RadioShack Accused Of Dumping Thousands Of Customer Records Into Public Trashbin

Written by Evan Schuman
April 3rd, 2007

RadioShack is the latest retailer to fall victim to accusation of lax handling of sensitive customer information. This time, though, there are no anonymous cyber thieves to paint as the culprits.

The Texas Attorney General accused RadioShack of violating provisions of the 2005 Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act because “company employees dumped bulk customer records in garbage containers behind the store. According to investigators, the records contained sensitive consumer information, including Social Security numbers, credit and debit card information, names, addresses, and telephone numbers,” said a statement the Texas AG issued.

RadioShack, in its own statement, essentially conceded the incident happened. “In this isolated instance, the store did not act in accordance with (the RadioShack document destruction) program. However, we moved quickly to reclaim and secure those documents,” the RadioShack statement said.

Industry officials, already weary from major retail data breaches, were not in the mood to be gentile with this incident. “?Customer data does not belong in dumpsters and clearly throwing out vast amounts of sensitive customer data is a brainless thing to do,” said Mehlam Shakir, Chief Technology Officer for RippleTech, a Conshohocken, Pa., security firm. ?But that?s not the real issue. The primary issue is that most retailers don?t have the formal procedures in place to properly dispose of sensitive data, especially in paper form. Retailers must break out of their traditionally reactive modes and become proactive. Setting guidelines is a good first step, but what happens when electronic data becomes paper data in the hands of employees? They need to not only know what data is being printed, when and by whom, but also follow this information from print-out to disposal to prevent heavy fines and reassure customer loyalty.”

The best line in the Lone Star state prosecutor’s statement: “The records included personal information from one consumer?s 1998 credit application and another receipt from a local woman who, ironically, purchased a shredder from RadioShack in order to protect herself from identity theft.” When an irony is so obvious that lawyers pick up on it, it’s a wonderful thing.

Beyond identity theft law–with potential penalties of as much as $50,000 per violation–Texas also charged RadioShack with violations under Chapter 35 of the Business and Commerce Code, which requires businesses to develop retention and disposal procedures for their clients? personal information. The law provides for civil penalties of up to $500 for each abandoned record.


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.