Wal-Mart Cancels RFID Trial

EABird writes "CNet is reporting that Wal-mart has announced that they have canceled the RFID trial they were planning. Unfortunately, it looks like they are canceling it to focus on the use of the same technology in the warehouses and distribution centers instead, and waiting for the cost to come down before using the RFIDs in the stores."

Comments

big deal if they use it in warehouses?

[alen]

Most of retail theft is by employees, what is the problem of wal mart protecting their products?

Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses?

[notque]

Most of retail theft is by employees, what is the problem of wal mart protecting their products?

I would assume most retail theft occurs when the product is actually in the store, but I could be wrong.

If that was the case, then wouldn't it be a much better idea to continue if protecting their products were the reason.

In my view, for a new technology to be tested, it's a much more sterile enviornment in a warehouse.

Which will give you a better idea of the trials of an in store debut.

Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses?

[MAXOMENOS]

Most of retail theft is by employees, what is the problem of wal mart protecting their products?

Part of the problem is that RFID tags can also be used to track your products after someone buys them. It creates another means for someone to invade your privacy.

In practice, it's not such a big deal if you can disable the RFID tags after purchsing the product. There's no guarantee the store will do this (it may be in their best interests *not* to do this) and telling people how to do this themselves will probably violate DMCA, not to mention state and local laws.

Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses?

[retto]

I would assume most retail theft occurs when the product is actually in the store, but I could be wrong.

A LOT of it occurs in retail, but not all. Theft can occur between the warehouse and the store. Back in high school I worked at a store that had a problem with people skimming an item or two from a pallet after it was taken off the truck, but before it was checked into in-store inventory. Same for return items. A lot of times someone would bring an item back, and it would just disappear before hitting the floor again.

I'm sure improvements have been made since then, but I'm sure it still is a problem considering the narrow margins for some retail stores.

Not cancelled, just delayed...

[dspyder]

It will happen eventually, the cost/benefit is just too great to be ignored. With the volume that Walmart handles, it will only be a matter of time before the upstart cost will be acceptable for Walmart. Once they say do it, you can guarantee that all the manufacturers will play along, and then every other store can take advantage.

On a related note, I work at a hospital that is starting a barcode initiative on drugs. We only just now had the power to convince the drug companies that they need to supply us their drugs in individual doses, prelabeled and barcoded.

--D

Good decision by Walmart.

[notque]

Unfortunately, it looks like they are canceling it to focus on the use of the same technology in the warehouses and distribution centers instead, and waiting for the cost to come down before using the RFIDs in the stores.

Personally, I think it's a much better idea to use the technology in warehouses and distribution first. Hell, I can't beileve they'd even consider moving to a full scale store deployment before a long bit of testing in warehouses.

I think this is a smart move by Walmart, regardless of the precieved failure that may come by such bold claims, and then a back down.

Cost saving measure? Really?

[Phreakiture]

I suspect the claim that this is a cost saving measure is, itself, actually a face-saving measure. I suspect that they are making the claim so that they don't have to admit that they were wrong.

Gillette shelf is not so smart

[wilfie]

It's too expensive. There's an article about what others are doing here

RFID

[magicsquid]

In other RFID news today, Wired is reporting that the EU may implant RFID tags into the Euro, basically eliminating the anonymous cash transaction.

For now, the cost is too high to put in smaller denominations, but I'm guessing that with the huge numbers of bills, the cost will eventually no longer be a deciding factor.

You can check it out here.

Duh!

[Lumpy]

waiting for the cost to come down before using the RFIDs in the stores."

Let's see.. completely revamp and replace all your cash registers and portable readers and software to use a product that you now have to pay $$$ for each item you sell...

or stick with barcodes, your equipment already supports it and to put a barcode on a product is free (I.E. your products ALREADY comes with barcodes on them.)

It's just plain old smart business sense...

Transport & logistics

[Malfourmed]

I'm surprised RFID hasn't made bigger (or perhaps more public) waves in the transport and logistics industry. Embedding RFID tags in con notes or container labels could potentially dramatically cut the cost of handling and tracking freight.

Further - being attached to something that's generally disposed after receipt - the technology doesn't raise the same level of privacy issues as it does when used for consumer/retail purposes.

Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion.

[BeBoxer]

I think I've received two mailings in the last four years that said: "Mr. Miller! Here are some wonderful coupons that are tailored to your unique shopping needs!"

All this really tells you is that you don't know what the data is being used for. Grocery stores spend big bucks setting up and maintaining those systems. Not to mention the "discounts" used to entice people to sign up. You've probably "saved" hundreds of dollars. A couple of mass mailings sure isn't making up that kind of cost.

So you've shown that direct mail marketing does not appear to be the primary use of all that data. Well then, what is the primary use? My theory is that the insurance companies are or will be the largest consumer, since I expect that that data is possibly a better predictor of future health costs than almost anything else. In fact, that data would be so valuable that insurance companies would be almost negligent in their duty to the shareholders to not buy it.

Simple answer(s)

[burgburgburg]

Any "successful" use of RFID technology (even in the warehouse venue) will lead to an increasing likelyhood of their inclusion at the store level. Since there are a large number of legitimate privacy issues (even acknowledged by the organization behind RFIDs) that have not remotely addressed yet, further usage of RFIDs is in general a negative.

You're comment "How would you know?" points out a big part of the problem. RFID tags can be/are hidden very effectively (including manufactured INTO the soles of shoes). As it stands now, destroying the RFID tag (assuming you can find/get to it) is the only way you can be sure that it will not continue to allow you and your purchases to be tracked. (Microwaving doesn't work since it would cause the chip and your items to catch fire). Without clear legislation mandating the removability of RFID chips post-purchase, the marketplace (which is notably non-privacy minded) and what they think they can get away with will decide the continued usage of these tags. And that's unfortunate.

Re:Simple answer(s)

[dcmeserve]

As it stands now, destroying the RFID tag (assuming you can find/get to it) is the only way you can be sure that it will not continue to allow you and your purchases to be tracked.

Maybe I should RTFA, but it seems to me that the RFID tags would naturally be destroyed at the checkout counter -- that's what they do with current RF security tags (destroy or remove them). If it can't be done forcibly with an overload, then design them to respond to a "suicide" command.

If it's a concern that the chips will merely be disabled for purposes of letting them go out of the store, but still be active in other ways, I'd say a few lawsuits would cure any company of such desires. e.g. if Wal-Mart put them in shoes, all it takes is one advocate to buy a pair, cut out the RFID tag, and prove that it's still active. Why would any company risk the embarassment?

Re:Thank goodness

[csimicah]

There was a fiasco here in South Carolina having to do with a certain barbecue seller and his racist, anti-semitic ways. Walmart was the FIRST retailer to stop selling his product, thus making it a news story and forcing all the other retailers in the state to do the same. They did it before it became a story, because it was the right thing to do.

I shop there every chance I get, now.

Re:RFID

[throbbingbrain.com]

For now, the cost is too high to put in smaller denominations, but I'm guessing that with the huge numbers of bills, the cost will eventually no longer be a deciding factor.

Active RFID tags will always be too expensive for tracking/authenticating small denomination currency or high-volume/low-cost merchandise.

Passive RFID has a much lower cost-per-unit and it's better in many other ways as well. It's perfect for currency as it cannot be duplicated.

I can't figure out why Walmart isn't jumping all over it.

Re:RFID

[Anonymous Canard]

In other RFID news today, Wired is reporting that the EU may implant RFID tags into the Euro, basically eliminating the anonymous cash transaction.

To eliminate anonymous transactions they would first have to ask for ID before either giving change, or accepting cash. Identifying the bill doesn't identify the person who holds it (notice that all US notes carry a unique number as well; ooh! they are watching us!) If you want to theorize that the data could all be collected and used for central tracking of the flow of public money then you'll have to admit that the same thing is possible for any serially numbered printed bill (indeed serial numbers have been used in the US to trace criminal money laundering operations.) The EC just wants to make their bills harder to forge.

"They" were right

[poptones]

Look at grocery store membership cards. They've been out for almost a decade now. Privacy pundits decried that the stores would know WAY TOO MUCH sensitive information by correlating users to their groceries.

If you get into a dispute or a lawsuit, you may find that the other side has a lot of revealing information that it will try to use against you. When a shopper slipped and fell in a Von's supermarket, Von's used the records from his Von's Club card to try to show that he bought a lot of liquor and, by implication, was probably a drunk.

When was the last time cookies were used to betray your privacy? They were a big hot nasty item in the near recient past too.

Same page; search for "hotmail." Is it due to cookies alone? No - it's because of misuse and careless application of the technology. Never underestimate the incompetence and corruption of others.

Which isn't to say I've never had a "club card." I have - but it sure didn't have my name on it. And when I used it I paid in cash. And when I moved away it went in the trash.

Which is not to say I have the same irrational fear of RFID as many others. I don't sweat it because :

I always pay cash

and...

I own many hammers

not a cost issue

[geekoid]

regardless of what they are saying, it is not a cost issue.
Do you honestly think they didn't reun cost analysis before the first announcement was made?

This is the "pacification of the consumer" stage. they want people to be apathetic so they can control how they are used to manipulate the consumer, i.e. us. It is only a metter of time before we find ourselfs in a situation where we get marketed to in our homes, start seeing price adjustment based on what we are wearing.
once everybody is wearing them, it only make sense to put monitors in key places, just in case something goes wrong? right?

If you are a minority, you should be fghting for protections against RFID.

Ned I remind you we live at a time when the cost of an item may be dictated by what browser your using? or that 'harmless' cookies are used to track where you go and send you 'marketing advice'?

Re:RFID in the warehouse

[anubi]

Quite informative there...

I thought this was what barcodes, or that square full of dots placed in just the right places was for. A tremendous amount of data can be placed in such an "image". This image can be quickly and inexpensively printed on the side of a box, even by a "inkjet" type apparatus that prints it onto the box as it goes by. The data encoded into that image can well be not only the product, but all data pertaining to that box of product.

Not only is it quick to print, its quick to scan too. A line-scanner can acquire the image at the destination and decode it into its digital description. What needs to be done as I see it is to standardize the format, so the data base is universal among all products.

Upon any transfer of the box, the box will be scanned out by the sending party and scanned in by the receiving party. At all times, the party that has the box should know everything they need to know about the box. The information encoded has everything to do with what's in the box. It has nothing to do with who buys the products in the box. So privacy issues are moot.

I would hope they are doing this already.

Having humans running around with pencils and clipboards is not the way to do this.

Re:RFID

[realdpk]

Honest question deserves an honest answer.

One cannot see the serial numbers on the bills you have in your wallet while it's in your pocket. You have to take them out and show them.

With RFID tags in the bills, all you have to do is walk past a scanner, and they know how much cash you have on you.

You can bet that pickpockets will have scanners built/bought the day before RFID-tagged bills go in to circulation. (Then we'll get to enjoy a long series of laws trying to ban the ownership of RFID scanners).

CNN has picked up on it

[jdreed1024]

CNN has picked up on the RFID craze.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/09/beamed.ba rcodes.ap/index.html

One of the choice quotes from the National Grocer's Association:
"You do give up a bit of privacy but the benefit could be that you live"

uh, excuse me here, [you fucking dweebs]

[Lord Bitman]

using rfid in warehouses to track bulk shipments can in no way be seen as a bad thing, got that? Figure it out:
you're complaining about unique identification, and putting a sticker outside a box which is later opened and discarded before the end user even sees it on a shelf cannot possibly be seen as uniquely identifying you.