advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

The Data Ownership Geolocation Quicksand

July 23rd, 2009
  • How Fast Are You Mobile-ing?
    “At an accident scene, your cell carrier could tell your insurance company how fast you were traveling before the accident,” Rasch wrote. “In fact, every time your cell phone showed that you were traveling in excess of the speed limit, a citation or fine could be issued — much like rental car companies use GPS built into their cars to enforce the contractual provisions prohibiting taking the car out of the country.”

  • Age Restrictions
    The most common age-restricted products—tobacco, alcohol, some contraceptives, etc.—won’t apply. But what about downloadable adult videos? Different states—and, for that matter, cities, counties and municipalities—can pass different laws determining what ages are needed for various products. A retailer may need to know what jurisdiction that call is coming from to determine what rules to apply.

    We then get into the thorny question of “What happens if the consumer’s cell phone travels from one jurisdiction to another during the transaction?” Someone will need to decide the precise point of a transaction that will be used to determine jurisdiction for that purchase.

  • Taxes
    This is similar to Age Restrictions. State tax collection is often dictated by whether the retailer has a significant facility in that state. That cellphone moving from one state to the next might cause all kinds of issues.
  • Export Restrictions On Encryption
    Some software—sophisticated encryption is an easy example—can not legally be exported. With shipping, that’s easy. Online, a question is simply asked. But with mobile, does the retailer have an obligation to check?

    For almost any of these examples, retailers would have a legitimate reason—far beyond a consumer opting in for customization—to capture location. Indeed, not only is opt-in not necessary for these data grabs, they can’t be sought because the data capture is mandatory. Does that change the game rules? Should the line be drawn at “If the consumer didn’t opt in, we must use it for the original purpose and then delete?”

    Who would enforce such a rule? For that matter, should it even be enforced?

    For those instances where the consumer does voluntarily opt in, is that forever? Is that for any company to use that data for any purpose?

    Much needs to be worked out—legally, politically and morally—before retailers should aggressively start thinking about leveraging geolocation. But wrestling with these kinds of questions is probably a decent place to start.


  • 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.