advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Apple Arrest Puts Heat On Mobile Checkout Policies

September 5th, 2012

Let’s do a quick list of the ways this situation was handled in the worst possible way.

First, a store never wants to accuse a shopper of stealing unless the store is quite confident that the shopper was, in fact, stealing. If there’s any reasonable doubt at all, commonsense dictates that it’s better to let 10 possible shoplifters go than to arrest one innocent customer.

In this case, though, it’s not even an issue of letting the customer go. You don’t let him or her leave. You simply ask that the customer complete the transaction. For a nice touch of class, the LP person could even apologize; as in, “I am so sorry. This is a new app and it can be confusing at times. If you just click here and then here, you should be fine. My apologies for the inconvenience.”

Second—and this is potentially a much bigger corporate issue—this is a new form of payment. As news of this arrest has spread across the country—and it has spread—how do you think that will impact other Apple shoppers who had been thinking about trying this app? “They arrested somebody for inadvertently not processing the purchase properly? There’s no way I am going to try it. I’ll either wait in line or check out these new Androids.”

The problem with the mobile app is that the lack of intent cuts both ways. It makes it easy to pretend to pay for the product. But if LP asks to see everyone’s receipt—in the way, for example, Costco does—or at least asks to see the receipt for anyone trying to leave with an RFID-tagged product the system doesn’t think was paid for, that’s a shoplift that won’t succeed. And if customers are routinely made to go back and pay or to leave the product behind, minimal losses should result. (Customers can always slip by, especially if the store is crowded. Do you think the Apple Store in NYC won’t be, say around December 15?)

StorefrontBacktalk Legal Columnist—and former federal prosecutor—Mark Rasch has argued before that mobile will force shoplifting processes to be rethought. But looking at the Apple incident raises new questions. “If you go to the grocery store and the clerk fails to ring up an item—or an item doesn’t scan properly—are you guilty of theft when you pay the amount on the register?” Rasch asked. “Is there a legal obligation to report the undercharge to the associate? Does it matter if you know the item hasn’t been rung up? Is the intent non-existent if you weren’t really paying attention?”

What about glitches? What if a customer does everything properly but the app doesn’t properly show a receipt? Or the receipt arrived and then was either deleted by accident or it deleted itself via a glitch? Will LP just follow orders and have everyone arrested?

This is not just an Apple issue. Walmart is trying out in-store mobile checkout, JCPenney is saying it will do so and many other stores are being pushed by PayPal, Google Wallet and others to do the same. Shoplifting policies need to be radically reworked in a mobile self-checkout world, unless chains want to discover what massive customer alienation feels like.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read Apple Arrest Puts Heat On Mobile Checkout Policies

  1. ed Says:

    Mobile check-out has the same challenges as self-checkout stations by putting trust on the customer to pick from inventory,conduct the transaction and walk out the store without interaction.

    Most shoplifters believe they are smarter than the retail security system and the shoplifter game goal is to outsmart the retailer with the prize of the shoplifted item. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was the case, which was a very expensive pair of headphones.

  2. Evan Schuman Says:

    Good point, Ed, but as the story points out, the security issues involving mobile go beyond self-checkout security. ‘Tis not the same issues in the sense that self-checkout transactions are observed in one place, by the associate managing those SCO lanes. In the Walmart story this week, the associate merely sees the shopper scan the single barcode from her phone. This robs her of the ability to notice if she deliberately does NOT scan several items. (Granted, that can be detected with in-aisle cameras, but it’s much more complicated. The system–or associates–needs to notice that a specific customer is using mobile and then notice she doesn’t scan certain items in certain aisles.) In the Apple Store example, a scan can happen but the process may not be properly completed–deliberately or inadvertently.
    None of these issues are unsolvable, but the belief that mobile self-checkout presents no security issues beyond traditional POS self-checkout is a very dangerous thought.

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.