Google Mobile-Payment Patent Raises Privacy Flags

bizwriter writes "Google has been interested in the mobile payment business, with rumored service tests coming soon. Now the rumors have some more tangible back-up in the form of a patent application that not only describes a versatile payment system, but one in which Google would obtain details of purchasing that are normally unavailable." Reader Batblue points out a related article about how the temptation of 'big data' is leading businesses to draw us closer to a surveillance society.

Comments

So it isn't

[peragrin]

So it isn't Big brother that you need to watch out for but Uncle CEO.

The worse part is your not even in the will.

Re:So it isn't

[ajs]

My point was literally that "Do no evil" is an impossible standard, whereas "Don't be evil" is a lot easier to live up to. I even called it a catch phrase, instead of insisting it was a motto or whatever.

As I've pointed out a number of times before, it's neither.

See their S1 filing with the SEC. It's actually a well defined bound on their business practices which they call out to investors in order to ensure that they can bring their business practices in line with that bound and not run afoul of stockholder lawsuits.

For practical purposes, the problem with Google's "don't be evil" is that they take it as a given in everything they do, thus they engage in a broad number of practices which appear to be dangerous precursors to the abuse of public trust. It's not that they are abusing that trust, it's just that they're putting themselves in a position where they could. I think the Google experiment is a fascinating one, and I really wonder how it will play out. If they continue to gather potentially sensitive user data and continue to shepherd it with user controls and transparency, Google could potentially serve as the model on which we develop (here, in the U.S.) our analog in the data world for the financial world's concept of "fiduciary responsibility." Other countries have begun to try to formulate this on their own, but the U.S. has been highly reluctant to place such controls on data.

I'd very much like to feel as comfortable giving Google every detail of my personal data as I feel in giving my life savings to, say, Fidelity Investments. I don't worry about what Fidelity could do with that money because we have about 300 years worth of law and precedent that have worked out what a fiduciary should and should not do. With data, we're just starting to walk down that path, so paranoia isn't a bad thing. it's just that we should keep in mind that the companies that are forging that frontier are no more our enemies than a bank or other fiduciary. Those institutions can do the wrong thing (as evidenced recently) as well, but we punish them when they misuse our money, not when they file a patent for storing or transferring it.

What? The author does not understand how it works.

[Anon-Admin]

I hate to break it to everyone but the last time I ran an online store the Merchant Account processors required that I submit everything. The persons info, CC# ISV, list of items being purchased, etc. I was running a lab supply company and the Merchant Account processor would review my sales every month and cut off my ability to process CC's. Seems that Petri dishes, syringes, and beakers are considered "Drug Paraphernalia" and if they see them they cut you off. In a 1 year time I went through 4 Merchant providers and the only suggestion that was given was to shutdown the online site and publish catalogs and do mail order only as that processing does not require you to submit the items being purchased. Needless to say, I shutdown the company. I dont trust the CC processors (Merchant account processors) There needs to be something done about them.

Repeat after me:

[jbeaupre]

"A patent isn't a product."

Patents have only one power. To prevent others from using what you patented. You don't have to do it. You might not want to. You might not be able to. So why file for a patent on something you'll never use?

Strategy. If you figure out two good ways to make something, but one is slightly better than the other, you patent both. But you're not going to bother making something the less desirable way, you just don't want a competitor to either. Or maybe for moral reasons, you don't want anyone to do it (lobotomy ray gun, whatever).

Or maybe you can't do what you patented for practical reasons. Patent interference, market conditions, the law (i.e. bald eagle killing machine).

If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.

Re:Repeat after me:

[pclminion]

If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.

More than that, the patent is a piece of paper that PREVENTS other people from doing this. Patenting evil ideas is actually a pretty clever way of making sure those ideas are never implemented (not that I place all that much faith in Google).

Re:Google needs to start caring about peoples priv

[Anonymous Coward]

But the fact that he consistently gets FP on stories and manages to slip something about how great Microsoft is into the post somewhere, and note that his 3-paragraph essay took him < 1 minute to write and post...

Re:Trade-offs

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Try that at a Car Rental place. See how far it gets you.

Spoilers- you'll get arrested and fined before they do.

Re:Trade-offs

[Seumas]

Well, the most obvious example would be the Apple Store. Have you ever tried to pay cash for items, there? I bought my mom an iMac for mother's day last year when I was visiting home and they required a credit card. The time before that, I bought two 30" ACDs, an iPod, and two laptops. Was going to pay in cash. They would only take a credit card. As far as I know, that is a company-wide policy (based on my experiences and experiences I've read over the internet -- it is possible that I am completely incorrect on that issue, though). I do recall that they wouldn't sell anyone an iPad on cash, too.

In places that do accept cash, you'll often find that they give you more of a benefit to pay with a credit card than if you pay in cash. That seems backwards, of course. If I pay in cash, you should maybe even give me a discount (that's what places used to do). Especially since using a credit card incurs an extra cost on them for the transaction fee.

When it comes down to it, you can be refused service for any reason. If I already have an ongoing business relationship with them, I'm pretty sure they have to accept payment on my invoice in cash (unless I've signed something indicating I'd pay only in another form). However, if I walk into your place and say "Here's $5,000 and I want to buy that thing over there", I'm pretty sure they can just tell me to go away.

Hell, I'm pretty sure that credit card company policies (for VISA, at least) state that you can not be required to show your identification when making a purchase. That as long as your card is signed on the back, you can not be refused service with it for not showing other forms of ID. They even tell you to call their 800 number and report a vendor if they won't accept it under those condition. However, try and actually do that in real life. You won't get anywhere.