The Data Ownership Geolocation Quicksand

Written by Evan Schuman
July 23rd, 2009

The ability of a retailer to know precisely where any mobile-phone-using consumer is at any given moment—coldly dubbed geolocation—has always been a delicate and dangerous issue, with perceived privacy problems never straying far from the conversation. But what happens when the nature of the service requires that the retailer or service provider know the exact location of the consumer?

In those mandatory situations, who owns that data? Given that there are no laws or even strict guidelines today about such capabilities, what’s to stop a retailer from using the data for one legally mandated purpose—such as collecting state taxes—and then using it for an unrelated purpose, such as marketing or sales?

As a practical matter, the most problematic of these issues are those dealing with digitally downloadable content, including software, music, videos, E-books, games and even pornography.

(Sidenote on pornography. In the very early days of the Web—it was late ’95—I was working at a large business-to-business publisher and a very senior editorial strategist was analyzing the best and more intelligent content on the Web, across a wide range of verticals. When she discovered that a handful of pornographic sites in those days had Web traffic that obliterated most of the top news sites put together, she included the most succinct and analytical slide I’ve ever seen. The slide analyzing that fact had only three words: “Men Are Scum.”)

Because much of mobile commerce will deal with physical items that are shipped to the consumer or delivered to a store near the consumer, no great geolocation magic will be needed to determine where the customer is when obtaining the product. But with products that can be sent directly to the phone, the legal ground has barely been walked on. A few examples to consider of when geolocation may be needed:

  • Sports Live Streaming And Blackouts
    Mark Rasch, the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s high-tech crimes group who today is in training to become a Master Curmudgeon, wrote in to describe his experience with an iPhone and a Major League Baseball app that allows subscribers to watch non-blocked-out games in their entirety.

    “Until the new app surfaced however, MLB could tell what your ‘home’ city was based upon the zip code of the credit card you used. So clever baseball fans in New York would ‘swap’ their subscription with fans in Nebraska so they could mostly watch the home teams. Not any more,” Rasch wrote in an E-mail. “The new app uses the iPhone’s GPS and compass (or cell tower information for older iPhones) to determine precisely where you are when you try to watch the game. If you are too close to Fenway Park, no Red Sox games for you.”

    Rasch’s point was who owned the data after the game authorization was completed? Who could that data be sold to?

  • advertisement

    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.