high-quality photos and videos. The reality is that life is being captured and recorded by everyone, from every angle. Why not allow—heck, encourage—a business like Google to capture, analyze and make sense of as much of that data as possible so it can actually help people and businesses?


Comments are closed.


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!

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...

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.