Walmart to Push RFID

bravehamster writes "According to this article over at MSNBC, Walmart is going to push its suppliers to start using RFID to track inventory by 2005. The article goes on to mention how it was Walmart who helped jumpstart widespread adoption of barcodes. The report also points out some of the barriers in the way of RFID acceptance, but never once mentions consumer privacy concerns. Guess that kind of stuff just isn't important anymore."

Comments

the biggest concerns

[double_plus_ungod]

most everyone discussing these devices are concerned about the privacy issues--that they need to be fully deactivated after the purchase. big brother inside?

Re:the biggest concerns

[Ryan Amos]

I don't see why this should be so difficult. I mean, they do it today with a big magnet for shoplifting purposes, why can't you make an RFID tag that deactivates when placed over a big magnetic field? This way there's no need to worry about privacy and Walmart gets a way to save money by using technology that already exists in all their stores anyway.

Re:the biggest concerns

[dnoyeb]

Why? These are IDs. I do not see what information they contain that you would be concerned about. they are not recording devices. I do not see any additional privacy concerns beyond what we have with store "savings/check cashing" cards and barcodes already.

I don't recall anyone with a cadilliac or other high end luxury car, or other passive anti theft car with the RFID tag in the key, concerned about privacy.

I don't recall any dolphins or sharks complaining about the RFID tag on their fins.

I'll complain when they try and tag my children at birth...

Re:the biggest concerns

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

I agree, in this case the privacy concerns are probably unfounded. The debate is healthy though, because by the time they try to tag your children at birth, it may be too late to stop it.

Re:the biggest concerns

[marvin826]

Hey, I'm just wondering how long it will take someone to walk through a mall during a big holiday like christmas and scan people's cars for loot. I'm not worried about people tracking me, but nothing like putting a transmitter in a car or even a house (what is the range on these things anyway??) that says "I'm an Xbox in here -- come get me!!" I'm not paranoid, but it was just a thought...of course, Faraday might help the car situation -- unless it is a plastic car:)

Re:the biggest concerns

[Omestes]

Privacy concern: If their not deactivated, your basically wearing a consumer profile where ever you go. Lets say these things catch on everywhere, and become a standard like UPC codes, you walk into Target, or Walmart, or Circle Jerk, door sensor notices that you respond to a ping. Customer #204013 is wearing a Lands End sweater, a pair of JNCOs, a Cubs hat, Fruit of the Loom undies, a Swatch, Nikes, and a Victorias Secret brassier, customer #204013 buys a Jolk and a pack of Camels, and some pr0n. *POOF* A new database entry is born.

Now imagine that each one of these RFIDs has a unique number, and somewhere along the line you become attached to one of these tags, now all of your purchasing history is associated with YOU, and not an aggregate. And the wonderful thing is, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. To most people this is no problem, to me, it is. I try my damndest to stay out of all forms of database, with mixed results, and with these tags, I CAN'T. My purchasing history will follow me.

Re:the biggest concerns

[KU_Fletch]

I don't really see the privacy concern being fixed in reality. RFIDs don't have commercial grade broadcasting capability. Most are designed for their RF signal to be picked up in about a 5-10 foot radius. If the broadcast range was too long, they would burn out too quickly to be efficient for stocking shelves. Additionally, long range RFIDs would be so cost-ineffectual that nobody would integrate them into their products. So if you got your stuff home and the RFIDs weren't deactivated, Walmart would have to come in your house and start scanning your shelves to find out what you have.

The REAL consumer issue I see here is the additional cost of RFID tagging. Barcodes cost little (when you consider the registration costs of a barcode/SKU) and the ink it costs to print spread across millions of units produced. In effect its less than a penny of your purchase. But these, even at positive estimates, will be about 5 cents a piece once they are implemented in mass quantities. This price will inevitably be passed to consumers, but probably phased in over time and hid as an inflation cost. The problem is most time cost increased are passed on in this mannor, the price is jacked up a little bit more because the stores can get away with it. A 5 cent increase of time eventually becomes a 6 cent increase. That may sound little, but think about every unique itme you buy. If you buy 100 items a month (typical grocery buying habbits), you contributed 1 more dollar. Multiply that by customers coming through a store and you see tens of thousands of dollars of additional revenue artifically created because of RFID implementation. This profit increases the larger the store is and the more individual products sold. This is why you see stores like Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc. buying into this plan.

Re:the biggest concerns

[AlecC]

The REAL consumer issue I see here is the additional cost of RFID tagging

The shops claime that there will be a net saving. Firstly, in theft - which costs shops something like 5% of turnover. Some of it walks out the door with customers, so could be stopped at the door. Some "dfalls off the abck of lorries", and could be traced back to the larcenous lorry driver (half of such thefts are bnelievced to be by staff). If it were to halve that, 5c per item would payoff massively. Secondly, in better stock control. You can "ask" a shelf how many items it has on it, so you will never be out of stock but nt have to send someone to count the stock.And you can track inventory without needing a droid to scan bar codes - a whole fork-lift full of stock is automatically inventoried as it goes out the door.

Once the system gets universal, I could these making real net savings which, in a truly competitive environment, will get passed back to the consumer.

Re:the biggest concerns

[alphax45]

Do you honestly buy EVERTHING an ad tells you to? they are never forcing you to buy things. When you run out of money STOP! Do what I do; allot say 15% of your paycheque for "mad money" and when it's gone; no more frills (dvds, video games, new speakers, ect) I don't care if a company knows I shop at best buy for almost 40% of the stuff I buy. Or that I like Metallica and Terminator movies. I like the idea of targeted ads, no more tampon commericals durring junkyard wars! Seriously, think about this; you buy things off thinkgeek and walk into radio shack, they are going to know what kind of customer you are; and probably leave you alone.

Re:the biggest concerns

[SN74S181]

Or the debate may be unhealthy because after awhile the average person says 'those privacy nutcases are ranting again' and it ends up being a case of 'crying wolf' where valid concerns are written off if and when it becomes a real issue.

Re:the biggest concerns

[Chakde Phate!]

I think people will collectively draw a line in the sand when this kind of technology gets too overboard.

But what happens if it gets to the point where it is impossible to buy anything which isn't tagged. All it needs is for the major players in the market to come together to decide on this, and it becomes a de facto standard. Kind of like what Microsoft is/was trying to do with DRM. And if current trends continue, the government won't even try to stop them, they're more likely just to ask for a share of the pie (e.g. tracking data will be made available to law enforcement agencies).

Re:the biggest concerns

[Rick the Red]

That's not the point. Suppose I buy some underwear at Wallmart. What if:

Someone makes a mistake and the RFID for my underwear somehow shows up in JCPenney's inventory computer, and I'm arrested for shoplifting when I go to JCPenney? (the RFID tags aren't turned off, they just mark that ID "sold" in their inventory so they don't arrest you when you take them out the door)

Someone makes a mistake and the ID for my underwear isn't updated in the master Wallmart database. I wear them to another Wallmart, where I'm arrested for shoplifting. (with those magnetic tags I can see them and remove them myself when I get home)

I'm suspected of a crime, and the cops get my shopping records from Wallmart then put out an APB to all retailers to be on the lookout for my underwear's RFID? (note: this could be a good thing, but it could be abused, too)

I'm not paranoid. I have no objection if they put RFIDs in the packaging, like they do now with the magnetic markers. I object to putting the RFIDs in the product, which is what the retailers want because they're afraid I'll just unwrap it before I try to walk out with it.

Perhaps that's the real problem here: they treat us all like shoplifters instead of customers and thus assume we have no rights. This is just another reason to not shop at Wallmart (as if I needed yet another).

Maybe

[bazabba]

...they'll stop asking for my zip code!!

2 questions...

[heretic108]

Two questions regarding RFIDs:

1. Once you take a product home, what's the cheapest and most convenient way of detecting an RFID tag? Is there any consumer-level equipment available to help with this without complication?
2. Once a consumer discovers an RFID tag, is there an easy and convenient way for this tag be destroyed without damaging the product in any way?

Re:2 questions...

[costas]

You're assuming that it's to the interest of the retailer to leave the RFID active after you leave the store. That's just not the case. Let me clear up some RFID myths (and I am a retail systems consultant, BTW, this is my bread-and-butter):

1. RFIDs allow stores to track instances of products; i.e. a specific can of Coke (serial # so-and-so, part of case such-and-such that was shipped by Joe Q. Supplier) instead of the current UPC "class identifier", i.e. "this is just a can of Coke". Now, people read this and they just jump ahead and assume that a retailer, however big, is ready to pay millions and millions of dollars for infrastructure in their warehouses, distribution centers and ultimately stores, to track trillions of product instances. Wake-up call: no they're not, and no they will never be. At most they might track some informative 'class-attributes' to borrow an OOP term: things like supplier or lot number. The whole RFID-allows-instance-tracking is only useful for items whose management cost is much higher than its physical cost: think auto or airplane parts, drugs, etc; not Gap shirts. This will not go away for decades, even allowing for Moore's law to keep going and for lower associated IT costs following that same trend.
   
   
2. One added side-benefit of RFIDs is controling shrinkage, i.e. shoplifting. For that to actually work, and assuming instance-tracking is out of the question (see above) paid-off items have to be de-activated by the store itself upon checkout. Your questions are thus moot.
   
   
3. Besides shrinkage, lemme tell you a little secret: retailers are very, very, very competitive. Suppose they don't de-activate paid-off RFIDs and let the chips keep on responding to query signals. You know what will happen within a week of that being rolled out by someone like Wal-Mart? Target will set up a truck in a Wal-Mart parking lot and start measuring their sales. Do you think Wal-Mart will let that happen? And AFAIK there's no way to stop that from happening unless RFIDs come with built-in Public/Private Key infrastructure, which will only increase their managerial costs (a lot; just think of all the suppliers Wal-Mart and Target share!) re-inforcing my first point.
   

Now, instead of paranoid worries, I hope people start focusing on the promise of RFIDs: instant checkouts, instant inventories, instant customer feedback to the retailer (meaning better product choices by the stores) and much better inventory management (meaning lower prices!). Never mind trackable warranties, potential theft prevention/insurance, etc, etc, etc...

Re:2 questions...

[alptraum]

As someone that actually has done some research into RFID tags (which most /. readers obviously have not) there are two types; passive and active.

Passive RFID tags require a powered reader unit (such as a handheld unit similar to the ones used for barcodes or a stationary unit) which query the RFID for the information. Since these RFID tags have no power source of their own, even with a powered reader unit the maximum reading distance is ***A FEW FEET***. The amount of data that is able to currently be stored on passive RFID tags is quite small as well. Passive RFID tags are fairly cheap, however unless breakthroughs have been made in the last 6-8 months, they still are not cost effective to stick on anything and everything.

Powered RFID tags are battery powered and are capable of storing substantially more information than passive RFID tags. Signal distance is also further than passive RFID tags however still, unless you had a reader unit in your house or some sort of truck mounted reader unit went through the neighborhood any RFID tags in your house would be unreadable, the distance even powered RFID tags is pretty short. Tags such as these cost a few dollars each, definately not cost effective to stick on just anything.

As stated in the article, and from my experience visiting a Walmart regional distribution center, is that RFID tags will be used for logistics/distribution operations. Even if they were going to start sticking RFID tags on everything tomorrow(which would be prohibitedly expensive) their distance limitations would make them useless once you got out into the parking lot, and that erring on the generous side on the distances they can transmit. So unless you have a RFID reader in your house, no worries.

For the above questions, 1) For a consumer to detect a tag is pretty obvious, they are not that small, plus, all RFID technologies I am aware of require an antennae which would be a give away even if the tag was somehow incorporated inside the product with a small antannae sticking out. Researchers at Motorola have been investigating doing away with the need for an antennae however, maybe they have overcome this issue. 2) No ideas

Re:2 questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

...paid-off items have to be de-activated...

The RFID chip itself would not have to be deactivated upon checkout--only the ID in the store database would need to be deactivated.

Re:2 questions...

[l810c]

I use RFID tags in my business. They come on a ~1.5" round sticker for my application. The 'chip' is ~ 1mm * .5mm, the rest of the space is an antenna. I've tried removing these and replacing them and it almost never works. One little crimp in the antenna and my RFID reader will not read it.

Tagsys, however, also has a 'Laundry Tag' that:

Chip is durable (5 years or 200 washing cycles). It lasts longer than the garment lifetime.
Does not require line of sight to be read

Re:2 questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, instead of paranoid worries, I hope people start focusing on the promise of RFIDs: instant checkouts, instant inventories, instant customer feedback to the retailer (meaning better product choices by the stores) and much better inventory management (meaning lower prices!). Never mind trackable warranties, potential theft prevention/insurance, etc, etc, etc...

Nevermind job cuts...

Of course, since you have your bread and butter, you don't see that as a big loss do you? I mean afterall, cashiers are unskilled workers anyway, right? The store is better off without them, no?

I know I was rather horrified to see when a grocery store down the street to me shut down and reopened just up the road. The new store had half the cashiers, but was twice as big. In the place of half of the cashiers were "self-checkout" counters, with one person watching all of them (about 10 in all).

With RFIDs, now they can get rid of ALL of them, and just pay one thug to wait by the door to beat up on someone who tries to walk out without paying.

Re:2 questions...

[ahknight]

The RFID chip itself would not have to be deactivated upon checkout--only the ID in the store database would need to be deactivated.

This would not solve the very real "camping" problem he mentioned.

Re:2 questions...

[wiresquire]

Suppose they don't de-activate paid-off RFIDs and let the chips keep on responding to query signals

Mmmm. And suppose next week you go to a different store wearing the item you bought!

I hope they do leave them on. I'd hate to miss out on the hours of fun !

Re:2 questions...

[Detritus]

Are you sure that it isn't an inventory control (anti-shoplifting) tag? A RFID tag is going to need a silicon chip.

Re:2 questions...

[wfberg]

The RFID chip itself would not have to be deactivated upon checkout--only the ID in the store database would need to be deactivated.

This would not solve the very real "camping" problem he mentioned.

Serial numbers don't have to be related to the product you know. Under the presumption they'll be using a BigAssDatabase to track these things (which, frankly, you'd have to assume if you're worried about privacy) a random number, or a SHA-1 hash is just as good.
SELECT price,productname FROM bigAssCodeTable WHERE daCode=0x34b635e8a7590 you get the idea.

And, no need for PKI like Mr. Bread-and-Butter-Man would have you believe.
Whether they will be using a BigAssDatabase, now that's the question. RFIDs certainly do not preclude it, and do offer the potential for individual tracking, unlike UPC barcodes.

Consider; aside for Moore's Law, RFIDs will become a lot cheaper still when the patents expire..

Re:2 questions...

[pherris]

I hope they do leave them on. I'd hate to miss out on the hours of fun!

Assuming that these RFIDs can be turned off. I suspect it's more likely that the RFID is marked as "sold" in their records. If RFID makers can get together and come up with a numbering scheme that would avoid duplicates (similar to MAC addresses) then it shouldn't be a problem.

The bigger problem is that Walmart tries something like this:

Joe Blow buys a pair of shoes.

He pays for them with something other than cash that has his name and address.

Walmart now sells access to their records to other stores.

Stores with RFID readers embedded in the floor of the entrance can tell who you are when you walk in. Now they know who you are, your shopping habits, etc.

The above example could be a good thing if we could only trust companies to protect our privacy (which, IMO, we can't) by allowing companies to give us personalized shopping.

When Walmart does something everyone notices and reacts. Many have learned that you can't compete with them but you can make money by servicing areas that they have decided not to persue. I suspect that most companies will quitly embrace Wally Worlds actions concerning this.

Supply line efficiency vs. privacy

[eln]

This technology can be revolutionary for maximizing the efficiency of the supply lines of very large companies such as Wal-Mart. However, the only real way to relieve privacy concerns is to come up with some way for the chip to PERMANENTLY disable itself when the item is purchased, in such a way that it is physically impossible to re-activate the device.

I don't think this will be done, however. What is more likely is some sort of software "de-activation" that will make consumers happy but will not necessarily be a true solution, in that it will be, at least theoretically, possible to re-activate the device.

Recent conversation

[Daikiki]

I was talking with a friend about these things recently and he had some good ideas about practical uses for RFID tags. For one, a simple keychain sensor device could be programmed to keep track of your posessions. Wallets, cellphones, sunglasses, could be coded with these tags. If these items were to leave your direct vicinity, the sensor could inform you you're forgetting something. Or being robbed as the case may be.

Truth be told, I fail to see the privacy issues the adoption of these things would raise. I assume that, once you've brought your item home, you're free to remove the offending tag. Or, if you want to mess with the system, switch 'em around.

Re:Recent conversation

[Daikiki]

Hey, no basing my imaginations, pops ;)

Maybe I'm not paranoid enough. High tech crooks cruising a neighbourhood with souped up RFID sensors, scoping out homes to rob. Now there's a thought. The ultimate target is a home that reads plenty of consumer electronics and jewelry tags, but no toothbrushes or combs. Guess they're on vacation. In fact, I like the idea so much that I'd like to be the first to coin the phrase waRFIDing to describe it.

Re:Recent conversation

[KU_Fletch]

I assume that, once you've brought your item home, you're free to remove the offending tag

That's assuming they clearly show you where all the tags are. KSW has already developed a washable RFID that is being designed to be sewn in your clothes. Matrics is designing smaller and smalled RFIDs. Their smallest is the size of a speck of glitter. Think about how easy it would be in integate that into a cardboard box, or the inking on a package, or the binding glue.

There are SERIOUS privacy issues. I'm being optimistic when I hope that when the industry decides on standards it will include auto-deactivation at cehckout. Otherwise it's going to be an RF war in the streets with people cobbling together RF pingers and scramblers left and right. I think that prospect (and the ease of it happening) will be enough to set industry standards taht protect privacy. But the issue needs to be raised sooner rather than later to assume it happens.

Of course we're talking about shopping. Not much is going to stop the police (ehrem... Patriot Act) from tagging your car with one of these suckers if they need to tail you. You really gonna notice a spec of dirt on your car pinging your location as you go through intersections?

Already ready for this,,,

[PHAEDRU5]

I mean, haven't you seen the ad where the dude hides everything under his trenchcoat and gets charges anyway on the way out?

Yeah, I'm back to cash and the Chamblee Farmers Market.

Don't try trackn' me! Bastards!

Innovation or domination?

[reiggin]

Walmart poses the same kind of question as Microsoft not so many years ago. Are they pushing innovation or are they simply doing whatever they can to be a bigger and more profitable company for their shareholders? I think we can guess which is more likely. Money and power obscure all concerns about their consumers' privacy. Walmart, on the other hand, does do much to keep its consumers happy. The Maxim discontinuation and the obscuring of women's magazines covers is in response to the family atmosphere that they seek to promote. It is not, as some flame-baiters maintain, an attempt to be repressive and just part of the Bible-belt mentality. They are reacting to their own market research that shows that most families (which it is families that shop at Walmart mostly, not hip 16 year olds who'd rather be at Abercrombie) would rather those things not be visible to their young children. Thus Walmart's policies put them in better light with the communities they overtake. If the communities don't want to have RFID tags and they make that known to Walmart, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Walmart retracted this idea. Walmart knows very well that its money comes not from streamlined inventory but from the happy families that shop there.

OK Don't Get Paranoid, Yet

[Little Brother]

OK, I can understand the privacy concern, but don't let it get out of hand. It is very unlikly these devices will come with a power supply that lasts much longer than the expected shelf life of the item being sold. Also, in order to comply with FCC regulations, they couldn't transmit huge amounts of power or the total field strength in the walmart (where thousands of such devices would constantly be in operation) would exceed safty limits. This basicly means that they won't be able to track you far or long. Far enough to catch a shoplifter, possibly, far enough to keep track of you by a chip in your shirt you purchased at walmart? Probably, but the equiptment to do so would be way to expensive to do routinely, and face it, if the situation is beyond routine, "they" have much better ways of tracking people that don't rely on a chip that can be sent to a different continint via airmail. Most importantly though, with a scale of operations the size of walmart, does anyone think that they intend to spy on everyone there (more than they already can with a security camera every other step)? Inside the store possibly, but the logistics of setting up a grid that can track the transmitters outside of walmart would be extremly impractical. This will probably be what it is supposed to be, a way track not people but merchandise, which has no right to privacy anyway, and to catch people who want to get away with some of it. The only simi-paranoid-rallying use for this that they MIGHT be able to collect aggragate patterns to organize the walmarts for maximum impulse shopping success. But doesn't Kroger and many other grocery stores (with "discout" cards) do this already, yes, there was some minor outrage at first, but has anybody's rights to privacy been significantly damaged by these peaces of plastic? I doubt it.

Re:OK Don't Get Paranoid, Yet

[greg_barton]

It is very unlikly these devices will come with a power supply that lasts much longer than the expected shelf life of the item being sold.

RFID tags need no power supply. They are powered by the reader. (From the radio waves emitted by it.)

From this page:

An RFID system consists of an antenna or coil, a transceiver and a transponder or tag. A radio signal emitted by the antenna activates the tag allowing it to be read and in some instances have data written to it.

SWEET! -if I can get a reader for cheap

[JVert]

I want a reader with good range, able to ping within 5 feet. Maybe 3, then I just need one for the fridge and one for the cubbord and not have to worry about noise interferance from the trash can.
Very exciting stuff boys and girls!
Tonight when I had to decide what to make for dinner I had to walk into the kitchen and look around for what I had. THEN I realized I had no milk for my macaroni and cheese.
Once these RFID's meet with grocery stores i can see whats avalable from my pda! webtablet! tv! iloo! ipod! cellphone!

New way to advertise

[Visoblast]

Before someone walks past an advertisement display, the display reads the RFID tags the person is carying, figures out things & brands the person might be interested in, and displays a targeted ad.

Mark this post. With RFID tags, this will happen. Just not right away, admittedly.

Re:New way to advertise

[MartinB]

An important thing to realise about targeted ads is that the number of ads won't change - you won't be suddenly blitzed with many more ads. The difference is that the ads you'll see will more frequently be relevant to you.

Less dross. More stuff you're interested in. Sounds good?

If anything, the total number of ads will tend to decrease as advertisers won't need to plaster every damned product to make sure they're all seen by the target market. Further, I would expect that each targeting site would be much more expensive than a static site (but probably cheaper than all the static sites they'd need to cover all the product lines).

Both of these will tend to make the RoI calculation come out in favour of few advertising sites, each with many potential ads they can show.

The thing to realize is...

[M.C. Hampster]

... this is going to be a huge boost for RFID's. I don't think most realize the huge amount of sway that Wal-Mart has in both the American economy and the World economy in general. They are a huge company: the first retailer to ever become the biggest company in the world. They should change the old saying to "As goes Wal-Mart, so goes the world..."

gun control

[Wordsmith]

I'm no gun control proponet, but I wonder if anyone has ever considered mandating these things inside handguns. ALthough there'd be a ton of black-market guns, guns built before the law, guns built outside of the us, etc around, the ones including an RFID would be awfully easy to detect in situations where security is paramount.

Not saying its a good idea, but I just wonder if its floating out there ...

Re:gun control

[Jason Earl]

The problem with this is that guns are not difficult to manufacture. Heck, many popular models still in use to day are simple variations on guns built before electricity. Not to mention the fact that their are literally millions of weapons currently in existence.

The firearms cat has been out of the bag for several hundred years. Pretending that you can keep firearms out of the hands of criminals (especially criminals that want to get past a security checkpoint) is ridiculous. Worst comes to worse the criminals could simply make their own weapons.

Re:gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no gun control proponet, but I wonder if anyone has ever considered mandating these things inside handguns. ALthough there'd be a ton of black-market guns, guns built before the law, guns built outside of the us, etc around, the ones including an RFID would be awfully easy to detect in situations where security is paramount.

Not saying its a good idea, but I just wonder if its floating out there ...

So what happens when criminals become savvy enough to scan houses/cars/people for guns? This would only create a situation of mandated gun registration for legal gun owners, and leave the criminals with their non-tagged guns ... Or better yet, scanning houses, stealing the guns they find, then removing the RFIDs.

Re:gun control

[utahjazz]

I suspect you don't understand how easy this is. When I was in elementary school, me and my friends made guns, in school, during recess. A teacher caught us shooting 22 rounds on the playgound and made us stop, gave us some stern words. We thought she was totally overreacting by scolding us.

If guns were banned here (U.S.), there really would be an undergound gun making establishment, and the guns would be pretty good. (We are Americans after all). The 'No RFID' feature would make them all the more desirable.

Re:gun control

[smithwis]

When I was in elementary school, me and my friends made guns, in school, during recess. A teacher caught us shooting 22 rounds on the playgound and made us stop, gave us some stern words. We thought she was totally overreacting by scolding us.

What?!? You were shooting a gun at school; not just any gun, but a homemade-if-I-f@cked-up-making-it- someone-might-get-hurt gun. You thought that the teacher was overreacting by giving you stern words. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous to the point of being laughable?

f guns were banned here (U.S.), there really would be an undergound gun making establishment, and the guns would be pretty good. (We are Americans after all). The 'No RFID' feature would make them all the more desirable.

If guns were illegal I'm sure there would be underground gunmaking, not sure of how good they would be though(for the money anyways).

I tend to rthink, though, that people would just remove the RFID taga if they were planning to commit a crime with the gun, much the same as they apparently do with the ID tags in all those movies.

Please excuse any gramatical errors, my English is no good when summertime rolls around.

Re:gun control

[Cyberdyne]

Well, if there only was a RFID tag taped on the guns, what's stopping you from just removing it?

Nothing. It's a very dumb idea. Since an RFID tag would be nothing more than a machine-readable number anyway, WTF is wrong with a serial number, like they already have? Unlike a supermarket, you don't normally need to scan dozens of gun serial numbers per hour...

Over here in the civilized world, you need a licence to own and operate a gun. Seems to work quite well. Yes, the government has a database of all guns and their owners. Boo!! hiss!! So what?

Yes, Texas's system seems to work pretty well.

The idea that a gun-equipped public could prevent the government from turning against its own people was perhaps a good idea 150-200 years ago when wars were won by the side who had the most guys with handguns. That time is long gone.

Try telling that to the Russians, especially those in Chechnya - where the Russian military (still the nearest thing to a superpower outside the US) has been experiencing enormous difficulty suppressing rebels armed with nothing more than portable weapons (rifles, grenade launchers and some shoulder-launch SAMs). Or Afghanistan, where the then-superpower USSR was forced out by similar resistance. (Yes, they were armed and advised by the CIA, but still only had weapons of that level.)

To invade another country, a bunch of people with rifles stand no chance. To defend their own from an invader or a hostile regime, it's a different story: in Iraq, Hussein needed a large army just to keep the populace under control - and even then, it entailed many thousands of deaths per year, using helicopter gunships and nerve gas against his opponents. Determined civilians with firearms can make life extremely difficult for any occupying force.

RFID abuse is almost certain

[Anonymous Coward]

RFID tags are a great idea, but the potential for abuse by data miners is simply too great-- greedy companies will be tripping over each other to collect data about you and sell it to other companies who want to advertise shit to you.

RFID tags in merchandise are only half of the equation-- the marketers need a way to attach that data to a specific person-- like if some state gets the bright idea to embed an RFID tag in its driver's licenses. Or if a credit card company puts one in your VISA or MasterCard. Then...

Bingo. Joe Blow walks through a doorway, and and any still-active RFID tags on his person are collected by the RFID tag reader built unobtrusively into the door frame. Some computer in the back room duly records that Joe Blow has a NJ driver's license, wears Lee Jeans, Hanes boxers, Reebok sneakers, and chews Big Red.

Re:RFID abuse is almost certain

[NoData]

Maybe not.

The problem with the Benetton plan was that the RFIDs were suppose to be embedded in the clothing itself. No one has ever said Walmart is asking for this.

Certainly, for non-clothing products, I doubt the RFID will be embedded in the product itself. That would be far too costly a change for the manufacturing process. Rather, it will probably be embedded in the packaging itself (like UPCs).
Even for clothes, I imagine (in Walmart's case) the RFID will be in the clothing tags or packages. I can't imagine Walmart convincing Fruit of the Loom to embed RFIDs in every pair of briefs.

I think the article does not mention privacy concerns because, frankly, unless the RFID is somehow permanently associated with the product, there are no privacy concerns.

Re:Note the limited description of RFID

[cperciva]

Given that the initial plans are to embed RFID tags in the shipping crates -- not in the products themselves -- I'd say that the description given is entirely accurate.

Walmart often bullies suppliers, this is no diff.

[buddhapkt]

RFIDs have the potential to be an excellent inventory tracking device but as this discussion has brought to light there are many issues regarding privacy the public is still concerned about. Rather than let suppliers come to grips with these issues over time Walmart has flexed its buying power over its suppliers and will force them to do what THEY want regardless of what the public or these supply companies believe. I work in the manufacturing sector and I have seen Walmart do this all to many times. For example, Walmart more often then not will force a company like Black and Decker or Eureka to produce a model just for them that fits Walmart's ideal price no matter how much the quality of the product will be affected. I just want to point out that although this article portraits Walmart as a champion of technolgy with this move, IMHO their bullying is not fair or just....

Simple solution...

[PS-SCUD]

Just wrap your entire house in alunimum foil.

I don't see what the big deal is?

Re:Simple solution...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Guess it's time to actually consider buying aluminum siding! :-)

They can do it

[dirvish]

If anyone can get the ball rolling on RFID it is Wally World. They have lots of experience putting pressure on manufacturers and distributors. They will just tell the distributors NO RFID=No Wal-Mart. They have so much buying power they can always find someone to sell cheaper, or in this case someone cooperate w/ the RFID rollout. Check out this AlterNet article about Wal-Mart's questionable business and employment practices. It is titled How Wal-Mart is Remaking our World: Bullying people from your town to China

Re:Waaa waaaa "privacy concerns"

[dcuny]

• We didn't really lose privacy, and it made inventorying a lot simpler.

Well, yes... If you don't count that fact that stores keep track of every item you ever purchase, then no, there was no loss of privacy at all.

• So someone can query you wirelessly and find out what you bought - big f'ing deal!

I think the idea was that people could track what you purchased after you left the store, which is a bit more insidious.

Maybe you're just being sarcastic. If so, it's too subtle for me.

Re:Waaa waaaa "privacy concerns"

[mattdm]

Well, the plans seem to imply that the RFIDs would need to encode unique identifiers, not just one-number-per-product as with current barcodes. This would enable things like scanning an entire still-packed crate and getting a count of its contents. There's less incentive to do this with barcodes, since you'd still have to unpack the box and scan each one by hand, and you might as well just count 'em while you're doing that.

Plus, I suppose someone could drive a truck by your house and scan to see how good of a consumer you are.

Unless you have aluminum siding.

Re:Waaa waaaa "privacy concerns"

[knodi]

Maybe you're just trolling, I can't tell. But I think the whole point of RFID is it's automatic. Sure, they could look at the box, and sure, they're already tracking barcodes. But with RFID, they can track all purchases and even the path a product takes throughout the store.

There's a hypthetical store that can track every thought you have, and present individually targeted ads that are so personally tailored that they can instantly create demand for every products at once. The "evil" store.

And there's a hypothetical store that just has its products on a well organized series of tables, and you just grab what you want and leave cash in a bucket on the honor system. The "good" store.

Nobody's suggesting that Walmart is the evil store, or that they suck because they're not just like the good store. What they're suggesting is that "good" stores are trying as hard as they can to become "evil", and our beloved technology is helping. THAT'S what people are upset about.

Re:What consumer privacy concerns? Answer: Choice

[pdxmax]

Paying with a credit card is a choice the consumer makes. If some people are worried about a database tracking their purchases, at least they have the option to use cash. But with RFID, customers have no such option. Everyone can be tracked, regardless of whether they approve or not.

the biggest concerns-Tag! Your it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"most everyone discussing these devices are concerned about the privacy issues--that they need to be fully deactivated after the purchase. big brother inside?"

Is that anything like Intel Inside?

Re:the biggest concerns-Tag! Your it.

[double_plus_ungod]

Is that anything like Intel Inside?

history: MIT--electronic locks requiring the swipe of a card

mit big brother inside

Walmart = sleaze

[SuperBanana]

A friend and I were walking through walmart to get some engine coolant(minor emergency, no choice), and I expressed my distaste for walmart. She asked, "Why? Where else could you get all these wonderful things?"(points to grocery section, hardware, etc.)

My answer was rather simple. "Well, before Walmart, the center of my town- the local town hardware store, the local grocery store, and so on. But thanks to Home Depot and Walmart running all the local businesses out, now you can't get anything without driving 20+ minutes". So now, for the $2 in savings, I've got to burn $2 in gas just to get there. I've got to spend 5 minutes finding a parking space, 5 walking from the lot into the store, another 5 trying to find the section and get there, another 5-10 waiting in line...so on etc. That's 'better'?

All because the only thing consumers value these days is the pricetag- not all the other benefits that come from giving your business to a small, locally owned business...or the hidden costs(your time, travel expenses, etc). Lost your reciept? Walmart tells you to go fuck yourself,m you shoplifting scum! Joe at Joe's Hardware remembers selling you that door hinge a few days ago- so the answer is "hey, no problem, here's your money." Not to mention, Joe knows what he's talking about when you ask him a question about doors, instead of some PFY who blankly stares at you because you asked something other than "what aisle is ___ in?"

You know what? It's not the only thing that bugs me about Walmart- their people are downright sleazy. It's stuff like the stories about Walmart managers taking donated items out of charity dropboxes in the stores that were not in walmart bags, and restocking them onto the shelves. Why? Walmart claimed it was to prevent shoplifting(or, in this case, 'shopdonating'), and items not in Walmart bags must not have been legitimate purchases. The donation box was AFTER the registers, not before. Further- ever been in a Walmart? There's more security cameras than you can count- yet a)items were supposedly shoplifted, yet not caught on tape and b)supposedly walmart didn't have any security cameras covering the area where the donation box was. Uh huh. Oh, and don't get me started on Walmart's union-busting...

It's so frustrating to see these giant box stores pop up. A big part of the local economy shifts over to that one store- all the mom+pops die off, and everyone that worked for mom+pop end up working for Walmart, they get nice clean blue uniforms, and all is(mostly) good. What happens when Walmart goes the way of K-mart, Caldoors, Bradlees, etc...or decides that store isn't quite profitable enough? Oops. Smallville's unemployment just went to %50.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[Imperator]

I also hate the way they ask me for a receipt as I walk out the store. My response is always "I've bought this merchandise, so you have no right to stop or search me." More than once they've threatened to call security/police/whatever. To this I point out that if they so much as attempt to restrain me from leaving without good cause, they'll be liable for civil and criminal charges. Just keep walking out and drive away. So long as you have indeed purchased the items you're taking with you, the worst they can legally do to you is ask you not to return.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[Polyphemis]

Actually, small note, not all of those ARE security cameras. In the SuperCenter I used to work in, I found out that only a THIRD of the little black domes were actually cameras. The rest were decoys.

The anti-union crap Wal-Mart puts out is hilarious. Almost half of my training (two weeks) involved watching videos and taking computerized tests agreeing with Wal-Mart on how unions are bad and Wal-Mart is good and that I should never join a union because they'll never help me and Wal-Mart is such a dandy place to work that I'll never want to work anywhere else ever again, or join one of those sleazy unions!

Between that mindwash and the near-deification of Sam Walton (I'm not joking), the whole training session made me feel like I was joining a cult.

Back on the subject, the RFIDs and such better have a really simple implementation and there had better be some damned good training for removal, because NONE of the 40+ cashiers at the store I worked at knew how to fully deactivate the existing tags!!

I attended one of the cashier team meetings and, when asked, NO one had any idea how to do it right. The proper way is to KEEP SWIPING across the little demangetizer until the 'bing' sound stops. How hard is that? With the extreme emphasis on training the people there, you'd think that more people would know that, but they don't. I hope the RFID deactivation methods they employ are FAR simpler than this, because I honestly don't think that that lowest common denominator could handle it if not.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[Bodero]

Wow, I bet that makes you feel real good inside. You're a fucking dick. These employees don't likely give half a shit what you did to get those items, they're just doing their job. Far be it for them to follow procedures with the Almighty Imperator. These aren't wealthy people who represent the Wal-Mart corporation's tactics, they are working men and women who probably work hours on end just to survive. I really hope I never meet scum like you in real life or I'd make sure you wouldn't have the mindset to do it again. It's too bad your parents didn't have the common decency to instill a foundation of manners and human courtesy when you were a child, and because of this, you feel you need to relinquish your childhood fallacies on the lowly Wal-Mart greeter. Have a good life, asshole, because lord knows no one around you is.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[micromoog]

If my Post Office didn't have to pay someone $20/hr, plus full benefits and a month of vacation, to sort mail the postage rates would be a lot lower; you could get a high school kid to do this for minimum wage.

1. Postage rates are really low as it is. Is there any other way to send a letter to anywhere in the country for less than $0.40? Not even close.
2. Minimum wage is a fucking joke. The only people willing to work for that are high school students because they don't have to pay the rent. Nobody can actually live off of minimum wage.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[call -151]

The main reason they check your reciept is not because they think that you may be a thief. It is because they think that their cashiers may be thieves. A standard ploy is for the cashier not to ring up expensive items for a partner. Anyone who has shopped at Fry's Electronics has noticed the "body cavity search" and the reason is that cashier A, by not ringing up a few RAM chips for their buddy customer B, could share in a pretty impressive haul. So the search is desinged to prevent this. The net effect is that Frys/Walmart/Home Depot can then afford to hire non-perfectly honest cashiers, which are much cheaper than honest cashiers, and they pass the savings on to you!

So don't be offended by the search- or shop elsewhere! People who are outraged by privacy/security issues are ok, but when people feel entitled to privacy AND deep discounts, that seems too much to me.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[raju1kabir]

About halfway across the LARGE parking lot a HUGE plain clothes chases me down, and attempts to search my backpack and bags. I let him search the bag, but refuse the backpack search. He threatens to call the cops, I let him search backpack, he messes up all my school crap, and breaks the cover of my graphing calc, then takes me to the store to take my picture.

Advice for next time: You do not have to consent to a search of your bag in their parking lot, and you definitely do not have to go back in the store to have your picture taken (why, why, why would you agree to do that???). If you feel uncomfortable with how you're being treated by a store security guard, ask them whether they intend to physically keep you there. If they do not, turn around and leave without another word (this will be the case 99% of the time). If they are, clam up and demand the police. Once they have taken it upon themselves to detain you they face a pretty high standard of evidence (higher than the police would). They absolutely cannot forcibly search you under any circumstances - only the police can do that. If the store security people get touchy-feely, do not be shy about informing them you'll be pressing assault charges. It doesn't have to hurt to be an assault - it just has to make you uncomfortable.

If they "threaten" to call the cops, call their bluff. Keep walking. On the (highly unlikely) chance that they do, the police will find you walking down the road, and if they believe that you've stolen something, they'll do the same search that the security guard was going to do (except more professionally). You are not doing anything wrong by walking away from a store where you didn't steal anything, no matter how much some guard wants to hassle you.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[0xA]

I'd just like to back up what the parent says.

I was walking through a department store on my way out of the mall a little while ago and set off thier little alarm thing. It was something I had purchased in another store and was in my bag. My friend and I stood there inside the store doors with stupid looks on our faces for a minute untill one of the cashiers just told us to go. She had aparently decided that if we were stealing something we wouldn't just stand there after setting off the alarm. Resonable no?

Half way across the parking lot some idiot plain clothes security guard comes running after us screaming "stop right there you cocksuckers." Seriously. I look at the guy and say "excuse me?" I can't remember what he said exactly but it involved me handing over my bag and was laced with many unkind adjectives aplied to my person. I said "no", I probably would have let him if he asked nicely. He didn't like that much so he squared up his shoulders and tried the tough guy look on us. "You'll have to come with me" he says. This guy was about eighteen years old, covered in acne and weighed about 130 pounds if he was wearing heavy shoes that day. I tell you I hadn't lauged that hard in years, I was afraid I was going to piss my pants. We just walked away while he yelled "I'm calling the cops" over and over.

Re:Walmart = sleaze

[NoMaster]

I was walking through a department store on my way out of the mall a little while ago and set off thier little alarm thing. It was something I had purchased in another store and was in my bag.

I too have been in this situation - doorpost alarm goes off, security come a-running, and they've tried to hold and search me.

The interesting part? What set off the alarm was my keyring! After a little experimentation at the local corner store/video rental owned by a friend, I learned that if my 2 car keys are angled together in *just* the right way, it sets off the doorpost anti-theft alarm. These things work by detecting a resonant circuit, and I guess the angle + cuttings of the keys matches the frequency of these things.

The best part - I can now do this at will! Much fun can be had this way... ;-)

Do the IDs tell what the product is?

[gylle]

Are the RFIDs on products plain serial numbers without meaning, or do they contain information about the product? Would it be worthwile to by a handheld RFID reader and scan for fun stuff in crowded places, e.g., recently bought:

• pregnancy tests
• sex toys, porn and lubricant
• medication for embarassing illnesses
• guns

Any other suggestions? ;-)

Re:privacy in a store is not present

[aborchers]

Can anyone actually provide evidence that it is technologically possible (not just theoretically, but practically in terms of present or near-future capabilities) to achieve this level of monitoring? You have to walk between a pair of very obvious posts just to activate a simple anti-theft tag. Is there any basis for the concern that someone can scan these weak transmitters from an effective distance, particularly among the babble of a few thousand of them in a concentrated space where I can't even pick up a cell phone signal?

Cool use of RFIDs

[Lord_Dweomer]

How bout this.....you're sitting at home....and you need to buy a bunch of stuff from Wal-Mart.....go to their website....fill out a cart....and either pay with a credit card online...or at the store (i'm getting to that). Then, it prints out a piece of paper with a barcode. You go to the store, and scan the barcode into a little handheld GPS unit. The unit then lights up and shows you graphically where all the products on your list are. If you paid by credit card at home, you walk your cart through the scanner and leave (provided you didn't take anything "extra") and if not, you can pay at the register. Not everything has to be evil....but I will still wear my tin foil hat while shopping at Wal-Mart now.

Re:What consumer privacy concerns? Answer: Choice

[NoData]

But with RFID, customers have no such option. Everyone can be tracked, regardless of whether they approve or not.

Uh..How?

I'm as big as a privacy buff as the next guy, but how the hell are the amassing a database about you simply by virtue of RFIDs?!

Like I mention below, the uproar with Benetton's plan was that the RFID was embedded in the CLOTHING. So that when you came BACK to the store, they could, ostensibly, compile a profile of your Benetton purchases by surrepitiously scanning your clothes as you came back in.

I'm going to assume, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, that Walmart is interested in putting the RFIDs on the PACKAGING. On the long shot that the RFID *is* in the product itself, who cares? How often are you coming back to Walmart, with, say, the TV or the twizzlers you just bought there? And as for clothes...well, really, if you're dressing yourself at Walmart, you're on you're own, buddy.

But seriously, Walmart, unlike Benetton, doesn't sell high-ticket item clothes, and probably isn't interested in profiling their typical customers clothes buying habits, really. I doubt Walmart socks will have RFIDs embedded. Probably only the packages will.

Re:privacy in a store is not present

[KronicD]

My understanding of this technology is that it does not rely on a battery but uses the power from the initial radio signal (the one that contacts the device) in order to reply with its ID, so battery lifespan should not be an issue... (feel free to correct me if im wrong). An idea, couldnt this same technology be used to allow passive recharging of laptops (radio signals exist basicly everywhere), so why not tap them to get a bit more time before your lappy dies?

Re:Waaa waaaa "privacy concerns"

[sixdotoh]

you know, i used to think about the same thing of the privacy zealots. i thought, if you're not doing anything wrong, than why should you worry about it. the fact is though, in America we're supposedly innocent until proven guilty. a lot of these privacy issues seem to make the everyday citizen out to be guilty without having the proper legal procedures in place.

i mean, if all wal-mart does is implement this system and guarantees that the tags will be disabled, i think that's all fine and well, but this should be monitored closely so that we don't end up with an orwellian big brother checking over our shoulders seeing what we bought.

i heard on off the hook how those member discount cards at grocery stores are monitored so feds can see if your buying large amounts of precursor chemicals for drugs (sudafed was one example). well, great, they're trying to stop the production of drugs, but they're doing it at the expense of the everyday citizen who may now be subject to investigation and hassles that may damage their reputation and/or career just because for some legitimate reason they needed a large amount of sudafed!

also, supposedly they are now implementing a massive government database to track all these purchases and scan the data looking for potential terrorist buying habits (lol!).

that's what i have . . . innocent until proven guilty; why should the government monitor citizens until it has legitimate grounds to?

let's don our foil hats

[poptones]

Well, yes... If you don't count that fact that stores keep track of every item you ever purchase, then no, there was no loss of privacy at all.

Uh, what? If you have a problem with them tracking every item you purchase then you need to stop paying for everything with credit or cheques. I buy stuff all the time even with (shudder!) a Kroger savings card and ya know what? Kroger don't know a damn thing about me. It's not like they take your driver's license number to fill out one of those stupid things; it's not like you can't lie.

It really amazes me how so many people tie themselves intimately to corporations and then bitch about the loss of privacy. If you value your privacy, tell'em to go to hell. Shop with the local merchants while they still exist; stop using plastic every time you buy a damn pack of gum and you won't have to worry about it - or open a numbered swiss account and get a debit card drawn on it.

I think the idea was that people could track what you purchased after you left the store, which is a bit more insidious.

Apparently the notion of removing the damn tag is completely alien to the tinfoil hat crowd.

Re:let's don our foil hats

[anagama]

Haggens cards. I trade mine with other people as often as possible. If more people did this it would be interesting. No data is not helpful. Bunged up data can be harmful. I want to screw with the data - not just avoid it.

I've graduated to a stainless steel helmet. ;-)

Detection from afar

[presearch]

Two things bugging me about these posts.

About drive-by scanning: I believe that you need an antenna that's the
square of the distance to read a tag. That's why there's a little plate reader
or handheld at the checkout and those walkthrus at the door are huge.
To read it from 5 feet, you need 25 sq feet of antenna.

The other thing is that the tag itself won't be zapped or deactivated.
Each will hold a key that IDs the product (all 10oz cans of peaches from
DelMonte will have that same key, like a barcode, probably that same UPC
number) and it will also have a key that's unique to the tag itself.
It won't be zapped, it will just change the status record of that item from
"stocked" to "sold" (or "missing from inventory but not sold").
Shoplift a sweater, and even if you get it out of the store, if you wear it
to the store a year later, you could get pinged.

As much as I hate the idea, you can't blame them for implementing it.
It opens up a huge world of possibilities and won't cost them that much.

With Wal-Mart's clout, it will be up to the vendor to eat the cost of the tag,
WM just has to implement the system and specs the tag. No doubt the tag
supplier will be a WM subsidiary.

Don't want to put in the tag in your product Mr. Vendor?
Sorry, we'll find someone else that will.

Re:the biggest concerns (safeway angle)

[ATMAvatar]

no, i think it's the fact that the issue i bring up is that if your purchases retain the rfid function upon leaving the store, they become useful to the entity that decides to listen and track them: wal-mart's clothing aisle that insists that this pair of pants will match that shirt your wearing...

Welcome to the future: DRM'ed clothing. Wear a non-matching shirt and pair of pants and you go to jail.

Fashion police! Come out with your khakis up!

Re:Waaa waaaa "privacy concerns"

[nrlightfoot]

As long as the RFID chips are placed on products in the same manner as bar codes, privacy is a non-issue. I don't have a single non-food product I walk around with that still has a barcode attached. As for the the food products, those are only around for a few days so it's still not an issue. Get over it and enter the future.

The world is becoming a small place indeed.

RFID is here to stay

[Stonent1]

Do you wave a pass card at the door at work? That's RFID. Do you drive through the quick lane at the toll booth? More RFID. I used to pay at the pump with my key chain. I cut it open after I cancelled the card and found a TI Tiris RFID tube inside. Similar to what they inject into a dog's neck so they can find it if lost. The one used in the Mobil SpeedPass that I had is the one on the right in this picture:
TI Tiris

Actual size is about 2cm and about 4mm in diameter.

Give it a break...

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

I suppose we shouldn't have invented telecommunications either... it put the Pony Express riders out of work...

Tim

what about the greeters?

[robdeadtech]

Wonder if they'll be RFIDing the employees? Those creepy greeters could use some tracking devices...

Lessee....

RFID 1939G93935 = creepy old dude.
RFID 9293J51138 = She doesn't actually greet you, she just mouths the words.
RFID 4992F49503 = Dude with a wierdass voicebox.
RFID 5934L32942 = He's just staring and drooling.

Every single tag is a diff number?

[nich37ways]

From everything I have read either every tag is a different number or it will be impossible to accurately track people ever.

If so how big is the number that an RFID tag stores?

If it is unique per tag then no matter what it will run out bloody quickly, an astronomical number of products are sold every year. If the tag is not unique, ie it is the same as the barcode system and all products of the same type have the same ID then it is impossible to track people!!!

Also would it not be trivially easy to create a fake RFID generator so you could overload the senor equipment and make it useless??

Yabber Yabber Yabber

[tomstdenis]

You guys fail to realize that you have HUGE freaking logo and brand names on your shirts, pants and caps.

If you're afraid of people knowing what you buy and where what's up with the HILFIGIER or GAP or [etc]. across your chest?

Fucking /. morons I swear. You wouldn't know privacy if you were bit in the ass by it.

Re:Yabber Yabber Yabber

[SN74S181]

I usually remove logos and tags from items of clothing I wear.

I do wonder why the people who pay extra for 'Coca-cola' merchandise, etc. aren't getting a payment from Coke for displaying the advertising.

We got a set of 'Coca-Cola' nested mixing bowls for our wedding. I have been gradually grinding off the glazed-on 'Coca-Cola' logos with a sharpening stone when I wash them. If and when my wife notices and asks, I'll tell her the payments from Coke weren't coming in regularly enough.

Counterpoint? Count-counterpoint? Oh cr*p.

[whovian]

Yeah, but if I now want to use a debit or credit card to pay, now the inventory is matched specifically to me. A response of "No, it won't" seems completely inaccurate to me because I have received store catalogs via postal mail after just a single purchase at a new store. i believe there must be ways to extract your billing address from the swipe of this little piece of plastic.

At first I thought the solution would be to pay with cold, hard cash, but alas, RFID tags embedded in the paper currency are likely inevitable (if not already advertised). (OT: Who says the govt won't mandate stores to track in the interest of "reviving the economy"? Oops, sorry for the small rant there).

What problem...

[Nexum]

There are a lot of people crying out about personal rights etc. on this, but I have to say I really don't see what the problem is.

At all.

So the store knows more about what you buy, can much more accurately track your purchasing habits, sees which things you like, and which you don't, knows how much you spend every month in the store etc.

What's the big-ass problem for crying out loud?

I *want* the stores to know my buying habits so that they can do a better jobs of providing me with more of the things I like!

Ask yourselves WHY the store wants to know this? It's so that they can tailor themselves to YOU, to give YOU a better service and more of the things you want to spend your money on. Why on Earth would Walmart put money into something that would frustrate, irritate or otherwise turn away customers?!?

I say bring it on! I say, yeah, let's see my tastes and purchasing history take their place in the big database so that I become a future dynamic of the store!

All these privacy advocates going nuts are well off the mark... get some common sense in your head... these people don't want to take away your life... they're not like the common fictional evil genius with a mad plot to eradicate privacy from the face of the world (muhahaha).

I genuinely see this as a *service*, cannot wait for it to be implemented and have absolutely NO worries about the scheme at all. Stop watching too much X-Files!

-Nex

Oh no! They're coming to take away my privacy!

[Nix0n]

but never once mentions consumer privacy concerns.

Maybe - just maybe - this is because THERE ARE NO SUCH CONCERNS AMONG RATIONAL INDIVIDUALS.

RFID makes supply-chain management even better, helps make theft detection even better, offers potential labor cost savings, and makes merchandise returns smoother.

The tags discussed here are so small, so cheap in manufacture, that their effective scanning range is very small, requiring huge antennas to scale out just beyond a few feet. Read: nobody will be scanning your house for what you bought, unless they want you to notice a semi-truck-sized mesh antenna outside your front window. EVEN IF you're still paranoid knowing this, here's a novel thought for you: REMOVE THE DAMN TAG.

The day I can walk into a Wal-Mart, get my items, walk out without having to wait in line or deal with human stupidity or human error, and be instantly charged for what I bought - that is the day I will become a Wal-Mart customer.

You zealots can fight the future all you want, but it won't matter a whit. I hear buggy-whip manufacturing is a good line of work, if you're afraid of technology improving other people's lives.

I for one welcome our RFID masters

[Illserve]

Seriously, I want every scrap of wood and piece of paper in my house to have RFID's. RFID represents a merging of our informational universe with the physical. With RFID tags on items, I can represent them in my PDA and have them be hi-lighted in a HUD mounted on my glasses.

Imagine never losing anything again ever. That's a serious possibility of a world in which RFID tags are ubiqutous.

Yes there are potential privacy issues, but there are always privacy issues with any convenience technology. We get around them on a case by case basis as usual (e.g snail-mail: porno subscriptions arrive in brown paper wrapping).

How is the RFID worry any worse than TCP-IP, which passes through many unsecure places on the way to its destination? It's not, we've just already got a good handle on TCP-IP security, but noone's thought of similar ways to handle RFID.

They will, and the problems will be solved, as they always are. The sky isn't falling, it never does.

There are no legitimate "privacy concerns"

[rudy_wayne]

Just one more example of the rampant ignorance that is becoming more pervasive in our society. No matter how many times it is pointed out that RFID tags have a very small range and nobody can drive by your house and scan everything you own, people continue to rant against RFID tags.

Re:There are no legitimate "privacy concerns"

[SagSaw]

Scenario:

1. I buy new tires for my car at Walmart. Each tire has an RFID tag for legitimate inventory tracking purposes.

2. McDonalds installs an RFID tag reader that checks for a RFID tag in the front left tire while driving through the drive through.

3a. When McDonalds sees that RFID tag again, they are able to display on their order board items which I am likely to buy, based on my vehicle's previous orders. (Nothing particularly wrong here)

3b. When McDonalds sees that RFID tag again, they subtly change prices based on what they believe I will pay. (Bad Bad Bad)

From a privacy standpoint, nothing particulary evil has happened yet. McDonands knows my vehicle tends to order certain products, but they don't know who I am.

4. A large data warehouse firm starts collecting RFID sales information from companies like Walmart and McDonalds. The companies agree because either they are well paid, or they recieve access to the database in return for contributing to it. The RFID tag in my tire allows the firm to tie me (based on the information on the check/credit card I used to buy the tires) with the items I later purchased at stores which could put an RFID tag close to my tire (most likely drive-throughs, mechanics, and similar places).

5. My Health/Life insurance is cancelled after the database indicates that my vehicle has made too many trips to McDonalds.

6. My auto insurance rates go up because I frequently visit the MicDonalds in a bad part of town.

Now, I'm not saying that any of this would happen automatically just because of RFID tags in tires or other consumer products. The problem it that I am aware of nothing which would prevent this scenario from occuring.

Re:What problem...here it is

[adzoox]

Apparently, in your "enlightenment & understanding" you haven't read others concerns about RFID.

While it may be FUD only, this technology being used to track ALL that you buy is the concern. RFID will eventually be "mainstreamed" and many people such as yourself won't see a problem with it being in money or in credit cards. Again, no FUD just fact, the FBI has already planned an investigation about RFID in money Why is this a privacy concern? What I'm about to say may be an ethical issue but it is seen different ways by different people. What if I want to buy some marijuana with that note? What if I want to pay the kid down the down the street to cut my lawn? What if that same kid does drugs? Now, I am suspect for being in "drug ring" if they can trace all those RFIDs.

Same with purchases from Walmart. What if I happen to purchase a combination of items unknowingly, that the average drug user purchases. Will I be profiled for that buying habit too?

I am with you, it's coming no matter what. It will be hard to stop. But, there are legitimate concerns.

I will hope that Walmart will adopt the Philips chip that you can turn off if the customer so wills to.

You would be amazed at what your grocery store bonus card data holds about you! Returns, complaints to the store, not just sales data. Again, what if something with an RFID or something trackable has your fingerprints on it, are you suspect when the "bad guy" buys it from Goodwill or steals it? Not only do we need Walmart to understand that before they make this step that we want on off switches, but we would also like disassociation capability. IE, erasure of your association with an RFID. Also, yearly reports by email or mail on what your RFID info holds and what data they truly are keeping about you would be nice.

Hey I'm an Xbox! Please come get me! Pleeaase!

[jonskerr]

The thief looks at their scanner and goes right on by, just like most consumers. Then steals a PS2 out of the next vehicle over.

Frequency Range? Consumers with RFID readers?

[AgTiger]

Does anyone know what frequency or frequency range these passive RFID's work in? It should be possible to build a 1 milliwatt transmitter on that frequency for one's own house, thus ensuring that products at home remain well behaved (anonymous).

Secondly if something I purchase is going to be sending an ID to readers that I don't specifically authorize, I'd like to get my own reader so I know with certainty that I've located and disabled the RFID on or in the product, since my own reader stops picking up a response/reply from the RFID.

Anyone know where consumers can purchase RFID readers?

So... What countermeasures...?

[KC7GR]

Ok. Here's my $0.02 worth. I have no issue whatsoever with these things being used in the store where the merchandise is purchased. In that respect, they're no different from electronic anti-theft tags.

I have a BIG problem with leaving the tags active and able to respond outside of said store environment. So, with that in mind (and maybe this should be turned into an 'Ask Slashdot' question):

What countermeasures are available to kill the tags, but not harm the item they're attached to, once you leave the store environment? Some ideas that come immediately to my mind are:

(1) Stuff your purchase into a microwave oven for a few seconds. That should effectively fry the tag. Unfortunately, this may not be practical for clothing containing metal buttons, zippers, or snaps.

(2) Build or buy a small EMP device designed expressly to destroy the tag's functionality. Could have varying degrees of difficulty, depending on one's skill with electronics, or the availability of such devices at the commercial level.

(3) Other ideas...?

this neo-luddite crap again?

[Imperator]

And why should they employ people to do a job they can get out of a machine more cost-effectively? Maybe we should stop using machines in car factories and restore lost manufacturing jobs?

Do you know why you have a grocery store just up the road from you that's stocked with plenty of good food of different varieties at all times of year? Do you know why the average working adult in your town can afford an automobile? Do you know why you have a computer with which to post on /.?

It's because we have an economy that's not afraid to put people out of work to improve efficiency. People can find new jobs. They might have to move or learn new skills, but that's life in the industrialized world. If you don't like it, there are some pre-industrialized countries you can go to where you'll earn a steady, miniscule pay for the same job all your life.

Take the example of the United States. Since the end of the depression, unemployment and inflation have remained relatively stable and low. But the standard of living has increased tremendously for the average white male. (It's increased even more dramatically for other people, but that's also partly because they learned to fight for their civil rights.) Yes, the short-term unemployment people experience can be very painful. That's why we have (or should have) unemployment benefits and other forms of a social welfare system to help the unemployed find new jobs.

So don't complain about automated checkout counters putting people out of work. When they do find their next jobs, they'll be able to spend less of their income on food.