Slashdot Mirror
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?"
These retailers are more than welcome to track anything and everything until I've paid for it because until that point, it belongs to them.
Nothing happens to your privacy when tracked from floor to door, as long as it ends there.
I dont know where you guys shop, but the 17 year old moron or the "hire the handicapped" person at the checkout at stuff-mart looks at every single thing I buy.
You have _no_ right to "privacy" if you are patronizing someones store. Deal with it.
(This isnt meant to be a flame.. it is meant to point out that they track everything you buy anyway, and almost guaranteed, if you use credit or debit cards, there is a file SOMEWHERE that lists everything you bought, if you dont, like me, get that list on your statement every month.)
Now.. if the RFID tags follow you home.. thats another issue. But the show I saw on it. (Tech Tv? Might have been?) Did not seem to think that was possible.. they are a direct scan sort of thing, rather than a "scan from black helicopter" sort of thing.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Until the moment you buy it the things in a store belong to them. Period. They can do anything they want with it, including tracking.
This is no different than putting a tracking device in your laptop or in your car. Or having a "Lost phone" beeper in your cordless.
As a store owner though I certainly wouldn't want a supplier being able to track my inventory without my permission, or perhaps even knowing about it. It isn't any of *their* business, per se. I can see where the large chains would find this useful though.
But in MY store, I put the tags on, if I bloody well feel like it.
As a customer the tags had better come off as soon as I buy the merchandise. From that moment on it's mine, not theirs. Note that that would be *before* I get to the exit.
KFG
Sure, they can and perhaps, should track any and everything in their store. The problem is that RFIDs are not deactivated. They continue to work forever. Or, at least until the washer has worn out your panties.
The fact that they continue to work for a very long time and the fact that they are, or can be, completely unique means that a store can identify YOU by your panties. National chains such as Walmart could track YOU and your panties all across the country. Suddenly they don't sound very nice, do they.
Now, let's take the paranoia to a slightly higher level. Let's suppose that stores share their RFID and customer databases with trustworthy groups like, NSA CIA, FBI, SpamKing marketing. Suddenly You and your panties are trackable in every store you go to, or security checkpoint you pass through or toll booth you drive through. Now you can't go anywhere without the beadie little eye of some agency watching you at all times.
Did you ever get the feeling that you were being watched?
Although your points are valid, I really don't think this is a hot an issue as people make it out to be.
Your every action can be, or nearly can be, tracked by other means, so what difference does it make if they put an RF inventory tag on your pants? Does some law mandate you can't remove these tags? Granted, it's highly inconvenient to remove them, but possible none-the-less.
These tags are incredibly low power and can only be usefully read at distances typical to inventory: a couple of clear football fields at best. With all of your clothes in your closet, someone would have to be within a city block to even trigger the things and reading them would be even harder.
As for an uber-database... remembering each RFID tag and what it was associated with is trivial, as is associating it with you when you purchase it. But then what? They already gather that information anyway. Even if you pay with cash, there's always a camera and don't think for one second they can't reassociate that register's receipts with the images on tape.
I just don't see the privacy threat here... what's K-Mart going to do, drive around the neighborhood pinging houses to see if you've got some of their pants?
The government could conceivably slap some database together for all this stuff, but the amount of storage required would be massive for a minimal amount of gain. They can already figure out what you bought and where now anyway.
All opinions presented here aren't mine.