In message
<CAKr6gn3qR-oaegi0XjGLhOCmVF7x7eex6akiBB5OYS0RizoP2w(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
, George Michaelson writes:
When next you walk into a target or big W, ask to see the conditions of
entry. Along with implied consent to have your bags checked at any time,
you have probably given consent to be video'ed and tracked at their behest.
The poster is on the wall somewhere usually. Your statutory rights cannot
be abrogated but equally, the grey areas have been 'informed'.
You expect to video'ed and bag checked for stock loss prevention. There
is no implied consent for anything else. You don't need to track mobile
phones for stock loss prevention.
BT tracking inside the store is passive collection of data you are
radiating. The store's use of the BT location and timing of presence
against shelves is private information of immense value to them. They share
it for mutual benefit with suppliers, or for money. I doubt they give much
away.
The large international scroogle rhyming company was compiling third party
uses of the data to inform location as a service, and were not solely
collecting information inside their own physical territory you entered,
with implied consent: they were harvesting data in the public space and
then providing insight into that data into the public space.
They relate because its harvesting RF. They don't relate in much else to my
mind.
The main difference is the levels of encryption used in the two standards.
For WiFi there are still a large percentage of networks sending in the clear.
For BlueTooth there were no non-encrypted channels in the base spec (1.0)
support for them was added in 1.1 [1].
With BlueTooth you get presence.
With WiFi you get presence + data
Mark
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth#Bluetooth_v1.1
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org