NYT on RFID Tags

indros13 writes "The NY Times is running a story on the radio tagging of merchandise. Companies like Gillette want to make sure their razors are in stock and stores like Wal-Mart want to make sure you can find your paisley panties, size 10. But what happens to privacy when everything you buy can be tracked from store floor to door?"

Comments

How to do it privately.

[deathcow]

A certain chain of stores up here in Alaska allow one to stuff their cart to bustin', then walk up to a U-Check-Out stand.

You scan all the items yourself and you can even pay by cash if you want, the machine has a bill acceptor. The checkout stands even have the sensormatic deal, so you can cancel an items tendancy to set off the "I'm Stealing" beep at the door.

Here's a pic of one, with an article I havent read

You have no idea...

[NetRanger]

Wal-Mart, for example, has a database TWICE the size of all the U.S. Government, combined.

EVERY purchase you have ever made with a credit card is tracked right down to you. All your preferences are known, right down to your favorite deodorant.

Wal-Mart, however you might think of it, is a brilliant company. Did you know that most of the products on the Wal-Mart shelf have NOT been bought by Wal-Mart? No, the manufacturer sends the products to Wal-Mart and waits until the item is actually run through the checkout scanner before it receives a check. The manufacturer is responsible for sending more products for Wal-Mart to stock. In return, they get access to that titanic-sized wealth of marketing data.

This is where the radio tags come in. If you know exactly where any product is in your store, you can see what products sell better in what location -- in real time, across the country. And yes, shoplifting will become far more difficult for the petty theives -- I doubt the pros will be stopped by this technology.

RFID tags aren't about big brother -- they're about big bucks.

Re:Privacy?

[SecurityGuy]

Most of the time stores I patronize don't ask. When they do, I say "No" and keep on going. Some day I'm sure it'll get interesting, but so far the industry stuff I've read seems to indicate that you'd better be pretty damn sure your "suspect" is a shoplifter before you detain them. Detaining me for telling them I'm not going to let them inspect the merchandise I've *already paid for* is likely to cost them more than the merchandise cost me. In any case, I'm more than willing to force the issue and tell 'em to get out of the way or call the police. I'd love to see what they'd charge me with. Failure to prove I paid for the stuff I just paid for at another store employee 30 seconds ago?

I do have a right to privacy when patronizing their store. They can't strip search me, they can't search through my property, they can't search my bags from other stores even if they put up signs saying they can. Such signs are unenforceable and serve no purpose other than to dupe the ignorant into thinking the store has a right to treat them like cattle. Rights, you see, are largely things which someone in the past has had the backbone to stand up for and insist upon.

Tags are item-specific, if you want them to be

[mveloso]

The EPC spec has all those bits so the instances of objects can be tracked. An EPC is broken down into four sections:

bits 00-07 = header
bits 08-35 = manufacturer (EPC Manager)
bits 36-59 = Object Class
bits 60-95 = Serial Number

There's another EPC, the Compact EPC, that's only 64 bits long, because the longer bit length translates into higher-cost tags.

So saying that RFID tags are -not- instance specific is incorrect. They can be (and the EPC is designed to be) instance specific, but it's up to the manufacturer.

http://www.autoidcenter.org/research/MIT-AUTOID- WH -002.pdf
http://www.autoidcenter.org/research/MIT -AUTOID-WH -008.pdf