Slashdot Mirror
Gillette Pulls RFID Tags In UK Amid Protests
akb writes "Indymedia UK is reporting that after protests against the trial of RFID tags by Gillette at a Tesco store in Cambridge, increasing press coverage, a boycott, and the growing mobilisation of campaigners against the intrusive use of the technology, Gillette have withdrawn their trial. RFID (Radio Frequency ID) tags are small tags containing a microchip which can be 'read' by radio sensors over short distances (for background see SchNEWS Feature / 2 part Guardian Article)."
What an Englishman does in the privacy of his own Castle, is his own concern.
As annoying as the bag checker is, (think Fry's) he doesn't come home with me.
In the article, they mention that the new EU copyright directive could make it illegal to deactivate RFID tags after you leave the store.
If they just included these tags on _packaging_, I would have no problem with it. But to include them in the product and then criminalize removal or deactivation is just wrong.
Eyes have the potential problem of a thief scanning your house to see what you have inside. Slashdotters unite! We must band together to ban optic nerves!
While funny, and apparently a good analogy, it fails for a very simple reason...
When people need to see what it would take to prevent unathorized scanning by optic nerves [sic], they can do so simply by looking around.
To prevent scanning by RFID tag sensors, one must first
A) Get a suitable detector
B) Configure it to read each and every of the potential wavelengths for all RFID tags,
C) Configure it to understand the protocol(s) and protocol variations for all RFID tags in the area
D) Then, without being able to actually see limits of the area being scanned, one must scan the entire area.
The issue isn't really the RFID tags, it's the relatively indefensible position they leave you in against somebody with more techology/money than you have.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
RFID tags are more about controlling inventory than anything else. To the extent that they are about security, they are about stopping shoplifting by customers.
The bag nazi at the door is there to look for employee theft, not shoplifting. And they don't accomplish that, either.
So Tesco decide to run a pilot in probably the most technologically-aware city in England, and are surpised when people protest?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
We keep hearing about the bad uses for RFID technology, but do people know of any good uses that don't invade on our privacy?
/. readers suddenly "blame the tool".
Yeah. Embedding it into the tag on my pants, rather than the pants themselves, for inventory management and anti-theft purposes. However, if we allowed that, and there wasn't a law against doing anything more invasive with it, you know that the RFID tag would slip from the tag on the pants to the inside of the fabric in the space of five years. And after that, if surveillance cameras are any indication, the government would find some invasive use for it and it would be protected under the usual argument: "Private businesses do it, so why not the government?"
That's the real problem. There are a lot of great, useful applications for RFID that aid both businesses and consumers, but there are also a lot of malicious/greedy uses for it. Since average citizens usually can't litigate multinational corporations into submission in the same way that the RIAA can sue Kazaa, Grokster, and their users,
"Those savings will translate to lower prices for you."
Are you really that naive?
As a businessman, when you lower your cost base you *don't* cut your prices unless you have some cutthroat[1] competition who is already kicking your arse on price.
[1] Pun intended.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Yes, I do stop shaving if I can't afford it.
If razors cost more, I am going to buy less. I'll probably use one for an entire week (like I did in High School when I could barely afford my school clothes).
If razors are cheaper, I might even use two or three in one day. I like sharp razors and I notice that by the time I hit the left side of my face, the razor has already begun to dull. So I would love to be able to use two or three in a day without worry of the cost.
Compare the number of people who shave today to the number of people who shaved 100 years ago. It was actually fashionably to grow a beard back then. Many people did so, but not because they were fashion conscience, but because shaving was too expensive for them. Either razors were prohibitively expensive, and difficult to maintain, or the barber shop was too far away and cost too much.
Razors are not a "fixed market" as you call it. If they are cheaper, people buy and use more. If not, they won't. The cost of the razor is more than the price, of course. It includes things like how much pain the razor induces, how long it takes to shave with it, and whether or not it has RFID.
Is that specific enough for you?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I just read an article which states the European Central Bank are quietly planning on introducing RFID in all european bank notes by 2005. Bang goes the anonimity afforded by cash transactions.
So where will your "freedom of choice" stand when all the shops have adopted this system ? Make no mistake: this is actually what RFID chips providers are puhing for.
Oh, and I could also talk about how genetically engineered food is being forced down our throats as well, but that would be another can of worms (slightly OT by the way).
"Freedom of choice" is there as long as it is compatible with the lobbies' points of view. It IS a basic requirement in an ideal free market, but the main (corporate) actors of the current "free market" are trying to avoid it at all costs. Never take it for granted : we have to fight for it everyday.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
A store is private property, plain a simple. I know it's an unpopular opinion around here, but companies do have rights - they have a right to run their businesses, you have a right not to shop there. You have a right to be secure in your person, and you give up that right by agreeing to give it up - by entering private property where you are warned that you are giving up that right.
It's no more a violation of privacy than when someone asks you if they can record your phone call and you say it's OK.
Just because the government has been sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong (like smoking bans - if I run a store where I think people should be able to smoke, that should be MY choice) doesn't mean that total regulation is here, yet.
I've seen plenty of stores with "we reserve the right to search bags" signs, and I haven't heard of a case yet where the government stepped in and told them they couldn't do it.
Now, maybe someday there will be laws passed that outlaw the practice. Personally, I dread when the goverment micromanages businesses against the business owner's wishes. YMMV. Don't talk to me about losing rights when no one forces you to shop at a store whose policies you disagree with.
Stupid sexy Flanders.