The Invasive Technology & Retail Powers Act 2013

[Stillhomewardbound]

http://www.itpro.co.uk/mobile/20380/london%E2%80%99s-rubbish-bins-track-smartphone-users?_mout=1&utm_campaign=itpro_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

With regard to the above, I am drafting a letter to my local MP to canvass him to take steps to raise this matter in the Commons and propose the introduction of new legislation to curb/limit the introduction and use of such technology in our society.

The general outlay would be as follows and I would welcome any views, input that anyone has. Also, examples of where the scope of the act could be widened. For example, in the case of loyalty cards and points. To sign up for one of these is to give a supermarket entire access to your shopping data on almost a trojan basis.

Whatever happened to days of the Green Shield stamp. They came free without no exchange of details, etc. Anyway, that's something of a digression. Back to the main thrust:

The Invasive Technology & Retail Powers Act 2013

The intention of this act would be limit or curtail the invasive and predatory nature of new technologies and prevent the harvesting and profiling of individuals' personal data without their knowledge or consent.

That new techniques allow such exploitation fundamentally undermines the principle of the consumer as an independent agent free to make his or her own choices and to enter any retail premises without obligation or any technological intervention.

That it is possible makes it probable, so this legislation is designed to determine in common law that such practices shall be considered neither preferable or permissible.

To that end, this Act would recognise a new offence of 'virtual' molestation and aim to cover such eventualities as cannot be met by the likes of the Data Protection Act.

Below are set out just two examples of where the legislation may be applied

WiFi profiling of populace in public or public access spaces:

The act would curtail / limit the introduction of any static advise that would comb the wifi/bluetooth connections of passersby and exploit cookie technology on persons' mobile devices, ipads, laptops etc.

In store face scanning technology:

The act would make it illegal for any public premises to introduce scanning technology that profiles, for example, the customers in a queue at the bank or at a supermarket with a view to determining their age, race, gender for the purposes of targeting in-store advertising accordingly.

Other examples will include ........


========================


So, that's a bit of a start, but I fervently belief there has to be a turn in the tide. A lot of work was done in the 60s and the 70s to garner rights for the consumer thanks to the likes of the Consumer Association, but more and more, in pernicious ways, the retail sector is digging deeper and deeper into our pockets and there's a pressing to restore the status of citizens as customers with rights. Not cash cows.

[ahinton]

http://www.itpro.co.uk/mobile/20380/...rce=newsletter
With regard to the above, I am drafting a letter to my local MP to canvass him to take steps to raise this matter in the Commons and propose the introduction of new legislation to curb/limit the introduction and use of such technology in our society.

It's a laudable aim in principle, although I have no idea of the identity of your MP or the extent to which he/she might feel sympathetically disposed to such ideas.

The general outlay would be as follows and I would welcome any views, input that anyone has. Also, examples of where the scope of the act could be widened. For example, in the case of loyalty cards and points. To sign up for one of these is to give a supermarket entire access to your shopping data on almost a trojan basis.

Whilst I take your point about these things, the supermarket already has access to this data, as it scans each item for purchase, records each on a receipt and accepts and records details of the purchaser's card in payment of the total, so I don't quite see how dispensing with loyalty schemes would do more than make it a little more onerous for supermarkets to access and use this data.

The Invasive Technology & Retail Powers Act 2013

The intention of this act would be limit or curtail the invasive and predatory nature of new technologies and prevent the harvesting and profiling of individuals' personal data without their knowledge or consent.

That new techniques allow such exploitation fundamentally undermines the principle of the consumer as an independent agent free to make his or her own choices and to enter any retail premises without obligation or any technological intervention.

That it is possible makes it probable, so this legislation is designed to determine in common law that such practices shall be considered neither preferable or permissible.

To that end, this Act would recognise a new offence of 'virtual' molestation and aim to cover such eventualities as cannot be met by the likes of the Data Protection Act.

Below are set out just two examples of where the legislation may be applied

WiFi profiling of populace in public or public access spaces:

The act would curtail / limit the introduction of any static advise that would comb the wifi/bluetooth connections of passersby and exploit cookie technology on persons' mobile devices, ipads, laptops etc.

In store face scanning technology:

The act would make it illegal for any public premises to introduce scanning technology that profiles, for example, the customers in a queue at the bank or at a supermarket with a view to determining their age, race, gender for the purposes of targeting in-store advertising accordingly.

Other examples will include ........


========================


So, that's a bit of a start, but I fervently belief there has to be a turn in the tide. A lot of work was done in the 60s and the 70s to garner rights for the consumer thanks to the likes of the Consumer Association, but more and more, in pernicious ways, the retail sector is digging deeper and deeper into our pockets and there's a pressing to restore the status of citizens as customers with rights. Not cash cows.

Without wishing to appear like some kind of prophet of doom (especially since I support your aims here in principle), I just don't think that a government that is itself hell bent on assuring us all that it and other organisations must have all possible powers to collect, store and use such data is essential in the interests of national security; my other principal reservation concerns the viability of prosecution of those who transgress any such legislation if ever it were to be passed, in that almost everyone collects vast amounts of data nowadays and the likelihood of the judiciary being able to cope at all, let alone with any degree of success, with more than the tiniest percentage of cases that could at least in theory be brought against local authorities, schools and universities, the police and armed services, the NHS, transport companies, utilities suppliers, HMRC, banks, building socities, stockbrokers, insurance companies and other financial institutions, Royal Mail and other communications firms et al in addition to mere retailers is surely vanishingly small, especially in a country such as Britain which is alleged to have more CCTV cameras in operation per capita than any other "civilised" Western nation.

[Stillhomewardbound]

A sub-section of this act could make provisions for the phenomenon of late which I would describe as 'Retail Interrogation'. I mean, the manner in which shop staff are drilled in the art of retail insinuation (and occasionally shaming) for the purposes of maximising the spend of each customer. A trend that is now applied so uniformly across the retail sector that from M&S to Selfridges, or Sainsbury's to Tesco's, Boots to Superdrug, the experience for the customer at the till will invariably follow these lines:


Did you find what you were looking for today?

Only the one item, is it?

Would you like a bag?

[Upsell] Would you like another one? You'll get it half price.

Do you have our points card?

Would you like our points card?

Is there anything else?


It's when you see these questions applied so mandatorily (and they are for the staff) that you realise that there is a kind of malign conspiracy at play, and such as you need not be taken for innocuous staff pleasantries.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If you want to protect your privacy then I'd suggest a good start would be not to walk around in public with a device in your pocket that openly broadcasts 'here I am'.

[ahinton]

If you want to protect your privacy then I'd suggest a good start would be not to walk around in public with a device in your pocket that openly broadcasts 'here I am'.

Whilst you have a point, that's hardly what shb was posting about, which is surely rather obviously that you can be recorded and data collected about you from and by countless sources without carrying any such device.

[johnb]

Knowing the track record of the UK government, it is likely that the only body which might take action is the EU.

[Frances_iom]

...Is there anything else?

with such a leading question as this - it merely depends on my mood (hormone levels ?) not to be downright obnoxious tho I suspect staff will rapidly learn to recognise the danger signs for some customers.

Re the tracking of wifi enabled phones - well discussed on slashdot where pointed out that you can turn off the promiscuous wifi which provides the identifying MAC (and why would you actually want it on as autoconnecting to any wifi just opens up the phone for malware.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Whilst you have a point, that's hardly what shb was posting about, which is surely rather obviously that you can be recorded and data collected about you from and by countless sources without carrying any such device.

I rather thought it was all about technological intrusion, rather than the obvious "Hello, my name is . . . from . . ., and I'd like a pound of apples please"?

[ahinton]

I rather thought it was all about technological intrusion, rather than the obvious "Hello, my name is . . . from . . ., and I'd like a pound of apples please"?

Exactly - which is why shb's concerns are not confined to people who go around carrying the kinds of device to which you referred.

[Stillhomewardbound]

If you want to protect your privacy then I'd suggest a good start would be not to walk around in public with a device in your pocket that openly broadcasts 'here I am'.

You almost make me sound like a parisian call girl walking the boulevards of the city with my little puppy while swinging my handbag.

There is no shortage of good reasons why I may wish or need to be connected as I am on the move for emails and messages and the like and I should be able to do as much without this form of molestation.

That would be as to suggest that if I go into a park and sit on a bench by the duck pond with a space next to me then I'm issuing an open invitation to a parade of salesman to join me at ten minute intervals and induce me partake of their wares.

As I said in my opening statement, that it is possible does not make it permissible, nor preferable, and, in my opinion, the notion of 'opting out' being a safeguard in this scenario is just not tenable.

What we see here is a form of trespass and it is about as morally right as someone joining your train carriage and sifting through the contents of your open briefcase as you are working.

Oh, and the business of the face-scanning technology, to walk into any store and to be electronically sized up by some device. Is that also to be interpreted as 'here I am', take me for every penny?!

[Stillhomewardbound]

http://www.dailydooh.com/archives/87313

I've just seen this very intelligent reply from the company that had these devices in place. It is worthy to see someone in this sector actually engage the debate head on, even though he inevitably puts a benign slant on the trialling of the technology. However, he does concede that the point is not the scale of the data-harvesting (my coinage) but the bottom-line principle of it and I hope he is genuine in his stated desire to see this issue thoroughly debated.

[ahinton]

What would happen to our passports?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

There is no shortage of good reasons why I may wish or need to be connected as I am on the move for emails and messages and the like

But if you want do this then you voluntarily carry a device that can communicate two ways, and in order to function it has to broadcast non directionally and with some form of open protocol requesting a link. If you want to do that then it seems to me that all the responsibility for that should lie with you. However, I doubt the devices you carry around allow you to manage these communications other than you turning the device on or off.

And of course, there are benefits: tracing people (or at least their gadgets), recovery of stolen items, etc.

The issue of capture of personal details (iris, fingerprints, DNA(?)) seems rather different, especially when your leading link to smart dustbins shifts the focus to technological intrusion. I'd say personal and technological intrusion were two separate issues. Besides, you've more chance of success getting the technology to have improved security.

[ahinton]

The issue of capture of personal details (iris, fingerprints, DNA(?)) seems rather different, especially when your leading link to smart dustbins shifts the focus to technological intrusion. I'd say personal and technological intrusion were two separate issues. Besides, you've more chance of success getting the technology to have improved security.

I think that they may well be separate issues - but what is "security" any more (apart from an ever-increasingly maligned term) and what guarantees can there be that it is improvable?

That said, I return to my point about what seems to me to be the unviability of such legislation, namely that, since so many people and organisations already collect, store, process and use such vasts quantities of data of so many kinds and thisd kind of legislation would not likely be persuade most of them to cease and desist from so doing, the new law would very soon prove to be hopelessly unpoliceable.

The issue of capture of personal details seems to me to be different only to the extent that this usually happens only with the prior knowledge and consent of each data provider. What's more interesting is the question of property rights, in the sense that, if such personal data as you mention is collected so widely, albeit by consent of each person concerned, wouldn't that fact affect the extent to which each such individual may be deemed to be its "owner", in terms of exclusive rights thereto? In other words, might it come to be thought that, although an individual might be identified by means of his/her DNA, that individual is no longer seen as "owning" the DNA but rather as a mere custodian of it?

[Padraig]

Am I imagining it, or has some sort of invasive technology been employed to remove my post of yesterday, and that of at least one other member?