Peeping e-tailers

Should the privacy rights and protections made state law in 1971 still apply to credit card purchases in a digital age?

Under state law, a sales clerk may ask to see a driver’s license or other identification when a customer wants to pay with a credit card but will face up to a $1,000 fine if the information is recorded. There is an exception if an address is needed to deliver the good.

Apple, eHarmony and Ticketmaster claim in a lawsuit that the law, written before online shopping was even imagined, only applies to brick-and-mortar stores.

But why shouldn’t online shoppers have the same privacy protections? Should you really need to hand over your phone number, e-mail address and photo to use an intermediary like Square Wallet to pay for a Starbucks coffee?

If you buy an iPad or iPod, you pay plenty for a device that is worthless unless you give up personal information to activate it — this in a state where privacy is so highly valued that protections are written into the California Constitution.

The online retailers’ suit, heard before the state Supreme Court earlier this month, claims collecting the information prevents fraud and identity theft. After all, they don’t see the customer offering the credit card. As it is, they have to break the law (by requiring an address) to know if California law even applies.

Gas station owners did persuade legislators to pass an exception to the law in 2011 that allowed them to require ZIP codes at the pump to use a credit card. This might be an option for the e-tailers, but as consumers, it is not one we should encourage.

Every shred of data collected builds a profile on you that retailers and others can exploit — and they do. The court must recognize the delicate balance between convenience (for consumers and e-tailers alike) and the constitutional guarantee of privacy.