advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Sears’ Online Snooping Nets Fed Smackdown

June 7th, 2009

The Sears statement went on to note the “research project” ended more than a year ago and stressed Sears has not been involved in anything similar since then and has no plans to do so in the future. “No customer data was ever compromised or disclosed, and all personal information was destroyed at the end of the project,” added Sears. “Any software that was downloaded by panelists was also removed at the conclusion of the research period with each participant. No tracking software is being deployed on any of Sears Holdings’ sites or communities.”

The original Sears research was done in partnership with Comscore and Aiello stressed that Sears played a minor role. “Comscore was the research company that conducted the research on our behalf as they do for dozens of other major companies. We didn’t create any software,” he said. “All data was deleted after the study was completed, just as with surveys (with) Neisen or other survey vendors.”

Aiello also said that, even though Sears and Comscore collected all of that data, the information that was delivered to Sears was devoid of any sensitive, personal information. “We never received or looked at any personal information, just aggregate reports. All data was anonymous in any case. No human gets to see any of the personal information and PII was scrubbed automatically. But we probably should stay away from commenting on process and what Comscore does.”

Harvard Business School Assistant Professor Ben Edelman, an Internet security advocate, was one of the first to discover and write about what Sears was doing. “Sears’ tracking was deplorable,” Edelman said after the FTC settlement was announced. “The FTC has confirmed that Sears’ software tracked not just ordinary Web browsing and searching, but medical records, financial records, and even library book usage. No wonder Sears couldn’t tell users, simply and directly, what the software actually did. What users would accept such detailed and onerous tracking? But, to Sears’ credit, they substantially stopped this practice once the public (myself included) began to express concern.”

Invitations to join the “My SHC Community” appeared to some people as they visited Sears.com and Kmart.com. The invitations called upon users to “participate in exciting, engaging, and on-going interactions – always on your terms and always by your choice” and Sears paid participants $10.

The FTC said Sears disclosed (in a very long user license agreement) the full extent of its information gathering plans that appeared “at the end of a multi-step registration process.” The commission said the disclosure failed to plainly and adequately warn participants about the depth of the data gathering and, therefore, was deceptive and in violation of FTC regulations.


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.