Shopping Center Tracking System Condemned by Civil Rights Campaigners

hypnosec writes "Civil rights campaigners have spoken out against a technology used by several shopping centers in the UK to track consumers using their mobile signals. The shopping centers claim that the technology helps them provide better services to consumers and retailers without compromising privacy. The system, called the Footpath, allows them to know how people are spending time in a shopping center, which spots they visit the most and even the route they take while walking around. Several consumer and civil rights groups, including Big Brother Watch, say consumers must be given a choice on whether they want their movement tracked or not." We covered a similar tracking system here in the U.S. last month.

Comments

Incentives

[BlackusDiamondus]

There's an easy way that they could cajole most people into being tracked, and that's to give them "points" which they can spend on good & services depending on the time spent in the shopping centre, etc. That way, both parties get what they want and Big Brother is happy again as Joe Consumer continues on in blissful ignorance.

Re:Incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you hear the story where people visiting web shops on iPads paid higher prices for the same products? Why would a merchant do that? Because he has segmented the customer base into price-conscious people and people who have iPads.

The more information a merchant has about you, the closer he can get to the maximum price you're willing to pay. This is the reason why these systems are installed. If you're OK with paying more than you have to, these tracking systems should not worry you. In that case I suggest you never take up playing Poker.

There are other privacy issues when you can't control who else gets the information, but the intended consequences alone should be enough for customers to shun stores who track them.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be identifying information stored. Never believe otherwise.

this is probably in violation of EU privacy laws

[ga53n]

I think this will be in violation of

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

especially Article 7

but apparently nobody cares about what is legal anyway

further reading to be found here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31995L0046

There is another issue

[SmallFurryCreature]

In Holland at least every single citizen is free tor receive any radio signal. If you transmit a signal, I am free to pick it up. There are no limits to this, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to pick up military or police traffic if they want. Decrypting it is another matter of course.

So, since these shoppers are transmitting radio signals they have given explicit permission for anyone else to receive those signals and do whatever they want with it. There is no privacy because the moment you started broadcasting you gave everyone permission to use that signal. Not my fault that signal is coming out of your pants.

To suddenly make it illegal to track a radio signal just because it is a phone and not a "proper" radio signal would require massive changes in the law. What next, I can't aim my attena at the TV broadcasting tower because that is invading its privacy?

So your claim that recording the radio signals is wrong is absolute and totally falls. This should be obvious to anybody with a brain, how can it possible be illegal to capture something passing through my person and property? By my very existence I am capturing radio waves all the time with my body and all my property. What next? You want to ban ordinary radio's from receiving certain bands on the FM spectrum? Make it illegal for my garage opener to respond to your clicker? How about the light from your car charging the solar cells in my garden?

If you don't want other people receiving and processing your radio signals, then you shouldn't be broadcasting them.

Want privacy? Turn your personal tracker off. There is an app for that.

Re:There is another issue

[JasterBobaMereel]

Capturing and recording radio signals is fine, analysing them and extracting identifying information is another matter ...

that requires decryption, and could be considered hacking
and requires personal info to be stored which involves data protection

If they gain access to any personal information using this then they are almost certainly breaking data protection laws, this is why they keep stressing the "aggregated" but to track you need to identify individuals ....

Re:Privacy

[Nibbler(C)]

Well, some of technologies are based on BlueTooth, which gives the MAC-48 address. It is unique, and with proper datamining could be identified if you visit enough stores and use credit card. I think the granularity for locating is around 15 feet radius.

No.

[Kupfernigk]

I suspect you will find that is a "radio broadcast signal". It may be legal to receive signals from the police, but I strongly suspect that if you were found to be recording those signals and then using them to predict police movements, you would be in breach of the law. I think you are deliberately confusing simple reception, which is unavoidable in many cases and therefore cannot be illegal, and the use that is made of intercepts.

If this tracking system stores no user information whatsoever, that would be one thing. But if it tracks phones by following MAC addresses or other information, and if there is CCTV, it can easily be argued that this could be used to store personal data by the simple route phone tracking -> cctv records -> facebook recognition (for instance). As the user does not know that s/he is being tracked, or even that this is possible, has not agreed to it, and does not know where to go to find the information, this appears to be in breach of Europen data protection legislation.

I note that you suddenly switch from intercepting signals to recording signals and then say "is wrong is absolute and totally fails". This is some Netherlands legal formulation with which I am not familiar. You also write "This should be obvious to anybody with a brain". I am afraid that these are not legal arguments; they are content free attempted sledgehammers to close down discussion. The fact that you feel the need to do this shows, frankly, that you know you are writing rubbish. If you believed your own argument, you would not feel the need to justify it by pre-emptively announcing that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. You must be huge fun at management meetings.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

When the information is so easily datamined and you have no idea who has an IMSI catcher or signal triangulation or whatnot, how can you even have this illusion of privacy? You will be tracked. The shop owners will never tell you.

Re:Privacy

[spacefight]

Exactly my words. If they can pinpoint and track you through the stores over their microcells, bluetooth or maybe even WLAN (if available), then they for sure will be able to pinpoint you down once you stop at the cashier at store X and link your anonymous avatar/id to your credit card and bamm, no longer anonymous. Then they'll see what you purchased. Then they sort out what you'll buy next or likely buy next and and and.... There is big money in this. Don't use your credit card and/or switch of the cell phone if you don't wanna be tracked. Better work against it.

Re:Privacy

[Opportunist]

Way ahead of you. I go in and buy doggy treats and condoms. Datamine THIS!