PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

Self-Regulatory Code Released for Retailers Using WiFi To Track Customers

Posted on October 27, 2013July 1, 2025 by Dissent

Katharine Goodloe writes:

Under a new self-regulatory code released earlier this week, brick-and-mortar retailers that track customer in-store movements using mobile phone WiFi signals must disclose the practice to customers and allow them to opt out.

The code was created by the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) and a group of mobile analytics companies.  It was announced jointly by the FPF and by Sen. Charles Schumer, who in July called on the Federal Trade Commission to require retailers to allow customers to opt-out of the tracking.   Sen. Schumer praised the code as a significant step forward, but noted there is “still much more work to be done.”

Read more on Covington & Burling Inside Privacy.

No related posts.

Category: Business

Post navigation

← Mega CEO: Forget anonymous e-mail. Think privacy (Q&A)
Internet Archive, fearful of spying, boosts its encryption →

2 thoughts on “Self-Regulatory Code Released for Retailers Using WiFi To Track Customers”

  1. Joe Moore says:
    October 28, 2013 at 6:13 am

    Yet another group of foxes has applied for the job of guarding the chicken coop under the name of self-regulation. They’re bringing to real space the same opt-out, “notice and choice” system that has proven so effective at continually reducing privacy online.

    Anyone who claims to be a privacy advocate who has anything to do with this unenforced sham code should just admit he is just negotiating the terms of the total surrender of privacy.

    With that in mind, I’m going to propose a code of conduct for privacy advocates.

    1. Reductions is privacy should be opt-in. Nobody who values anything makes the reduction of it opt-out. Money is valued. Credit card charges are opt-in. Advocating any opt-out scheme as indicating consent for reducing privacy is a violation of this code.

    2. The privacy invasion is in the collection of the data, not the use of the data. A hidden video camera in your bedroom is an abuse even if whoever put it there claims to not watch the video except under certain circumstances. The same applies to collecting phone records.
    Advocating systems which claim to protect privacy by restricting access to the records of hidden surveillance is a violation of this code.

    3. Self regulation does not work to protect privacy when the business models of those writing the regulations depend on them not working.
    Advocating self regulation to protect privacy is a violation of this code.

    I’m sure this code is just as likely to be enforced as the one proposed by the Future of Privacy Forum.

    1. Dissent says:
      October 28, 2013 at 6:52 am

      Were we twins separated at birth?

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: info@pogowasright.org

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Microsoft’s controversial Recall feature is now blocked by Brave and AdGuard
  • Trump Administration Issues AI Action Plan and Series of AI Executive Orders
  • Indonesia asked to reassess data privacy terms in new U.S. trade deal
  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure
  • Idaho agrees not to prosecute doctors for out-of-state abortion referrals

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • Scattered Spider is running a VMware ESXi hacking spree
  • BreachForums — the one that went offline in April — reappears with a new founder/owner
  • Fans React After NASCAR Confirms Ransomware Breach
  • Allianz Life says ‘majority’ of customers’ personal data stolen in cyberattack (1)
  • Infinite Services notifying employees and patients of limited ransomware attack
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.
Menu
  • About
  • Privacy