advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Think Free Wi-Fi Is Simple? You Could Be Sued For Negligence

February 9th, 2012

That’s a reasonable argument. But it’s still an argument a retailer would have to be making in court, which isn’t a place any retailer wants Wi-Fi to connect it to.

For Randazza’s part, he clearly doesn’t believe any of the defendants he’s fingered are actually innocent victims of Wi-Fi theft. But let’s say one of those IP addresses did belong to a Starbucks. What then?

“We tested this,” he said. “Starbucks could block or throttle this kind of activity. You’d have to sit for three hours to allow one movie to upload.”

And no one has ever sat in a Starbucks for three hours?

It’s actually riskier than that. As the Massachusetts lawsuit spells out, BitTorrent doesn’t require movie thieves to sit for hours while a movie downloads. A “torrent” involves breaking the movie up into pieces, which then can be downloaded from many different computers—not even necessarily all at once.

So if a would-be movie thief walks through a mall from one free Wi-Fi-enabled retailer to the next, using an iPhone or iPad to slurp down a few pieces of a stolen movie at each store, every one of those stores’ IP addresses could conceivably show up on the list of thieves. And if the Wi-Fi negligence theory holds up in court, some overly aggressive plaintiff’s lawyer could list all those retailers as defendants in a negligence lawsuit.

None of this spells doom for in-store customer Wi-Fi, at least not yet. Both the Wi-Fi negligence legal theory and the idea that Wi-Fi-offering retailers aren’t covered by the DMCA have yet to be tested. And there are bigger problems with letting customers use the in-store Wi-Fi for whatever they please—there’s really no limit to how much bandwidth some customers would happily soak up, in ways that don’t have anything to do with moving merchandise.

But it’s probably not to early to start thinking about how you might keep an eye on that customer Wi-Fi traffic, or even filter out connections that don’t seem to have anything to do with making actual customers happy. That way, even if you get dragged into court, at least you can say you tried.


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.