Apple Wins Credit Card Privacy Case

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The California Supreme Court today ruled that it is okay for Apple collect personal information for online purchases that are downloaded electronically.

In a split decision, the California Supreme Court said state privacy protections for credit cards do not apply to online purchases that are downloaded electronically. Apple was the defendant in the latest lawsuit, brought as a proposed class action by a consumer who purchased downloads from iTunes. Online retailers eBay Inc and Wal-Mart Stores Inc also filed briefs supporting Apple.
Click to expand...
 
What, Privacy don't apply if you buy online? WTF ?
 
Color me shocked. No, really. This is my shocked face.

Meh. Anyone who has their credit or even worse their debit (why do you make security kittens cry) card connected to itunes, xbox live or whatever online service is already implicitly trading convenience for security. They make prepaid cards and secure one-time use numbers for a reason, folks.
 
Apple, the greatest thing to happen to the world, ever.
 
So I take it that tax for online purchases doesn't apply either? Oh wait, how silly of me, privacy and money are two things the Government doesn't want people to have.
 
The man who took apple to this case should have pirated his music instead of buying from itunes, no one would have his CC# then.
 
You're blaming Apple? Any retailer and more will get away with everything they can, and they do. Hence mail-in rebates, debit cards, loyalty cards, and everything else you get from a retailer or do there with anything that can track you.

Besides, it's all to let them give you, the customer, better service!
 
I doubt anyone will make it past the "APPLE" headline and start spouting animosity towards the company but the case was about whether Apple could require people to provide their address and phone numbers to verify whether the information matched that on the credit card being used...what every other online retailer does when you make an online purchase.

This wasn't about whether Apple could gather private information and sell it to 3rd parties.

The case noted that this is different from a brick and mortar, which have been barred from collecting identifying information like ZIP codes. Although I'm sure any of you who fuel up at a gas station know that they can and do ask for ZIP code to verify it's the same as the card holder's being used at the pump.

I can't think of very many people who would object to this other than crooks and/or paranoid customers.
 
In the UK they used the delivery address as form of ID to authenticate the credit card. No phone number though.
 
mope54 said:
I doubt anyone will make it past the "APPLE" headline and start spouting animosity towards the company but the case was about whether Apple could require people to provide their address and phone numbers to verify whether the information matched that on the credit card being used...what every other online retailer does when you make an online purchase.

This wasn't about whether Apple could gather private information and sell it to 3rd parties.

The case noted that this is different from a brick and mortar, which have been barred from collecting identifying information like ZIP codes. Although I'm sure any of you who fuel up at a gas station know that they can and do ask for ZIP code to verify it's the same as the card holder's being used at the pump.

I can't think of very many people who would object to this other than crooks and/or paranoid customers.
Click to expand...

This .... the decision clearly indicated that online retailers have fewer ways to prevent fraud than a B&M store who can see you, inspect your card, and verify your signature, ask for ID ... they also indicated that all the many federal and state restrictions on disclosure of the information still apply ... this case was also supported (on the Apple side) by multiple online retailers ... this really seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill or a tempest in a teapot ... sorry, ran out of metaphors :cool:
 
I doubt anyone will make it past the "APPLE" headline and start spouting animosity towards the company
Click to expand...
This is true. I dislike Apple as much as the next guy, but I'm with Apple on this one. As if online credit card fraud weren't bad enough, I can only imagine how much worse it would get if online retailers weren't allowed to verify your information.
 
kbrickley said:
This .... the decision clearly indicated that online retailers have fewer ways to prevent fraud than a B&M store who can see you, inspect your card, and verify your signature, ask for ID ... they also indicated that all the many federal and state restrictions on disclosure of the information still apply ... this case was also supported (on the Apple side) by multiple online retailers ... this really seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill or a tempest in a teapot ... sorry, ran out of metaphors :cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems to me that if they don't do things like this we would be reading a story about how "X company allowed someone to use my CC online without even trying to verify that the user was me."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top