Wal-Mart Cancels RFID Trial

Dammit! by Trigun · 2003-07-09 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny

I wanted to get a bunch of RFID tags and use them to track my pets.

Oh well, is Tesco still going to use them?

Re:Dammit! by nocomment · 2003-07-09 08:01 · Score: 5, Funny

What were you going to do? Rip them off of some products you buy from there, then name your pets accordingly so it will show up on the scanner correctly?

"Come here CornCobb Holder 6pk you little shnookums"

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
Re:Dammit! by blibbleblobble · 2003-07-09 08:20 · Score: 5, Funny

"What were you going to do? Rip them off of some products you buy from there, then name your pets accordingly so it will show up on the scanner correctly?"

I always use my dog's name as a password. M/g1k-Ø3 hates the name.
Re:Dammit! by quantaman · 2003-07-09 08:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh well, is Tesco still going to use them?

I read that as

Oh well, is Taco still going to use them?
and thought, damm Kathleen has him on a short leash!

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Dammit! by sharkey · 2003-07-09 08:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

use them to track my pets
Wouldn't a better idea be to use RFIDs to track the politically inconvenient? Implant them under the skin, on the forearm perhaps. It's a little less conspicuous then tattoing numbers on them.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Unfortunate? by aleonard · 2003-07-09 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is it "Unfortunate" that they're using a new tool for their warehousing? It sounds like you want them to abandon RFIDs altogether. Why the fear? Hell, they would never need to TELL you they're using them. How would you know? At least they're talking about it, eh?

--
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky

big deal if they use it in warehouses? by alen · 2003-07-09 07:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

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? by notque · 2003-07-09 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? by jeffkjo1 · 2003-07-09 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Having worked in a big box wal-mart like store for several years, I can say that had I been unscrupulous and wanted to take something, I could have.... and I wouldn't have had to leave via the main entrance. Employee's can very easily slip out the back.... now, if these chips were tracking everyone inside of the store, I can see massive privacy problems with that.
It's the slippery slope, but I can picture some guy in a dark room watching little blips move around on a screen ala Enemy of the State. How long before this technology is required and we all have chips under our skin to track us in the name of national security?
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? by MAXOMENOS · 2003-07-09 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Finding God in a Dog
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? by notque · 2003-07-09 08:21 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

Why does it feel as though if I stare at someone the wrong way, I may be violating the DMCA?

Is it just me?

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? by retto · 2003-07-09 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Great by ramzak2k · 2003-07-09 07:57 · Score: 4, Funny

now, can i have one attached to keys, watch, my glasses. Would make a perfect Rememberall for us muggles.

--

Siggy Say, Siggy Do

"Unfortunately"???? by elmegil · 2003-07-09 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

What exactly is "unfortunate" about this? If it doesn't make it into a consumer product at the point of sale, what FSCKING harm is it doing? (as far as it goes, even if it DOES make it into a consumer product at the point of sale, if 1) they disclose that it's there and optionally 2) they make it removeable (part of packaging, on a removable tag, etc) I fail to see how this is a problem. If they disclose and don't make it removeable, I don't have to buy that product, do I?

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001

Re:"Unfortunately"???? by David+Hume · 2003-07-09 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

What exactly is "unfortunate" about this? If it doesn't make it into a consumer product at the point of sale, what FSCKING harm is it doing?

It makes it more likely that it will make it into a consumer products at the point of sale in the future. It will increase the demand, leading to an increase in the supply, then lower cost, then further adoption. Opponents want it to remain a high cost technology.

Further, once items are tagged for the purpose of warehouse inventory control, it may be the case that they will remain tagged for retail purposes, and the only additional cost of retail implementation will be the cost of the scanners.

--
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)

I don't see the problem by AndroidCat · 2003-07-09 07:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately, it looks like they are canceling it to focus on the use of the same technology in the warehouses and distribution centers instead

I don't have a problem with them using RFID for their internal inventory tracking. Sure, we'll be facing this same argument all over again when the price does drop enough to deploy in stores, but it can wait until then.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Re:I don't see the problem by geekoid · 2003-07-09 08:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

"...but it can wait until then."
no it can not. This is part of the pacification of consumers(RFID companies term, not mine).
Once it gets heavily used in the warehouse, they'll move it to the store, and since it has been in use, it will be harder to get the protections we should from the misuse of RFIDs.

Once something is in place,its harder to get it stopped or changed.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Not cancelled, just delayed... by dspyder · 2003-07-09 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. by notque · 2003-07-09 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
http://use.perl.org

Re:Good decision by Walmart. by dspfreak · 2003-07-09 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, I have always heard a great deal of Walmart's success attributed to their superior logistics, distribution, inventory management, etc. Using RFID in their warehouses helps them do this more efficiently and keep their edge in this area.
Putting RFID in the individual packages doesn't really affect their distribution model too much, since they're scanning everything with bar codes in the checkout line anyway.

--
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G. K. Chesterton

Cost saving measure? Really? by Phreakiture · 2003-07-09 07:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
www.wavefront-av.com

Huh? by aridhol · 2003-07-09 07:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately, it looks like they are canceling it to focus on the use of the same technology in the warehouses and distribution centers instead

So, you don't want them to track large boxes of product? It's not like these can be used to track them to the eventual purchaser. They use these for inventory control on bulk items. They can track it to the store, to ensure that the store gets what they requested. The store can scan them, so they can be sure they have what they need. Then, they take them out of the RFID-enabled box, and onto the shelves. No RFID for the individual items.

What's wrong with this?

--
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.

Gillette shelf is not so smart by wilfie · 2003-07-09 08:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:Such a noble company by alen · 2003-07-09 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Didn't they start censoring their video games and pulling magazines because customers complained? How is that not listening?

RFID by magicsquid · 2003-07-09 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--

"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe

Go RFID! by GillBates0 · 2003-07-09 08:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Imagine, for instance, walking down the sidewalk and having a high-tech billboard flash an ad for ketchup at you because it recognized the package of hotdogs in your bag.

Imagine, for instance, walking down the sidewalk and having a high-tech sexy girl humanoid flash her breasts at you because it recognized the hotdog in your pants.

Now That's the kind of future I'd like to see. Go RFID!

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by dpbsmith · 2003-07-09 08:03 · Score: 5, Informative

I can't tell whether or not the poster was completely aware of this and joking about it, but you CAN track your pets with RFID tags (and it's been possible for many years). Most animal hospitals offer this service, which they refer to as "microchipping your pet."

Animal shelters scan incoming pets for microchips and contact the owner. It's an ID tag that is hard to lose. The American Kennel Club recommends the procedure.

See this article for more information.

--

"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by Trigun · 2003-07-09 08:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, I am aware of that, and my pets are chipped.

And you can't track them, you can only identify them, which is only slightly helpful when unleashing an army of rats upon the city.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by Lumpy · 2003-07-09 08:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Animal shelters scan incoming pets for microchips and contact the owner. It's an ID tag that is hard to lose. The American Kennel Club recommends the procedure.

SOME do this. very few of them have the funds to buy the scanners and pay the monthly subscription to the database. espically the privately run animal shelters (you know the ones that don't simply kill the animals 3 days after they get them.) that can barely keep their doors open let alone deal with some expensive technology.

I know many people that had their pet's chipped and were contacted a YEAR later when fluffy was taken to a vet finally and on a chance was scanned. Fluffy was already adpoted by another family over 6 months previousally...

it's not a worthwile thing to do until ALL places are required to scan the pets and the national database is free for use.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by Drakonian · 2003-07-09 08:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Won't anyone think of the privacy rights of the poor cats and dogs?? This is outrageous!!!!!!!

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by ad0gg · 2003-07-09 08:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Who ever mentioned about microwaving RFIDs to destroy them... Well it doesn't work on pets with RFIDs. Wish someone told me that sooner.

--
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by notque · 2003-07-09 08:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Won't anyone think of the privacy rights of the poor cats and dogs?? This is outrageous!!!!!!!

Can a dog be in violation of the DCMA for chewing the tag off?

--
http://use.perl.org
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by RollingThunder · 2003-07-09 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

it's not a worthwile thing to do until ALL places are required to scan the pets and the national database is free for use.
It's still worthwhile - perhaps not as effective or bulletproof as people may thing, but still worthwhile.

Why? Simply put, it's a chicken and egg scenario.

Until many/most pets have it, shelters won't buy the scanners/subs as they feel they're a useless extra expense.
Until most shelters have scanners, skeptics feel it's a waste of money to chip their pets, and don't.

You can help break that cycle, and spur adoption of the chipping, by being the early adopter and chipping your pets, making the purchase of the scanners more reasonable for your local shelters.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... by Lumpy · 2003-07-09 13:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The best thing to do is put tags on your animal. It's amazing how many people dont have tags on their cat,dog,pig,monkey,mountian lion, grizzley bear.

A very simple, low tech way of letting people know WHO the pet belongs to and WHERE to call..

and it doesn't rely on some database that you have to pay to access.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Duh! by Lumpy · 2003-07-09 08:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Nice but won't affect much. by aborchers · 2003-07-09 08:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

... and other trash who just don't realize what a bad thing RFID can be for privacy.

No, but they might listen to a few million fundamentalist Christians concerned about the mark of the beast.

Geeks don't have a monopoly on privacy concerns. Perhaps if you'd not decided that the rest of society was "trash" and paid some attention, you'd know this...

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.

They're coming to the stores by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-07-09 08:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Complain and fret all you want but that's the way it is. The benefits are too great for retailers to ignore:

- easy to inventory...no more midnight teams counting stock and taping notes to the shelves
- no more scanning trouble (dirty scan window or munged barcode)
- meta information can help keep stock fresh...embed an expiration date and have the product tell you when it's expired
- reduce loss from fraudulent returns - stores could tell if a product was purchased at that chain.

Those are just a few simple examples of the usefulness of tags. I do have some questions though...

- What's the range of scanners? What if I buy a candy bar in one store, stick it in my pocket, then go to another store. Will the scanner pick up what's in my pocket?
- People seem to be worried about being tracked. What will washing do to the tags?

I'm not sure why this is a "rights" issue. Is there a right to privacy written somewhere?

Re:They're coming to the stores by mcgroarty · 2003-07-09 08:23 · Score: 2, Funny

What if I buy a candy bar in one store, stick it in my pocket, then go to another store. Will the scanner pick up what's in my pocket?

It'll be a while before RFIDs are cheap enough to attach to candy bars. By the time they are, you can bet this problem will be licked, or people will have to shop naked to avoid having to constantly repurchase their pants. :-)

This is blown WAY out of proportion. by Matey-O · 2003-07-09 08:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

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!"

Both times the results were laughable. Not a single coupon was for somethind I used, or wanted to use, or might have been persuaded to use, based on the data they've 'gathered'.

For the tinfoil hats out there, if my experience in Government is any indication, Big Brother doesn't have the resources or money or true knowledge to abuse this information the way you think they will.

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.

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."

Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. by BeBoxer · 2003-07-09 08:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. by aardvarkjoe · 2003-07-09 08:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

These cards are to make people think they're saving money by not paying the marked-up price given as the undiscounted price, and to build customer loyalty. (Yes, some people really do feel loyalty to the grocery store "clubs.") The secondary reason is to collect statistical information (people who by X are likely to buy Y, so put those two products on sale at the same time.) Tracking personal spending history is of no real importance -- nobody (insurance companies included) cares what you, in particular, had for dinner.

There's really no reason to come up with paranoid fantasies about Big Brother. There are dozens of plausible explanations for the cards.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. by TrekkieGod · 2003-07-09 08:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Both times the results were laughable. Not a single coupon was for somethind I used, or wanted to use, or might have been persuaded to use, based on the data they've 'gathered'.
Well, I can tell you it works really well for some people. My amazon "recommended items" section is ridiculous. It's gotten so good, I started checking it when I want to rent a movie, but I don't know what to rent. I don't think it matters how much they know of my movie preferences, but that'd scare the hell out of me if I were concerned for some other reason (so don't point them out).

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. by Tackhead · 2003-07-09 09:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Right now, I get coupons for tampons and hairspray, neither of which I use. Now, if they'd sent me coupons for steak, that I could use. I buy steak anyway.
Suppose I'm your local grocer. Steak costs me $6/pound. Tampons cost me $3/pack.
You buy steak. You've shown the store you're willing to pay $10 per pound for steak, regularly. You tell the store that you're willing to pay $10/lb for steak every week you go grocery shopping, when you buy one of my 16-oz New York Strips. And I make $4.00 from your steak purchase every week. (Thanks!)
Now tampons, on the other hand - I usually sell 'em for $5/pack, but since you don't buy 'em from me... well, I don't make anything from you in the tampon department. But if I can get you to buy tampons at $4/pack, that's better than not selling them at all. Another buck in my pocket.
But what's in it for me to give you a coupon for $8.99/lb beef? You're already paying $9.99!
> I'd rather get steak coupons than tampon coupons. I see this type of data mining as a GOOD THING. The store saves money on mailings, and I get cheap steak, plus not having free samples of feminine products dumped on my doorstep.
Except you don't get to choose what coupons you get. I do!
And that's why you get coupons for $0.99 off your next tampon purchase, but not for steak.

Transport & logistics by Malfourmed · 2003-07-09 08:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
a world in progress...

Re:Such a noble company by el-spectre · 2003-07-09 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

They pulled a couple of 'men's magazines', Maxim and Stuff because a few people complained.

They sell (unmarked) censored versions of music because the company find them morally wrong.

Consequently, I can't buy music there, since everything I buy has a 'parent advisory' on it.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.

Re:RFID by Xerithane · 2003-07-09 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 stop counterfeit bills, not to stop anonymous cash transactions. You honestly think someone is going to setup a database and link all of the bills against your CITIZEN.USER_PK1 unique ID number just to make sure you can't be anonymous?

Sometimes I just get utterly confused as to what you people expect. Why do you guys even leave the house? I got a news flash for you -- you still don't have anonymous cash transactions because people still see you! Yeah, you better go saw your face off as it's a way of identifying you.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

Good lord by Scurrility+Extempore · 2003-07-09 08:09 · Score: 3, Funny

It's only a matter of time before they start implanting RFIDs into Anonymous Cowards...

RFID in Stores by evil+carrot · 2003-07-09 08:10 · Score: 3, Informative

The local grocery chain store just opened at the end of June after extensive renovations... more health food, world-themed aisles, larger selections, and a cleaner overall store.

Soon after opening, yellow signs appeared on all registers stating that they were beginning to track inventory using a new technology. Items would have to be scanned before brought outside (otherwise security gates at the exit would go wild in some fashion, I guess), and the technology was "not harmful... comparable to FM radio signals". Given the choice of comparison, I imagine the switch is on to RFID tags on all products there. Either that, or it's a huge bluff; I saw some woman walk out of the store without stuff on the bottom of her cart scanned in and nothing happened.

--

I am not who I say you are.

Scoop: RFID privacy tool invented by poptones · 2003-07-09 08:11 · Score: 4, Funny

And believe it or not, you can also buy one at wal-mart.

Note: if the tool itself also contains an RFID marker, you may need to buy two...

Consumer tracking by vidstudent · 2003-07-09 08:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

To be completely honest, they've been doing a good job of tracking us anyway over the past decade. Of course, this is a bad thing, so it's nice to know that we won't have an electronic bulls' eye stuck on our package of Sam's Peanut Butter Cups for the time being.

Still, keep in mind that everything we buy with that special discount card from your local grocery store is linked to your name, address, telephone number, date of birth, annual salary, previous purchases, purchase trends, purchase times, and favorite cashiers. I would mind heavily if they didn't pay me for mine - of course, that's because I work at Meijer for mine, and I now have an associates' degree, so the tracking can be more easily rectified by finding a new job and leaving the 10% discount behind.

I would recommend finding tinfoil bags for your groceries soon, however.

--

Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent

What's so bad about RFID? by jat2 · 2003-07-09 08:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Aren't there things one can do to prevent them from using the IDs to track you? For example, after the cashier takes your cash and hands you your merchandise, stick it in your own bag with a built-in Faraday cage to block the signal.

I know that sounds kind of far fetched, but aren't there steps that can be taken to effectively neutralize any threats to privacy resulting from RFID tags? Don't you think it would be fun for some big chain to throw lots of money into some technology like that to find that it can be trivialized easily by customers exercising their rights.

Re:RFID by Kombat · 2003-07-09 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

How exactly does that "eliminate the anonymous cash transaction?" Newsflash: CURRENCY ALREADY HAS SERIAL NUMBERS ON IT. The fact that the bill has a number is useless unless they know the details of every transaction in which it was ever exchanged. If you lend me $20 and I spend it at Subway and get $10 back in change... how on earth would they ever track any of that? How would the Sub-lady know that it was me who bought that sub?

--
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.

To all who bitch about "what is unfortunate" by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-07-09 08:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've seen a few posts complaining about "what is so unfortunate about this?" The point the poster was making was that it's unfortunate because it will only be a matter of time before its cost effective enough for them to go through with this in their stores.

Personally, I was a little disappointed when I read it and found out that they weren't cancelling it due to consumer backlash. That would be the ultimate victory.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Simple answer(s) by burgburgburg · 2003-07-09 08:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

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) by dcmeserve · 2003-07-09 14:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell

Re:Thank goodness by csimicah · 2003-07-09 08:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by throbbingbrain.com · 2003-07-09 08:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Anonymous+Canard · 2003-07-09 08:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--

--
BitTorrent in C -- LibBT
http://www.sf.net/projects/libbt

"They" were right by poptones · 2003-07-09 08:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by geekoid · 2003-07-09 08:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

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'?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:not a cost issue by nolife · 2003-07-09 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

There was an article in Network World (somewhat cheesy industry magazine) last week that talked about Walmart and Home Depot losing over 3% of thier revenue do to inventory procurement and tracking errors. The RFID tags played a role in reducing those costs. Basically, the suppliers would not get paid until the products left the store with a paying consumer. I seriously doubt that Walmart is giving up on the idea, they are probably waiting for the suppliers to catch up. When giants like Walmart and Home Depot say jump, the supply chain doesn't have to ask how high because they know it needs to be higher then last time.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.

Misread by SuperBanana · 2003-07-09 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is it "Unfortunate" that they're using a new tool for their warehousing?

I think the writer meant that it was unfortunate for the RFID industry that Walmart is backing down from the more ambitious plan; it's not exactly great PR any time a client downgrades their plans. Walmart was supposedly the main power behind UPC barcodes and hence their every move is watched...and if they're backing down and going for a less-ambitious implementation, it might be interpreted as a sort of warning flag to the business world that maybe RFID isn't quite ready for primetime.

It's not a terribly surprising move, and is pretty intelligent, honestly; this is sort of the retail equivalent of the "staging" concept in IT. Walmart's forging new ground, so they're taking it one step at a time. Warehousing operations are more centralized, there's fewer units of equipment than for a POS system change, and so on. It's also a little easier to keep it transparent to end users.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:RFID by Jahf · 2003-07-09 08:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Why do you guys even leave the house?

Telecommuting is a wonderful thing ;)

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.

Privacy Concerns are SO overrrated by Frac · 2003-07-09 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

(Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the MIT Auto-ID Center.)

All these privacy concerns people bring up, about people tracking you down are really overrrated.

Why?

The stores (walmart and others) have the same concerns. They preferably just want their own scanners to recognize their own products. Why? If an average joe can create a reader that identifies the actual product, what's to stop their competitor from parking a van outside their store with a powerful reader? The last thing a store wants to do is let anyone else knows their inventory levels. They're practically on the same boat.

and why won't they have the incentive to kill the tags when you leave the store? If you're talking about Walmart, people that buy clothes from walmart most likely will go BACK to walmart at some point in the future wearing those clothes. The last thing they need is a line of 100 house-wifes lining up at the customer service center wondering why they were accused of stealing.

Re:Privacy Concerns are SO overrrated by Frac · 2003-07-09 09:57 · Score: 2, Informative

The RFID tag IDs are useless without the database linking them to actual product items.

WRONG. RFID tag IDs have a namespace hierarchy similar to IPv6. Manufacturer code, product code, serial number. They have an option to use a private namespace with their own mappings, but most likely they won't, since the money saving simply isn't there when you have to rip out the old tags and put new ones in for every warehouse you move to and from.

Secondly, anything that is sold should be marked as such in the store's database. Somebody walking into the store with tagged clothing should not be fingered for shop lifting, since the item shoudl have been marked as sold.

WRONG. It's not economically feasible to keep an opt-out database. The other poster already pointed out how stupid it sounds to have the hundreds of wallmart stores cross reference and link up their opt-op database for eternity.

Furthermore, if I walk out of a pharmacy store carrying Gilette razor blades, doesn't that mean i'll be caught stealing those razor blades if I go to Walmart to pick up some DVDs?

Your two reasons for not worrying about security are flawed. Care to try again?

My bad. We clearly should've hired a wise-ass like you instead, who refuted my concerns with impractical suggestions and wrong facts. Care to send me your resume?

boxes by FredThompson · 2003-07-09 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

(just in case someone catches my userid, yes, I'm not in the service now, now I'm in sales.)

I've been selling manufacturing equipment for boxes for about 6 years.

RFID tags have many, many uses in warehousing. The idea that an RFID will somehow automatically lead to an invasion of privacy is silly.

Sometimes RFID tags are used so the forklift operator knows what's on a pallet they're moving. The traditional way is to hang a piece of paper from the load. However, paper can and does fall off, get ripped, etc.

RFID can also be used on physical portals to measure traffic. A huge amount of savings can be made in a warehouse by knowing where the physical bottlenecks are. The most cost-effective and reliable way to do this is a system of non-invasive sensing and automatic data collection. Ever been in warehousing operations? There's a LOT going on and it's easy to lose stuff. I've had trouble finding a shipment at a customs depot that was only garage-sized. Everything is a different size, shape, and appearance.

Will the FUD never stop?

Ever buy something like a power tool, CD, or memory strip from a retailer? There's an inventory control strip in there, right? Duh.

Beyond that, do some investigation to the problems of bar codes. Betcha didn't know there's a very limited number of options there which are basically exhausted. Ever consider the sensing difference between barcodes and RFID? Hmm...maybe you could know what something is and what's INSIDE without having to physically touch the box.

Yes, I know there are barcode readers that work at a distance. They don't work THROUGH other boxes. How do you know what's inside a mixed pallet of boxes which is sealed with plastic wrap? How better to detect a discrepancy between shipping documents and the actual items than by non-invasively knowing AND COUNTING what's inside such a mixed pallet?

RFID and other non-invasive knowledge technologies don't automatically mean you are being spied on. It's far more likely a way to increase efficiency and lower costs. We DO live in a price-competitive society, don't we?

As far as the reply about tracking what you buy. Uh...ever hear of credit cards and so-called discount cards at retailers?

Re:boxes by TheMonkeyDepartment · 2003-07-09 09:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Will the FUD never stop?

The general anti-RFID sentiment goes beyond FUD, in my opinion, and approaches neo-luddite proportions. The level of some of the paranoia on Slashdot is pretty damn astonishing. There's definitely a bandwagon effect, and people seem to jump on to causes without really applying much sense.

From what I've seen (including this most previous Slashdot article and its use of the word "unfortunately" when referring to Wal Mart's continued use of RFID), people don't want RFID technology to be used, deployed or further developed -- in any way, at all. All because it could potentially be used to invade their privacy.

So -- they are opposing the technology, just because of the potential for misuse.

Yet Slashdot regularly slams RIAA, the MPAA and others for opposing technology (P2P) due to its potential for misuse.

The hypocrisy is obvious.

Most theft? by stomv · 2003-07-09 08:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Nope. You don't mean that.

What you mean is that most shrink is caused by employees. This includes theft, but also includes things like cashiers failing to ring everything in a cart up, ringing up something cheap instead of a more expensive item, failing to detail recieve every item that is delivered, breaking an item and failing to report it as damaged, using an item in the store and failing to report it as store used, issuing too much money for a return, incorrectly pricing an item, etc.

Some shrink is caused by theft. Percentage wise, not a whole lot in high volume stores.

Most theft in high volume stores is from outsiders. Theft, however, is not nearly as important a number as shrink.

FYI, shrink is the total retail value of all items that should be in the store and sellable, minus the actual retail value of the items inventoried in the store. It's the difference between the value of the inventory the store thinks it should have, minus the value of the inventory it thinks it counted when it did an inventory.

Of course, there are many mistakes made during all of these processes for a high volume store such as Wal-Mart or Home Depot, resulting in a shrink number that can never be precise, due to so many errors in the inventory process.

--
Support a few technologists in Washington.

Anonymous Grocery Club Cards by IthnkImParanoid · 2003-07-09 08:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Funny you mention that. Mine isn't completely anonymous, but was given to me by my mother when I went off to college. So, the grocery store in question believes a menopausal woman living in a rich neighborhood has been buying nothing but alcohol, red bull, and top raman for the past few years.

Messing with their data is much more fun than simply being anonymous.

--
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.

Ahh.. but it is to easy to... by cnelzie · 2003-07-09 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Use a unique identifier RFID on piece of clothes-X to broadcast that number when exiting and entering the store...

It would be TRIVIAL to attach that Unique ID Number to the Credit Card Number or Bank Account Number of the person that bought the article of clothing. Cross reference that with all the other RFID tags on that same person and a VERY logical deduction could be made that the person in the store is you, the one that bought all that stuff...

Then, you nonchalantly walk about picking up this and picking up that and before you know it*, as you walk through the stores ads for all the items you "know and love" will start appearing on the screens that are right in front of you beamed cheerfully at you by the Wal-Mart TV Network... In time, those same ads could be calling out your name to entice you further...

The technology to do all of that exists today. The only thing keeping it from happening is that everyone is afraid to give it a go... Once one company does it and nobody complains... Another will do it, then another and another until it is everywhere. There wouldn't be any stopping it because there aren't any laws against it today and if you think that the average citizen will be able to lobby Congress against such a thing when nearly EVERY corporation benefits from such technology...

Well, you are living in a dreamworld.

(* The Before you Know it, is a flash-forward ten or so years...)

--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?

Re:Ahh.. but it is to easy to... by TopShelf · 2003-07-09 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Guess what? Grocery stores already do something like this, with their preferred-shopper cards. In fact, any store could do this based on credit card records attached to previous sales.

My question is, what are people so afraid of? I doubt stores would loudly greet you with an automated "welcome back to MegaStore, Mr. Consumer - your favorite scat-fetish magazines can be found in Aisle 8, on special today only!"

The bottom line is that you have very little "privacy" today anyway. In Scott McNealy's words, "get over it."

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

Re:You mean Europe isn't FREE? by pcb · 2003-07-09 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is complete and utter BS. I'll bet a lot of money that the poster has never been to Europe, probably never left the state or city he lives in, and maybe has never even left his house!

The US is in general a lot less free and less liberal than most other western countries (think drug laws, does 'Total Information Awareness' ring a bell, how about laws against gays, its 2003!!!). This is type of thinking is the result of constant brainwashing by the US media that the US is the 'land of the free', where in actuality it lost that title a long time ago. You should get out more.

--
'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal

RFID in the warehouse by FranTaylor · 2003-07-09 09:04 · Score: 5, Informative

I used to work in Quality Control for a big grocery wholesaler. One of their biggest problems was inventory control. Not necessarily theft, but human errors such as omissions, extra cases, and mistaken identity (for example, strawberry yogurt instead of strawberry banana yogurt). Sometimes stock was not rotated correctly and it would sit in the warehouse until after its expiration date. We stocked hundreds of grocery stores from each warehouse; I am talking about a LOT of inventory here! They expended a lot of time and energy to track down and minimize these errors. The error rates were watched closely by upper management, because the impact on the bottom line was quite significant. RFID has the potential to detect these sorts of errors ahead of time. The grocery business (in general) is highly competitive and margins are paper-thin, so any technology that helps to cut down on these sorts of problems will show up as lower prices on groceries for you and me. If the RFID tags are associated with cases instead of individual items, consumers will not encounter them, and there is no threat.

The big problem in retail stores is theft, because they let the public roam the aisles. Stuff on the shelves represents tied-up money, so store inventories are kept to a minimum, therefore keeping track of stuff in the stores is not that big a deal. They already use tags to deter theft of big-ticket items such as health and beauty aids. RFID will not help them with this problem any more than the existing tags, so there is not much incentive to use them there. No worries, at least yet.

Re:RFID in the warehouse by anubi · 2003-07-09 09:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

Opposing technology because of its POTENTIAL harm by TheMonkeyDepartment · 2003-07-09 09:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, all of you anti-RFID people, who are opposing this cool technology because of its potential for misuse, please answer me this:

The RIAA, MPAA and others are opposed to P2P technology due to its potential for misuse. So how is your anti-RFID stance any different? From what I understand, there are plenty of very legitimate uses for RFID technology.

Re:Actual benefits after point of purchase? by August_zero · 2003-07-09 09:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Let me choke down my own disdain for the RFID tags and day dream up some benefits. Remind me to flame myself later:

1)Theft: If goods are registered to your name, it makes their return that much easier in the event they are stollen. Suppose someone steals my underwear. When the cops bust the smuggling ring, my boxers can be quickly returned to me since they will be registered in my name.

2)Ease of checkout: Picture this: your at Wal-Mart, it's 4 pm and 40000000 are standing in line waiting for the 2 cashiers to ring them up. With this system, it may be possible to just walk past a terminal and it will scan and catalogue every item you have (including the ones your trying to steal) and then you just swipe your card and your out of there! Whats more, if you just bought the new "maxim" but you don't want people to think your some kind of knuckle dragging mouth-breathing missing link, they will be none the wiser to your purchasing habits. (though Uncle Walton will know)

3)Cost/efficency: Since store inventory is tracked in real time, they can place orders before items are out of stock so you will always get the items you want. Also, since it will be harder to steal from the store, prices are likely to go down a little bit since the employees will find it much harder to give 5 finger discounts to friends.

4)Fun with HERF guns: If you have built your HERF gun, you can use it to set peoples' underwear on fire as the EMP causes the RFID tags to become white hot. Imagine the fun!

--
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?

Re:Such a noble company by csimicah · 2003-07-09 09:21 · Score: 2, Funny

A private company choosing not to sell something is NOT censorship. My local Best Buy doesn't carry german sheisse porn either.

How would it stop annon cash transactions? by autopr0n · 2003-07-09 09:43 · Score: 2

If they really wanted to do that, they'd just burn every euro, and force people to use credit cards or bank cards or whatever. Now, putting RFID chips into money wouldn't stop the anon transfer of money, because how would they know if I gave a bill to some other person? They would be able to get an idea how the money flowed from place to place, but they would not know who had the money. (that is to say, unless they required everyone to carry an RFIDd ID card, which I doubt would be politically feasible, even in Europe.)

Otoh, what you could do would be to instantly count all the money you had in your wallit or whatever, which could be quite usefull. It would also cut down on counterfitting, and you could always just blast your bills in a microwave for a few seconds to kill the RFID...

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Simple, stupid answer(s) by eduardodude · 2003-07-09 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 can't possibly be serious. You're saying that placing RFIDs on pallets and warehouse-size boxes should be fought on the basis of privacy concerns? RFID tech is not inherently evil, and privacy concerns should be raised only for uses where there are actually privacy concerns.

I'm not for RFID tags in my sneakers either, but let's at least try to make arguments that make sense.

Re:RFID by realdpk · 2003-07-09 10:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by jdreed1024 · 2003-07-09 10:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

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"

--
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.

uh, excuse me here, [you fucking dweebs] by Lord+Bitman · 2003-07-09 11:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All

Yes, most inventory loss is Theft by Steve+Hamlin · 2003-07-10 02:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Most of retail theft is by employees.

>Nope. You don't mean that.

Yes, he DOES mean that.

According to the National Retail Security Survey, November 2002 conducted by the University of Florida:

Retail Shrinkage:

48.5% Employee Theft
31.7% Shoplifting
15.3% Administrative Error
05.4% Vendor Fraud

Total Inventory Shrinkage $31.3 billion, or $440 in higher prices as a result, per family per year. Source.

I am also a fraud investigator, and overall, the vast, vast majority of all white collar crime is by insiders. While this includes managerial fraud (financial statement fraud), nonetheless this is the fraud, and the dollar amounts of loss invovled are always much higher than from fraud perpetrated from people external to the company.

83 of 411 comments (clear)