Slashdot Mirror
Benetton Says No to RFIDs ... For Now
securitas writes "In a dramatic reversal of Benetton's previously announced plans to embed RFID tags in all of its clothing, the retailer has responded to customer privacy concerns and canceled its plans to go ahead with the project. Wired News and ComputerWorld also have stories on this stunning turn of events, which RFID manufacturer Philips is undoubtedly unhappy about. Benetton says it 'reserves the right' to use RFIDs in the future."
am I able to reserve the right to remove them? I want them to be a completely seperate color and I want them to be easily removed. If these two conditions aren't met, I am not going to buy them.
Why not let them put them in? If some company makes an "RFID Neutralizer" that blasts them with 3000 watts like in a hair dryer type of configuration, buy your clothes, take them home, spray them, you're done. This thing should be easy and cheap.
I for one can't say that I'm unhappy. I didn't like the idea of people being able to work out where I bought my clothes from by scanning me. Of course the RFID's might of been destroyed at the checkout. I mean if people really want to know they can ask me or look at the label.
With all these sort of things its a balance between privacy and eas of use. For food for example I can see why storing the Use-By date would be handy but for some things it just won't really work
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I dont think many geeks wear Benetton. All I wear is the t-shirts/jackets I get from expos. So until they start putting tracking devices in those freebies, I am not worried.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
to never buy anything from Benetton in the future
The trick will be finding a way to accomplish those goals will maintaining the privacy of the customers. Perhaps some sort of decaying device that after it ages for a certain period it physically ceases to work.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
They should worry about thier fashions instead of inventory. Seriously, the last time I remember Benetton being popular in the US was those bright logo sweatshirts from the mid-80's were everyone would roll up the sleeves, right around the members-only jacket phenomenon. I guess they are still popular in the EU?
In response to customer requests, Benetton will be premiering their new "tin hat" range on the catwalks of New York, Paris and Milan.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
They can already tell you bought your clothes at Good Will because of the piss stains all over them. Oh yeah, and the 70's fashion designs.
I thought that these RFID transmitters had
a range of 10-15 ft. Barring society installing
scanners every 15 feet, how is this a threat
to privacy? You probably have a better chance
of being tracked by using your debit card than
RFID technology.
Is there some capacity that they would not have, but for having stated a "reservation of right"?
And if it's really a right, they wouldn't need to reserve it, would they?
It sounds to me like a rhetorical device where the speaker tries to sucker the listener into believing that some course of action is a "right" (i.e., undeniable), no merely a planned course of action.
Benetton has said no to the publicity surrounding RFID tags.
So this particular implementation got onto the radar screens - do we think this will actually go away? Not in the slightest. All Phillips and everyone else has to do is make some quiet deals that don't directly impact consumers, maybe some business-to-business product, then find a way to make RFID tags "important to homeland security" and it's off to the races.
I have an idea for Philips, how about saying that RFID tags should be required on all products coming over the border from Mexico and into ports in the U.S. so that the Department of Homeland Security can better track them for suspicious shipment patterns? It would be a delicious use of both your lobbying power and the government's ability to shove intrusive technologies down our throats as long as they're slathered in a thick gravy of anti-terrorism.
Sorry to be Mr. Cynical on this, but we just watched Benetton take a principled stand on nothing excepting being an RFID guinea pig. I give them two years before they're back on board.
-----
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
Of course, I reserve the right to remove the tags after purchasing it (much like the alarm sensors put in CD/DVD cases nowadays), but while it's in the store, I wouldn't mind at all. The only groups I would have thought protesting this technology are the union workers doing inventory control now.
pong
They'll just be imbedding them in customers.
What's the worth of an RFID? to prevent theft? Last time I checked theft wasen't a major issue apart from the 14 year olds who will stash a pair of underwear in the pocket, seriously what is the point? (The cost of these things will probably outweigh the loss in revenue from theft)
Posting useless rant since 2003.
I know it may affect Benetton's corporate synergy, but maybe if they used the power of OSS development to produce thes RFID's there would be less privacy concerns? Maybe their bosses should think 'out of the box'.
I'm shocked and awed at this /. post. Come on...last I checked, one had the option to buy or not to buy clothes from Benetton. I'd hardly call this announcement a big deal one way or another, and it certainly did not "stun" me.
Couldn't you design the RFID tags to disable themselves when the clothes are washed? Maybe have some kind of heat sensitive material that would disable the tag (or just melt) when it got hot enough, or wet enough.
I suppose "Dry Clean Only" presents a problem tho...
In soviet russia clothes wear you!
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 15000ms, Maximum = 15000ms, Average = 15000ms
Suck what?
BOO! TERRO
Just installed the tag reader and the linux box, so my washing machine would finally know automatically what soap and which program to run on my clothes..
To a greater or lesser degree.
It's not like one won't be able to disable or even remove such a chip, once it becomes known to your general shoplifter what they are, where they are and how they work.
It's perfectly possible to make a type of RFID tag that doesn't affect privacy in any meaningful way. If the tag wasn't a unique identifier, but more like a product code (like the UPC code), then the only information it leaks it that it's a particlar inventiroy item, say, a red sweater.
No one can trace it to you, since--like a UPC symbol--it's not unique to item, but to the kind of item. And they could msake a way to disable them after purchase (like they do the little magnetized thingies in bookstores).
The privacy loss in unique-id RFID tags has a technological solution. I wish some slashdotter with access to capital would make a better, privacy-preserving widget instead of just hearing all of the bitching that you don't want the gov't to know you shop at LL Bean.
I can't see what the hysterical whining is about.
Here is the link: http://www.rf-id.com to general tags site. Read all about them.
The tags are just that - tags, just like any other tag on your clothing. It is not as if unique id is "embedded" in the threads of your pants and cannot be removed. In fact, if you will continue wearning clothes with RFID tag still attached - you will look like an idiot. Much like keeping any other tags on clothes.
Incidentally, what is the issue with privacy, even if the tag was somehow magically embedded into the thread of your pants? The tag identifies your pants as being a olive-green khakees size 48L, specifically made in Malaysia by a 12 year old? What part of that is not public knowledge or painfully obvious? What part of that is divulging information about the wearer of such clothes that he/she is not already giving up simply by wearing them?
... look what happened to the counting sheep with
matress tags....
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
From the referenced article: .. and ... no feasibility studies have yet been undertaken"
... embedded ags could be used to track the movements of people other than thieves."
" Benetton said in a release that it "is currently analyzing RFID
Where have they said no, as Cmdr Taco claims??
and then...
"Benetton
whereas Philips says:
"Philips said...labels to track its garments throughout its supply chain."
Something fishy here - how can Bentton track thieves, unless they have a database of tags and owners? Does it mean they tag the owner as well, so I can't lend clothing without informing Benetton? This theft-prevention stuff is silly.
and lastly, from the article:
"Bentton said it "reserves the right" to use the technology in the future."
That does not amount to saying No, in my book.
The only thing dramatic is the Slashdot presentation...
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
You've got a point?
BOO! TERRO
Main screen turn on!!!
Somebody set us up the bomb!!!
In the case of the Bennetton tags, there wasn't even any additional convenience for the customer; just a straightforward loss of privacy ("wow, she's back for the 3rd day, still wearing the same jeans!"). So I think that died because they couldn't come up with any "convenient" excuse for tagging your clothes.
My claim is that even in other cases, like FastLane style auto toll collection, there's no technical or engineering reason you have to give up privacy for the convenience. Instead, the designers and/or operators of the systems want the information, so they provide a benefit in order to justify collecting the information. In the case of auto toll collection, as pointed out in here, your toll debit card could be purchased anonymously. This has all the convenience and none of the privacy intrusion of existing systems.
But what's the big deal about privacy anyway? My claim is that when times are good, privacy doesn't matter. But when times are bad, it's too late! Innocent databases can be misused in terrible ways. When the Nazis conquered cities, they would use library borrowing records to find Jewish people. How long until the next J. Edgar Hoover or Joe McCarthy comes along and abuses his position of power? (Yeah, I know, some would say Ashcroft is already worse; I don't want to start that argument). My point is that it has happened here, and likely will again. The potential unforseen future misuse of databases is what makes me a privacy advocate.
So, good riddance to Bennetton's RFID tags, and let's get rid of the false dichotomy that's used to insinuate similar privacy invasions!
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Well, shit, David Hasselhoff still has a career over there. A SINGING career. And those crazy bastards even think he was the best thing about Baywatch. Kinda makes me wonder about the REAL reason for the low birthrate over there...
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Here's a quote from a wired article
That article makes it sound like the RFID would be in the cloth collar tag, not the paper tear-off pricetag. And if the RFID is for theft prevention, it would have to be able to distinguish between different pairs of same-size olive-green Khakis, so there must be a globally unique ID, not just a generic description. And if you want really good theft prevention, it would be smarter to hide the tag or else thieves can easily remove it.So, a globally unique ID sewn into your clothing; readable wherever you go with the proper equipment. What's not to like? It means institutions that choose to can automatically and cheaply start assembling a history of which RFID tags go where, and when. Still not scared? Next step: when the cops come to pick you up as a "material witness" they can easily scan your clothing and compare it to the RFID histories. Is everyone going to feel just as free to worship unpopular religions and excercise their legal right to dissent against the powers-that-be if such technology becomes widespread?
Now do you start to see a chilling effect? Part of the danger comes from the globally unique ID; the rest comes from the ease of assembling RFID time&place databases. It could be the thin edge of the wedge of a major loss of privacy.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
I would be nice if everything was tagged though wouldn't it. I could have found out what the underwear gnomes were doing with my clothes (step 1 - steal underwear, step 2, step 3 - make money [South Park]). Ever since I was young I wanted to write a program to decide what I should wear and wash based upon the weather and prior wear patterns. I thought that if the manufactures were including tags it was only a matter of time before there were detectors available for home use. Oh well, defeated by conspiracy theory.
Aron
Yay! Now I don't have to worry about privacy issues with clothes people only bought in the '80's!! Once Z.Cavaricci and I.O.U. hop on the bus, the '90's will be safe.
IANAL, but I play one on
Of course, you could just cut off the colar tag (depending on the type of color tag that is).
http://www.autoidcenter.org/aboutthetech_identifyi ng.asp
Companies are working very hard to make it cheap to make EPC tags, where each tag has a unique serial #.
BTW, is there much difference between having an absolutely unique ID, and wearing a set of tags that only matches 3 people in a million?
Yes, true, for now. But it would be better theft prevention for manufacturers to hide the tag deeper in the clothing. Once thieves learn the RFID is in an easily removed appendage, they'll do the obvious thing.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
... raiding the stores with my skinhead cohorts and scaring all the uptight customers away....l
The whole RFID debate seemed so familiar to me for a while, and I was pleased to finally put my finger on it recently. This is all so 1997.
Some of you might remember the huge debate over "magic cookies" (as we called them then) in the mid to late 90s. Around 1997, IIRC, it really built to a fevered pitch -- any self-respecting advocate (myself included) maintained that cookies would be the downfall of civilization, that they did nothing good, only evil, websites' reputation were based on whether or not they provided a Dreaded Cookie, etc., etc. Of course, we learned the cookies are useful, we developed tools to manage them, it became passe to protest them, and life went on.
Of course, RFID tags are just physical cookies. Much like with browsers, we will develop standards for how RFID tags should work, we will learn to manage them, and we will ultimately find that their benefits far outweigh their drawbacks.
-Waldo Jaquith
Why not just put the RFID in a sticker on the inside of the clothes that you can peel off, or put it in the tag?.. something you can just remove.. or a little "pop-off" thing like those dye-markers.. so they can just pop the thing off at the counter.
You get your manufacture-to-counter-to-sale tracking, and your customers can be anonymous (assuming you don't actually log the RFID-to-CCinfo.
meh
After seeing several companies at CeBit showing off tiny RFID tags, all of them promote the fact that they can't be destroyed by putting them in a microwave, or with other types of high energy RF systems. They have been designed to withstand most easy things thieves/consumers can do to disable them.
Only way to disable them is to locate them in the clothing, and tear them out. Those things are tiny, like smaller than a dried grain of rice, with tiny loops on the ends for threads to hold them in place.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Sure, of course thieves might be less interested in clothings that have the tag missing (depending on what the thieve is planning to do with the stolen good of course).
I think if they limited the location of the rfids to the colar tag (maybe by law?) it would allow the privacy conscious people to feel better and still provide the stores with the benefits of the technology.
Of course, a way to innoculate the tag at checkout (as suggested in several posts today) would still be better.
Just because RFIDs have the super-easy potential to be the root of numerous privacy violations this century, I still think they're a great idea. I mean, it's not like we all boycott the use of databases because of doubleclick.
I think RFIDs have great potential. With a home RFID-finding wand, you'll never loose your car keys again (at least, the search wil go a lot faster). Everything becomes addressable by your personal systems (and others', herein lies the privacy-geek challenge). My fridge doesn't need eyes and image-recog to figure out what it can provide me and what it needs, it just needs an RFID scanner.
We're too too focused on how the marketdroids will use them to see how they can be used for fun by the good.
What we need to do is to develop an RFID-killer, a -muter than blocks/interferes with requests for info off of RFIDs within our personal radius, and lots of fun uses for them.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
"Sir! Benetton is pulling out of their plan to plant RFIDs on their clothes. Our plan to track the trustafarian Former Soviet Useful Idiot protesters is off!"
"Curses! Foiled again!"
Customer advocacy groups are concerned that the tags won't be 'divorcable' from the clothing. They aren't telling Benetton not to use the tags for inventory purposes...
So, why can't we all agree on the simplest solution? You already have a clothing label (size, care, etc.) attached to nearly every piece of clothing. Why not stitch the RFID tag into its own little label that says "Inventory Radio ID Device" and "Removal mandates purchase"? That way, it'd be opt-out. If you don't want RFID SPAM or tracking, just pull/cut off the tag after you've bought the clothes! Sure, it's more expensive than embedding the RFID into a hem/stitch, but it's better than being boycotted or villainized in the media, and would still provide massive benefits for tracking inventory.
Heck, I say just embed them in those little plastic shoot-thru thingies (Red or Blue for emphasis) and label them "RFID". Then they'd be useful for inventory, and everyone would remove them after purchase. Why do they have to be part of the clothing?
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
BTW, this is a joke moderators don't mod things unless you read it all.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
And if the RFID is for theft prevention, it would have to be able to distinguish between different pairs of same-size olive-green Khakis, so there must be a globally unique ID, not just a generic description.
Bzzt, no, but thanks for playing our game! When's the last time you shopped at a retail store? Today's Checkpoint devices don't use GUIDs. They use the same tag for everything. There is absolutely zero reason you couldn't do the same with RFID tags. Assign a UPC-style code to all red knee-high socks, scan and disable the tag at checkout, and get on with life.
Goodness. That was hard, so privacy invasive, and so different from the way we do things today!
Initially I read this as "the retailer has responded to customer privacy concerns and concealed its plans to go ahead with the project."
:)
I wonder...
Ah, but Today's Checkpoint devices must be removed at the point of sale. We're talking about doing theft detection with actual existing RFID tags that don't turn off. Since they don't turn off, the only way to distinguish between different pairs of tagged red knee-high socks is by having different info in the tags. Can you make a modifiable ID tag as cheaply as the fixed ID tags? Somehow I doubt it. But thank you for playing.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
GUIDs mean inventory tracking that's child's play. inventory tracking that's child's play = more profit. more profit = more sex. more sex = better life for upper management. better life for upper management = stronger economy. stronger economy = better military. better military = better protection of USA. You aren't against the military now, are you? LOL. Oh yes, and fear leads to hate, hate leads to ... leads to the dark side.
I haven't done surgery on my jacket, but the shape feels right.
MJC
Why is everyone getting so upset about having RFIDs in the close they are wearing? Oh no, someone up to 10-15 feet away from me might be able to determine that i'm wearing a blue tshirt. Of course your welcome to fry it as soon as you get home, but you should expect to be charged a hefty "retagging" fee if you try to take it back for some reason.
I would hope they deactivate those things before you leave the store, otherwise when you left (or the next time you came in) the alarms would go off. I suppose they could disable the ability to set off the alarms but still leave the tracking features enabled...
"Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased. Thus we refute entropy" - Spider Robinson
I thought it said they had 'concealed their plans' and I thought, 'Wow, they're sure blowing that strategy.'
Oh sure, this is just what they WANT us to think!
Reprise the theme song and roll the credits!
Nurse Donna: Oh, Groucho, I'm afraid I'm gonna wind up an old maid.
Groucho: Well, bring her in and we'll wind her up together.
Nurse Donna: Do you believe in computer dating?
Groucho: Only if the computers really love each other.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...