Slashdot Mirror
Walmart Begins Rollout of RFID and EPC Tags
paroneayea writes "There's a lot about RFID tags in the news today. Wal-Mart is officially beginning to use RFID tags on its merchandise. We've heard about Wal-Mart's plans to introduce RFID tags in the past, but this is the first time that this is actually being put into use. To quote the article: 'Wal-Mart is billing this as a trial, but Simon Langford, Wal-Mart's manager of RFID strategies, told RFID Journal that this is the beginning of the company's planned roll-out of EPC (Electronic Product Code) technology.' Meanwhile, California does something right for a change and introduces a bill that will limit the use of RFID tags in stores and libraries to protect the privacy of customers. IBM, which plans to be a major manufacturer of RFID tags, bashes critics of RFID tags as 'anti-retail.'"
If anyone can give RFID tags ubiquity, it's Wal-Mart. We have them to thank for UPC (for those from the Department of Redundancy Department: UPC codes).
I knew that privacy advocates were fans of Katherine Albrecht's CASPIAN project, but I had no idea that she had the RFID industry this scared.
"Katherine Albrecht has some sort of weird thing in her mind that helicopters might descend and follow you, I mean, how low are these things going to fly?" said Shearer. "I don't understand it basically. She has a particular view, that she's doing God's work and is going to protect us from the globalisation of retailing."
It's been a while since I really scrounged through the CASPIAN sites, but I don't recall reading anything about "helicopters might decend" (and Google seems to agree with me). And a large number of folks in this country think that "doing God's work" is a Good Thing, and would take offense at "God's work" being used as a negative epithet.
They even try to say she's "anti-retail". What the heck does that mean? If anything CASPIAN is pro-retail, trying to preserve the ability of non-registered human beings to buy staple goods at a fair price. What's anti-retail about that?
If the RFID industry thought Albrecht was on the fringe, they'd ignore her. When you see IBM's mouthpiece painting Albrecht as a rabid conspiracy theorist, you realize they know she's not on the fringe anymore. And they're scared.
The open question remains: if the chips are so innocuous, why is the RFID industry so scared of this lady?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Since we cant stop the flood of the damned tags, and they are now on our doorstep, what can we do to at least safely destroy them after we get home.
And no, i dont want to stick my clothes in a microwave oven..
Its invasive and i refuse to walk around notifying my purchasing habits. ( yes, i do pay cash.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"A spokeswoman for Bowen said getting the bill through the Senate--which approved it in a 22-8 vote--was relatively easy because the senators as a group don't have a thorough grasp of the technology. "
I am more concerned with a bunch of aristocrats setting policy without knowledge than what Wal-Mart is doing.
I also fail to see the privacy issue. The tags do not tell the store WHO you are. They can't see you walk out and say, "Joe took a walk-man out of the store" they can only say that one left.
Besides, where was the concern when tags were placed inside of CDs and DVDs? Is this just another "attack Wal-Mart" parade? Wal-Mart is big, but they still are only 8% of the retail market... which makes them anything but a monopoly.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
RFID tags: another reason to hate Wal-Mart.
What, the shitty merchandise, disgusting customers, dirty stores and appalling customer service isn't enough? Any one of those alone would stop me from shopping anywhere.
Seems like California is doing the right thing by limiting their use. It isn't anybody's business to know if I am wearing boxers, tighty whities, nothing at all, even even pink panties under my pants...
Customer walks into wallmart
Automated Computer: Good morning shopper, I see the pack of ultra ribbed, extra small condoms in your pocket is about to expire, and you only have one left - you can find another on aisle 20.
Be sure to check out our special on superlube 4000 while your there
Wife: since when did you use a condom with me?
I said, "Another reason to hate Wal-Mart." I already hate the place.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
I see absolutely no problems here. If you're worried about your privacy, remove/disable the rfid tags onec you've purchased the products. ... oh, wait. The DMCA ... one step closer to 1984 ... well done Bu$h :(
It's not as if there are any laws preventing you from tampering with products that you own
I think michael and the rest of you paranoid bunch need to give up this anti-RFID crusade. If you don't like RFID, don't purchase it. If someone else does, then that's their business, quit your hysterical bitching.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
That said, I personally go to Walmart once a year and buy regular commodity crap like toiletries, household supplies, etc. Plus they usually will change my car's oil for $10 less than the other guys. But I go in there knowing I've already checked my soul at the door. RFID is the least of my worries.
As long as they disable the things once they leave the checkout, I have no problems with this really. Now, if they forced them to be embedded into CD backings, major structural features, and/or obscure places, where you couldn't remove them without damaging the product, and left them active, I'd be pissed. Before the product has been purchased, it's their property, and they can do as they see fit, but after I give them my money for it it's mine and no one has the right to know I bought certain products or not if I don't want them to know.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Shearer also said IBM was trialling the use of RFID tags in US schools for mentally disabled children in a move that she claimed had full support from most parents.
"These children are primarily kept indoors at the moment because they escape otherwise and might get hurt. So what we are going to do is with two of these huge schools, is to give the children an RFID bracelet that they take off at the end of the day so that we know where they are, and if they walk out the gate then we would know," said Shearer.
Wow. Finally we can keep track of michael.
Anyone here old enough to remember people freaking out about the UPC sybmol going on everything? This is basically UPC 2.0. It's all about better inventory tracking, and that is the key for retailers like Walmart. Heck, I think I have a Mad magazine from years ago that did a theme spoof on UPCs.
Hecubas
OK, I want a hand-held device, made out of Radio Shack parts, that will burn out RFIDs at close range (say, under 1 foot).
Any EEs out there want to comment on the feasability, complexity, and possible cost of such a device?
(I think a microwave oven works fine, but it's hardly portable...)
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I really don't see any privacy issues with RFID tags put on stuff. The customers are not tagged with it. Hell the only privacy issue I see is using credit card in these places. The good thing I see about RFID is that they could streamline processes which in turn could reduce costs for the company which would be (at least some of it) would be passed on to the customer.
The funny thing is all these people talk about privacy and stuff and I bet they wouldn't even encrypt their email.
I personally don't see the problem with letting them track what I pickup an don't buy, or the path I take in the store.
But what I DO have a problem with is if they connect that information to me personally, wether it be with a shopping ID or whatever. If they start being able to flash personal adds while I'm checking out like: "did you forget your condoms?" because I bought them last time, but didn't this time, I would have a field day in tahiti with my lawyers.
I think it's probable that even without legislation stores will eventually limit themselves, but I say: why let it get to that point? Prevent individual logging now, and limit it to aggregate like TiVo does.
Automated Computer: Good morning shopper, I see the pack of ultra ribbed, extra small condoms in your pocket is still full and you bought them quite some time ago. Not getting any?
See our special on blow up dolls on aisle 21.
that these tags are going on the SHIPPING CONTAINERS! Not actual shelf-product. For example, take a shipment of blank video casettes. They arrive at the store in a box of 12. The box holding the 12 items is what has the RFID, not the tapes themselves. The tapes themselves still use the UPC tags that get scanned by a laser at the cash register.
Result? Wal-Mart gets improvement in their shipping systems, not the Point-of-sale systems. Interestingly, it provides no improvement in loss control, something some wal-marts have serious problem with.
Don't shop at Wal-Mart. I mean, really. For all the bitching here on /. about MS, Wal-Mart is a MUCH bigger, MUCH nastier company. I haven't been in to a Wal-Mart for many years, and I haven't missed it one bit.
that's what people are afraid of, location-based services, but that's not RFID.
NO, that is NOT what we are concered about. We're not all fscking idiots.
I don't want into a store or into work and have a scanner read off 32 unique product codes identifying every item on my body.
Heay Bob! What are you doing with that Victoria's Secret black lace bra? Isn't that the one Sally wore in this morning?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Isn't that what the free markets are supposed to be about? Competition benefits me as a consumer so that I can get the best value for my money.
Your comment about sweatshops is unnecessary populism smacking of xenophobia. Why do you expect that companies should have to pay the workers in a foreign country the same salary as in the USA? Hell, that would ruin the host country by driving up inflation!
Stop whining and get a job that's worth paying for, jackass.
When I was lining the inside of my SUV with tin foil, my wife said "isn't the hat enough?"
I knew it was coming to this. Now I'm ready!
Once I leave the store, nobody will ever know what I bought (except Visa, my bank, and their business partners, and Walmart and their business partners, and whoever is behind me at the checkout, and the girl who checks me out, and the kid who bags it, and the old guy who checks my receipt, and the guys operating the 10,000 security cameras at the store).
Thanks for being an idiot.
I really was serious. I guess you dont mind invasion of your privacy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well here we have another RFID Tempest-in-a-teapot.
One of the princiapl tenets of capitalism, is that entities that supply better value will succeed, to the expense of entities that do not.
If Wal*Mart has decided that using this technology will allow them to continue to provide the products that people wish to purchase (and based on their position in retail marketers, they must be doing something right) by cutting down on overhead, then so be it.
I have a fundamental failure to understand why this issue (RFID in general, and Wal*Mart's decision to use it in particular) brings out the tin-foil-hat contingent.
I can see some organizations being opposed to it from a self-preservation standpoint. Consider the following hypothetical example:
Because RFID allows inventory to be counted more rapidly, and more accurately, Wal*Mart can eliminate 30% of night-shift merchandise counters - the UCW would oppose the measure.
Counterargument: Because RFID allows inventory to be counted more rapidly, and more accurately, Wal*Mart decides to do shelf-count nightly instead of weekly, this generating a net increase in associate hours.
(The astute reader will note that I am ignoring alleged impropriety in Wal*Mart's relationship with their associates for the simple reason that it is orthogonal to this issue)
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Wal-Mart is officially beginning to use RFID tags on its merchandise
No they're not. Read the story. The tags are on pallets and cases that let them track shipments from vendors. The tags are _not_ on the merchandise itself.
As a web developer and dilettante programmer, I'm interested in how RFID will extend the reach of our apps beyond the keyboard/mouse and out into the real world (well, several inches out into the real world, anyhow, given the limitations of RFID receivers.)
I've been playing with the RFID kid from Phidgets; it's about 100 bucks to get started with a reader and some chips of your own. Unfortunately for a newbie like me, it's not as easy as working with a barcode reader -- you've got to access the hardware using a VB object, do your own filtering and suppression for multiple reads, etc. If someone has written a package that will abstract this stuff, making the reader act like an easy-cheesy USB keyboard, I'd be glad to know about it.
While we're on the subject, anyone know of any other fun, entry-level RFID hardware, kits, or packages, so we can write our own Evil Supply-Chain-Management All-Seeing-Eye application?
Of course, 802.11 technology has an approximate range limit of 150ft. Or does it?
I understand that there's a fundimental difference between a wifi node and an RFID tag (active vs. passive). However, we all know people do things with technology that are never even considered when that tech is first introduced. And I've always seen RF as an odd bird anyway.
Oddly enough... later in that same article....
They can tell the store an item is leaving, they cannot tell you who it is on.
Now if your the only person in the store and you leave with the item you just bought they could do it. However in a busy store and especially with a popular sale item they are not going to be able to say Joe was the 3rd person out in the last 5 minutes with item x.
As far as correlation between you and your purchase, if you don't pay with cash they already have that, RFID doesn't change the picture.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't understand this store. They censor CDs that have explicit lyrics without any on-the-package indication. Yet, they sell guns? Seems like two sets of values to me.
I hate Walmart
Keep your eyes to the sky.
So Walmart is using RFID tags to track their merchandice.
Maybe they should use greencards to track their illegally hired under paid immigrant employees.
I tend to agree - as long as the tags are disabled at checkout, and not personally linked to me as an individual, there's no big problem. On the other side, would disabling the chip once leaving the store actually go against the DMCA?
[SQL Error ID 10-T: This sig. is above your current threshold.]
Umm they aren't even using them on individual products yet, this is just on the pallette of the product in the backroom for inventory purposes. Though i think they plan to use them on individual products in the future.
steal this sig
All techies presumably know about those little security tags that are attached to so many things these days. I'm sure they do a good job preventing theft, else the stores would tell their distributors how worthless they were, and that would be the beginning of the end of them.
Now note that the cashier has to put the tag close to a magnetic plate to disable it so you can leave the store without setting off the alarm system (doesn't always succeed, but does usually).
So imaging a bagfull of stuff you just bought, all decked out with RFID tags. The same alarm-detector at the door that seeks undisabled anti-theft tags can be modified to emit (AFTER passing the anti-theft test) a signal to permanently disable the bag-full of RFID tags. Why not? All the tag-makers have to do is ALLOW them to be disable-able!
First it is the technology to convert your checks into a electronic draft of your checking account, now this.
And the problem with the electronic draft of your checking account is the lack of controls that prevent them from drafting your account AS MANY TIMES AS THEY WANT TO!
Don't think it can happen? Well I got news for you. Not only can that be done, but they can also modify the amounts and draft it again.
It happened to me, which is why I don't shop at Wal-mart any more, or anywhere else that uses said technology. I got lucky, in that my bank ended up covering the difference because the base mistake that caused the merchant in question to modify the draft was the bank's mistake (a supposedly invisible to the users conversion of their checking system).
Beware, Wal-mart doesn't care about the customer and never has.
The only stores Walmart is forcing out of business in my area are Ames and K*Mart, and I don't why I should care about that.
The small downtown stores were killed 15 years ago by the surburban strip malls. Nothing to do with Walmart.
errr... that should have been pallets for all you grammar nazis out there... i'm so so sorry
steal this sig
Shearer first makes the argument that these things are not useful for tracking people ...
...
"Katherine Albrecht has some sort of weird thing in her mind that helicopters might descend and follow you, I mean, how low are these things going to fly?" said Shearer.
and then talks about their pilot program which does exactly that
"These children are primarily kept indoors at the moment because they escape otherwise and might get hurt. So what we are going to do is with two of these huge schools, is to give the children an RFID bracelet that they take off at the end of the day so that we know where they are, and if they walk out the gate then we would know," said Shearer.
RTFA, that is what they are doing. Currently they have no plans to track that information, but with RFID readers at the doors any item you purchase at walmart could be used to track you
Just found this:
The Arkansas-based company posted $256 billion in revenue for the 52-week period that ended Jan. 31 -- more revenue than International Business Machines, Coca-Cola, Time Warner and Microsoft combined.
You want to target a big, nasty corporation? There are none that come close to Wal-Mart, as far as consumer products go.
I forgot.....is IBM the good guys this week or the bag guys?
This SCO-IBM thing has really thrown me off.
I don't think anyone is worried about retailers using RFID tags to stremline their supply chain. What is worrisome is that the tags could end up in all the merchandise, and perhaps not be disabled when you purchase an RFID tagged item.
If RFID tags on the merchandise are disabled when you purchase the item, the only disadvantage is that Wal-mart (or whoever) could collect a lot more detailed information about people's shopping habits (and maybe correlate them with your personal info if you pay by credit card). Of course, that's only a disadvantage if you oppose extending the range of marketing efforts, as I do.
If the tags are not disabled when you purchase the item, there is a whole world of possibilites for how these things could be abused. What if you had a tag in your underpants (which you never change) that was eternally active? I think you can imagine the possibilities.
I wish that they'd just do it. Wal-mart's usual method is to put it in a few stores 5-10 in the home state. If it works, spread it out. If it doesn't, see if they could get it to work or look at a different vendor. As Wal-Mart could force most manufacturers to put RFID tags on their products, I'm surprised that they haven't done more testing. They may have. Bar codes save money. RFID Tags could save that much more money than Bar codes. As far as software, all they have to do is modify it to read in the UPC and the RFID tag and it is done. Wal-mart already has very advanced inventory tracking software. Wal-mart's problem is that they need faster/cheaper/easier ways of counting items and verifing the number of item off the truck was the same amount as that put on the truck. The number of products received was the same as the the number of products paid for. The number of items that are on the shelves is what the software says it is. Software isn't magic. It takes stock clerks with barcode wands to do an audit to verify if the store's inventory is "correct." Remember they are trying to reduce shrinkage. Elimating shinkage due to employee theft and employees not following storage procedures would be a good thing. Reducing Shrinkage due to "customers" not paying for "purchased" items would be a good thing as well.
You may be able to say Copyright infrigement does not equal theft. But can you say walking out of Wal-mart with items isn't theft? How could it invade your privacy by them tracking their inventory? Its not your goods unles you purchase them. You can demand that there be no RFID tags on products that you buy. You could go some where else. Here in AR we know that it is possible to compete and stay in business against Wal-mart. I find it hilarious that those in other states are afraid to compete against a little chain store from AR.
My question is, is IBM good or bad today?
You aren't alone, and that's a shame.
To properly illustrate all the privacy concerns would take hundreds of pages, but let's gloss over the main one.
We needn't speculate either, we can use a real world example -- Prada stores. Prada, in an RFID trial, put an RFID chip into their customer's "Prada Shopper Card." When a frequent buyer of Prada walked into their store, the scanner would pick up the RFID from the card, and a salesperson would immediately know who the person is, how much they've spent in the past, and what kind of clothes they liked.
Some of you are probably saying "That's great! They could offer better service to their customers
That's the whole point. There's always some information that you'd like to keep private. For the rich Prada shoppers it was their clothes size. For others it's their past shopping history.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
People distraught about the privacy, need to realize that if there was any real interest in there insignificant existent, that there are people who can find out what ever they want about you
More and more it looks like the fog on the divide is lifting. For some of us the Corps have taken our jobs and our dignity, control our government and "our" (Ha!) representatives, and are dictating the necessity of a police state. This is the direction things are going, so what now? I am an Infidel but the idea of Corporation terrorist doesn't seem to sound to bad at the moment. (I'll regret saying that! Now I am surely on THE list.)
A magnetic pulse generator does strange things to RF devices. Anyone know where I can get the plans for one. Perhaps designed to fit within a cane?
Bit different, you don't have to use credit cards to purchase items from a store, you could use checks, cash, gift certificates, ect...
By using a credit card you agree to tell them that information in exchange for a guaranteed (within reason) short term loan.
Unremovable, active RFID tags, on the other hand, mean someone with a scanner can find out not only that I have a PDA in my coat pocket, but the type and model number. This opens up avenues for targeted personal advertisements (joe advertised walks up to you on the street after detecting your PDA's rfid chip, "Hey, did you know is leagues better than , and this is why! "), ease of public hacking ("Dude, the scanner says there's a pre-fix pda out there, and I know the backdoor user/pass for that model!"), or even targeted theft ("Hrm, that guys got a nice new iPod hidden in his jacket, I'll just follow him and swipe it...").
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Its nothing that a little tin foil wrap job wouldn't fix!
Personally, I want my RFID tags.
I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "What is this?"
I then want to see the specs appear on my computer screen.
I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "I'm happy to lend this." I'd like my neighbors, if they are looking for a vacuum cleaner, to be able to see that there is a willing lender nearby.
I don't care if my neighbors scan my apartment, and find out that I have underwear, and a toaster, and books.
"Naughty" stuff is not going to leave a store with RFID. If they're willing to ship in a brown paper bag, then they're smart enough to ship with the RFID tag taken off.
I read the article and what I can decern, without having read the bill, is that this oversteps... as our (yes I live in California) communist legislature is wont to do.
I can agree to limits about monitoring outside of the store; that's a clear cut invasion of privacy. However, as far as monitoring what gets picked up off a shelf and returned, etc. That's just silly to try and block. Store personnel could (though not as efficiently) monitor customers behavior visually and get the same knowledge.
It seems to me that the general public, rather than trying to slather on a bunch regulation onto business, has a responsibility to shop in those places that have products, services, and policies that they desire. If you think WalMart is going to somehow compromise your privacy, don't shop there. There are thousands of mom and pop shops that can't afford the technology anyway that sell the same products and are dying for your business. If the extra price is worth the privacy you'll not shop WalMart.
If you consumer/privacy advocates want to engage in a moral approach to this problem: encourage a boycott and encourage people to take a little damn responsibility for goes on in their own lives.
Read the parent I replied to (modded down for knee-jerk anti-rfid/walmart message).
My message was one of "I don't care how they track their products in-store, as long as it stays in-store only". It's their property until I buy it, and if these things save them money then great, it'll mean prices will stay semi-reasonable longer.
And sorry about the spacing, forgot to select plain text.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
People who are not weary of RFID always point to things such as
Sure that's valid right now, but how about the cost decreasing benefits of NO packaging. Gilette Razor blades for instance, packaged in a big box so they are harder to steal.
They can sell the idea of embedded chips, by saying it decreases packaging costs (which it will). Then, you can't throw it away.
Further, if anyone has noticed, ANY media which can be used as advertising IS used as advertising. From buses, The Internet, to the damn program Guide on your Cable Box, even the products in Movies. How long before RFID is used for that as well, once they have sold the idea of embedded chips.
>>The open question remains: if the chips are so
>>innocuous, why is the RFID industry so scared
>>of this lady?
The industry is not scared of her -- they're scared of the ignorant masses that consume her lies without any due diligence on their part.
Get a fucking clue and read up on the proposed 869-956mhz and 2450mhz RFID frequencies and the inherent limitations of each. Think about tagging water/liquid product, attaching to metal, near a human body, antennae size requirements, etc. and you'll have a good understanding that Katherine Albrecht is 6 cans short of a six-pack.
IBM, which plans to be a major manufacturer of RFID tags, bashes critics of RFID tags as 'anti-retail.'
;-)
Scr*w eye-bee-em!
Oh wait I am coming from 9.0.0.0 -
I pay with old cash and dark glasses, park in the back of the lot away from the cameras. Normally refuse new bills when i am given change.
True nothing is 100% but it doesnt mean we have to roll over for continued encroachment...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In related news, IBM is criticized as being 'anti-consumer'.
Ever hear of driving gloves?
Seriously, most generalized surveillance can be circumvented if you try just a little... Thus the original question.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.
I wish I could avoid it. K-Mart is five minutes away from my house, while Wal-Mart is 15. I'd really really love to go there instead, but whenever I do I'm faced with empty shelves and a less varied selection. Many times have I gone in there, only to come out empty handed and have to head to Wal-Mart yet again. I hate Wal-Mart for many reasons (one of which is I happened to work there for two summers), but the sad truth is that it's the best option. Sometimes it's the only option. I'm dreading the day that K-Mart will close shop, because then you know the Wal-Mart in town will close up, too, forcing me to go even farther to make my purchases. We're riding the rollercoaster down that spiral, but it's too late to get off without losing a limb.Very boring - you get what you pay for...
..........FULL STOP.
These devices can NOT be used on doorways for several reasons, not the least of which is the DMCA.
1. These devices are low power low frequency devices which must be VERY close to the antenna since the anteanna is providing the power for the chip. They don't contain batteries.
2. If used on a passageway, think of those with pacemakers passing through this 'exciting' antenna doorway.
3. People with passive entry systems such as those on BMW or Volvo will be disturbed to know Wal-Mart is reading their Key-Fobs (which contain RFID tags) when they pass through the doorways. And note that these RFID tags data is encrypted, so the DMCA can play a role here. That is, the ID is not encrypted, but if they think its one of their tags, and start trying to read the data, they could get into trouble.
Side note. man people predict passive entry will replace key-less entry within 10 years. if this is the case and were all walking around with RFID keys to our cars, privacy concerns could go up quite a bit.
well, here's my $.02
"(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement."
Well, I do believe in copying CD's. If they're gonna charge me 19.99 for a crappy album that I couldn't listen to beforehand and is 80% filler to buttress the radio hits, if they're gonna charge me $19.99 in spite of the multiple price-fixing they've been found guilty of, then, when I actually like the CD then yeah, I am gonna copy it for my friends. In my past experience, my friends wind up buying the CD if they like it, and that's with a full 16/44 copy, not some crappy mp3. Though my burner is so old, it's really a pain in the ass so you've gotta be a pretty good friend.
(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."
I don't see how anybody is abusing "sharing", that's exactly what we're doing. Giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about. I don't know anybody that shares music that they don't like.
I don't see how anybody is abusing the word "information". Please elaborate.
And this is the first time I've heard "Copyright enforcement militia", and as much as it tugs at my heartstrings I prefer cartel [slashdot.org].
"(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years."
Not true. As overpriced as CD have been found repeatedly in courts of law to be, people continue to buy them, and in increasing numbers. I believe that what drives piracy is the ClearChannel takeover of radio coupled with the consolidation of the "record industry" into two or three major monoliths, which led to the overwhelming proliferation of incredibly bad, bland, uninspired, uninteresting, untalented, demographically safe crap being promoted by Corporate Music. All people want is to hear good music again.
"(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases."
It's hard to look at the history of copyright law and not see Disney et al's just-one-more-extention policy as a money grab. Copyright law was specifically written to allow copyrights to expire after a reasonable time to allow works of IP to enter into the public domain. These regulations were sound and just and were written for a reason.
"(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do."
I do believe that showing other people how good a certain artist is could possibly result in that person buying the CD. Sharing crappy, lossy MP3's is one way of showing them how good it is, just like radio used to be.
BUT. I have bought dozens of CD's that I liked the MP3's of. And I don't see why you feel the need to conflate the two unless you're afraid of your own argument's invalidity.
"(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't (like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their opinion doesn't count or something."
Wow, you really have a poor grasp on the situation. Let me rephrase for you: I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always have and always will rip off the artists. Some artists, usually those whose immediate financial future depends on the gratitude of Corporate Music, support P2P. Some artists, mostly those whose immediate financial furtures *do* depend on Corporate Music, don't support P2P, like Metalicca, and don't agree with me, hence one must realize their opinions are informed directly by their vested interests.
"(7) I b
I work in this industry and follow what Wal-Mart is doing very closely. Despite what you might gather from all the posts, Wal-Mart has backed away from primary RFID tags. In english, this means that they are not using RFID tags on the things you purchase. Instead, they are going with secondary and tertiary RFID tagging. In english, they will tag cases of products and pallets of cases. I can't see any privacy concerns in this whatsoever.
It differs from primary RFID in some fundamentally practical ways too. Everyone in the supply chain has a vested interested in making secondary coding work. If (and this is a far from certain "if" at this point) RFID can reliable track a carton out of a manufacturer, into a truck, into a Wal-Mart distribution center, into another truck, and finally into a local Wal-Mart, it will simplify life. (Before anyone jumps on the fact that the RFID tag makes it into the local Wal-Mart - the tag is attached to the corrugated shipping carton which is discarded and recycled when all the product is removed and placed on the shelves).
In contrast, there are a number of people who have a vested interest in not having primary RFID work. Aside from people concerned about privacy, there is an incentive to kill tags if they are used in an automatic checkout system. I foresee jammers, zappers, all kinds of shady, quasi-legal devices.
Once you step outside the store with your purchase, its no-one's business what you've bought.
Privacy is still a concern then, and some people may very well want to burn out RFID tags in their customer cards and purchases once they get them home.
Possible analogy: setting mozilla to treat all cookies as session-only cookies.
(yes I know this doesn't work well with tagged consumer cards)
Good stuff.
Yeah, right.
Admittedly, RFID tags would make all kinds of theft extremely inconvenient. A thief would have to scan for all the RFID tags in stolen items and disable all of them, with a microwave oven or something. Otherwise, a police offer could stroll through a pawn shop or flea market and take inventory of everything reported stolen.
The police would have gotten this inventory of stolen items from you. All you would have to do is walk around your house, talking inventory of all your stuff as you pass. When you get robbed, you walk through again, making an automatic list of everything that turns up missing. You hand over the missing list of IDs to the cops.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
I suppose if the Loony Brigade is getting exicited about RFIDs, the next thing we'll see is a piece of legisltation attempting to ban cameras. After all, what better way to invade someone's privacy than by taking a picture?
Slashdot would be better off to stick to technology and not bother itself with juvenile Luddite ranting.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
On the other hand, some bad. It can be used to tell if you brought or wore something back to the store where you bought it. Most likely, other stores will not be able to track you.since stores will want to use encription so competitors cannot read their RFID tags.
Most RFID tag circuits are passive and will need a signal and energy to turn them on for sending back their info. The design I researched last year showed me that it will be easy to encript tags and relatively easy to read the info back. I could not read those from a different company since my reader did not know the code. Some tags can be read from a few feet away, but I expect low power technology to turn that in to yards in just a few years. THe present distance is about the diameter of the transmitter's loop antenna. You've seen those big antennas at the movie rental store and some department/grocery stores. The long distance tags that operate at high frequencies will need some kind of power source for turning on, but that is just technology and innovation. These will be able to see you if you are in the area, but again, there is much work to be done
You know where RFID would really be useful? Video stores.
Customer: "Do you have On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando?"
Me looks it up on the computer: "Yes, we do. It's in our classics section."
Customer looks, doesn't find it. Two weeks later it shows up in westerns next to the Magnificent Seven.
With RFID
Customer: "Do you have On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando?"
Me looks it up on the computer with RFID: "Yes, we do. It's been misplaced in westerns according to the computer."
It could also reduce theft significantly. Theft is a big problem with most video stores. I should patent this!
(And thusly I expect this to be stolen shortly.)
1 Put lots of RFID tags in pockets.
2 Enter Walmart.
3 Act suspicious.
4 Leave.
5 Refuse to cooperate in any way with being detained.
6 Sue for illegal detainment/arrest/search.
7 PROFIT
RFID tags can be read and written to and can have memory capacity from a few K to 8Megs (probably more now). They use the RF energy hitting their antennae to power the device for serial readout. The range can be anwhere from a few feet to 0.5 miles. Alot of trucks and train cars can be scanned up to 0.5 miles as they go by to find out what they are supposed to contain by getting a Bill of Lading list from the memory contained in them. Moreover, the contents could contain the truck and train serial number attached to the contents inside. As for the shopper, if you pay by debit,credit or use the grocery store discount card, they can attach the rfid tags to these numbers. The rfid tags would be a easy way to describe what you bought. The same can be done with the UPC barcode scanners, but they have limited range when stuff is moving through the warehouse. Moreover, the rfid tags can be scanned when going through the detector when leaving the store to set off an alarm or not. Another use of RFID is when you use the toll road and pass through the scanner that detects your id to dock it from your money that you paid the state/gov. This scanner id is associated with your name and license plate so they know who you are. There was talk about a few years back that as you walk around town with your wi-fi or cell phone that they pickup on your id and send you ads about shopping places nearby like food, clothes etc. So yes all these ids in various forms can build a picture about your habits and the things you buy or do. We've had ids for years already, whether it be your drivers license number and the biggest of them all is your social security number!
Their stated goal sometime ago was to expand RFID tags to include 'auto pay', and marketing..
This is where you drive up your baskart to the register, it gets scanned in basket, and you get billed for the cost. Its supposed to be 'convenient'
It also would be able to easily record all the serial numbers of the tags and attach to your buying habits.. with the ability to identify you at a later date purely due to the tags, in order to do 'targeted marketing' as you shop..
Yes this assumes you pay electronically.. but the technology is there for the tracing, and was their stated end goal.. Once costs and user acceptance catch up..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Apparently the maximum range of these devices is 3 feet assuming a 5 watt transmitter. If my inverse fourth power calculations are correct, 1 megawatt of power would be enough to get you 20 times as much ramge, or 60 feet. The only practical way to generate that kind of power even for a fraction of a second is using a capacitor bank, which would be fairly large.
If they ever get to low level tagging of individual items, the easiest way to solve the privacy issue is to just put them on the packaging.
Besides, they wouldn't want to have people walking in the store with RFIDs after the purchase. It could be a product that they don't carry and may cause confusion. This is all for shipping and inventory. They want to be able to get an accurate count of what is inside the store, what's been sold, and if any are being shoplifted. They have way too much information to wade through now, why would they want to give themselves an even bigger headache?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
As long as they disable the things once they leave the checkout, I have no problems with this really.
They can't be disabled. They are dumb-devices powered by the signal that is transmitted to them. Anyone can potentially have a transponder for them and you can't see them.
Whenever you read this sig someone's refrigerator light turns on.
Looks like they are, actually. From the article:
Technology changes, ranges will increase.
I'd rather not give anyone a chance to know what I'm carrying without me having a say in it, no matter what range.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
You could use a microwave pulse generator but it would hardly be handheld. In order to get the power needed to be sure the chips are destroyed, especially the ones with anti-overload protection, you would need a massive amount of power, much more than your microwave. Basically, you take several of the large capacitors used in televisions and make a capacitor bank. You wire the capacitor bank in parallel and charge them up. Then you switch them to series just before discharging the capacitor bank and dumping all that energy into a magnetron (microwave tube). The effect is similar to an extremely short range (a couple of feet at most) EMP. Of course, you would place the items in a shielded metal box before starting the system both to protect other electronic devices and to increase the amount of power absorbed by the RFID chips (inverse square law assumes no reflection). Such a device would be quite large, but would be effective even against the new anti-microwave chips from Alien Technology (a RFID chip maker with chips that can withstand microwaving).
RFID tags are not the big intrusive privacy issue people seem to think they are except for one thing -- there's no easy, clean, certain way for the average person to shut the damn things off.
In the retail supply chain, RFID tags have a huge promise to be a win-win for everyone. They should be able to lower costs, increase service levels, cut losses, and solve many supply-chain issues in a way that is very good for the end consumer.
The problem is, when the end consumer gets the final product into his or her hot little hands and leaves the check-out counter, how do they deactivate the little spy tag?
That part of the equation needs to be answered for the average consumer (not just the ultra-savy geeks) prior to these things being main-streamed or the level of abuse likely to ensue will be really nasty.
They can identify themselves (at present, simply as the type and model of product).
You need a MASSIVE honking database to cross-reference the RFID info with purchaser information (where available, and it isn't always available).
For the nightmare scenario to come to pass, the scanners have to scan the myriad RFID tagged objects you are wearing/carrying as you pass the door sensor, and cross reference all of those tags with those in corporation's database, keeping in mind that only a small fraction of the number of tags you may actually be wearing/carrying came from that store, and pick YOU out of the 7 other people who enter or leave the bank of doors at the same time.
And they need a reason for this massive infrastructure... What does it get them? What does it tell them about their customers and their buying habits that their loyalty cards and sales records don't already tell them?
Absolutely nothing.
But the role of a represantive form of government is to attempt to codify into law the needs and desires of the people they represent. This codification is to occur is as open a forum as possible. Corporate america is not a separate State and can not and should not be allowed to do what it wants, anytime it wants. By its very nature Coporate decision have nothing to do with people and are done in secret. I will take looney short lived laws anytime over corporate greed.
I make my face look like this and concerned words come out.
Like I needed reasons to stay out of that giant, soul-sucking piece of garbage store. I always feel dirty after I've been in there. I'll gladly pay extra not to shop there.
These quotes speak for themselves:
""The crux of the argument about privacy is that it's all very well to have an item marked and to be able to read it but it's quite another thing to be able to do some push-based marketing on the basis of it," said Shearer, arguing "that's what people are afraid of, location-based services, but that's not RFID."
and then...
"These children are primarily kept indoors at the moment because they escape otherwise and might get hurt. So what we are going to do is with two of these huge schools, is to give the children an RFID bracelet that they take off at the end of the day so that we know where they are, and if they walk out the gate then we would know,"
These quotes are BOTH from IBM's Dr Cheryl Shearer, who, IMHO, is obviously a bit of a dumbass. I mean, come on, what were you thinking?!
Did any of you actually read the article? Or are you just so used to talkin out of your ass that it comes natural. The article states that the tags will be on cases and pallets. There might also be some merchandise on the floor that has tags, as some items are shipped as "cases of 1." If you've ever looked in the back of a Wal-Mart truck, you'll see that stuff like printers, TVs, VCRs, etc. all come exactly like you see them on the floor. They aren't in cases. They are just plain boxes like you see on the shelves. The RFID readers will also only be at the back door of the store. Why are you people worried about your condoms being linked to you? The only linking will be of the case of condoms linked to the store. Any item you buy that is a "Case of 1" will have the RFID in the packaging and will be trashed whenever you throw the box away. This technology is merely an attempt to reduce shrink through mispicks and internal theft. Each Walmart store loses a lot of money through mispicks. For example, what if a case of popcorn comes in that costs $20 for the case, yet the shipping label on the case says, "Big Screen TV $300." The store was charged for the $300 TV when in actuality they only got a $20 case of popcorn. This is a drastic example, but if the stockers don't read the shipping labels (which they usually don't), no one will ever notice that the store lost $280 because of a mispick. This will show up as shrink during the yearly inventory.
stephen
I need to get this rant off my chest. Since when is it that a 6 figure executative (7 figure?) with intelegence especially from our buddies IBM is whining about what his/her customers want????
If she's getting off her a$$ to comment about it this opinion must be shared by more than a few people.
But just saying something like I think the RFID privacy movement is primarily an anti-retail movement, because no one is discussing this at all in manufacturing process control or its use in libraries (quote from linked article)
Common if I got paid to out right bitch like that with out looking at WHY my consumers were unhappy with my idea I would be SHOT on site!!
Why should I want to buy in on her idea?? Why do I care if retail dies??? Does she think that I will never be able to purchace, barter clothes, food, latest processors???
NO!!
don't let this BS fool you!!! You think WalMart is starving right now???
NO
You think these *MAGIC* RFID tags are gonna help us as consumers, not really, they just plan to shove gimmicks at us until they are happy.
The market right now is going through an information orgy. They want to know what color underwear we have on so they can stick it on their new "database" that was just sold to them by a friendly software sales man who just made a $hitload of CA$H off of them. Now the same company charges them even more to tell them, 'after extensive research of our findings, customer 19528 bought blank CD's and a memory key *most likely* (don't want to be sued if their wrong) owns a computer.'
And I am supposed to loose sleep over their problems??
HA >BR>
Just for that I am gonna write emails to anybody with an email address in the industry that I am *AGAINST* these RFID tags and make those lazy bastards EARN THEIR money for *ONCE* rather than bitch at your customer for not liking my IDEA !
Phew ok i'm done....
So does it run *Linux*???
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
This is the same tatic used by General Motors agains Ralph Nadar after he published Unsafe at Any Speed.
I still remember seeing the president of General Motors sitting before a Senate Committee and appologizing to Ralph. The ensuing lawsuit got Nadar a large stack of money.
The publicity that went with the hearings and the subsequent trial lauached Nader into his career of self appointed sainthood.
It brings a tear of joy to my eye everytime I think of what good ole Sam Walton created. *snif*
The only way to get around that problem would be to shorten the distance between the transmitter and the target. Considering the amount of energy that is necessary (in theory) to open even a small wormhole (something like the mass of jupiter in exotic "negative" matter being converted directly into energy), I don't think that will be a problem for a very long time (the hiroshima bomb was only several grams worth of matter being converted into energy). There are only three ways to increase range, use a larger antenna on the RFID tag, use a more powerful transmitter, or use different frequencies to transmit on.
1. Pick up high-powered RFID scanner
2. Drive down affluent neighbourhood with scanner pointed in direction of houses (or cars?)
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Heay Bob! What are you doing with that Victoria's Secret black lace bra? Isn't that the one Sally wore in this morning?
You grossly misunderstand the technology.
How, praytell, would your fictional cow-orker know that you're wearing a Victoria's Secret bra? "From the RFID tag," you'll say. "But," I'll respond, "the RFID tag doesn't tell you it's a Victoria's Secret bra. The RFID tag, when prompted, simply shouts back across a short distance, '984867493094867473829!'" In order for your nosy friend to know that that number is a Victoria's Secret bra, he would have to have access to Victoria's Secret's entire product database. Which, of course, he does not.
RFID tags are just numbers, people. One very big number. That's all. Without the database backing it up, the numbers are useless. Sure, if "Bob" walked into a Victoria's Secret store, it is possible that their computer would recognize one of its bras being secretly modeled by "Bob," but everywhere else, it's just a meaningless number.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Any store that uses RFID tags can count me as a non-customer. I will not shop or purchase in any store that uses spy gear to monitor me. "Inventory Control"? Bull. That's the same argument the government made about the so-called "Patriot Act". "It'll only be used on terrorists.", yea right. Any more lies you'd like me to blindly swallow? No thanks, I'll eat my cookies without the chips.
-Phyre
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thom
They are passive devices, dumbasses. For fuck's sake do a web search and get educated instead of being a pack of paranoid ninnies. Or better yet, just frigging die. These are not a threat to your precious privacy, you dumb, vacuumheaded, ignorant pricks. Ooooo! The G-Men want to track your comic book purchases. Ooooo! You're so scary important! Ooooo! Get over yourselves.
by buying all the stuff needed at AutoZone.
"All Your Privacy Are Belong To Us!"
So I'm just confused as to how language condones violence while guns do not.
How, exactly, are guns any more inherently violent than knives?
How does an inanimate object "condone" anything?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Reading across the responses to this article has seen the usual number of pros and cons to uses of RFID tags just like the pros and cons to uses of p2p filesharing. There are legitimate uses. There are illegitimate uses. While it's illogical to me the general public seems to place more trust in vaporous corporations than they do in their fellow citizen.
Okay. Whatever helps them sleep at night.
Let's view it from this side: How far can a corporation push their ability to monitor RFID tags before they incur a real lawsuit? Let's say Wal-Mart _does_ start profiling people while they're in the store. Let's say that McDonald's does start installing sensors which are compatible with Wal-Mart's tags. Let's say that stores in the local mall _do_ start panning and scanning for competitors' items. Let's say that databases are compiled and cross-referenced, at the corporate level where these deals can be made, with databases of credit card numbers, internet usage. Let's say the local police department or FBI outpost does decide to invest a few million of taxpayer money to pan and scan these cross-referenced databases, profile and watch people who fit into empirically established profiles.
Does the end consumer have any rights at all in this system?
Not a single one.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
With RFID on the shipping containers of all of Wal Mart's suppliers and with all the middlemen employing RFID methods of tracking inventory, Wal Mart will evenutually hope to reduce the cost from manuafacturer to the shelf by eliminating or lessening the need for human employees. I'd be interested to see what numbers Wal Mart figures they spend now on Inventory control compared to what they expect to save after implementing RFID.
The only thing my credit card bill has told me about my purchases is "you spent $X dollars at store Y on day Z". It's not broken down into exactly what you bought, just by where you bought it from.
Even those "Year-End Summary of Activity" things you might get are split based on where you bought from, not what you bought. So, if you bought a TV from your local supermarket, it would show up under the grocery summary. If you brought a clock from a gas station, it would show up under the fuel list.
RFID combined with credit cards is no different then using a credit card without RFID. Walmart still knows your credit card # and what items you purchased.
RFID is kinda scary though, because when it becomes more accepted it will be used for intruding on peoples privacy.
The deed is done. That access card in your wallet that your company has you use to gain access to your building, data center, and office is an RFID tag. Let the helicoptors start hovering.
Forget destroying the tags, just reset their values!
Build your own RFID price gun, and set your own "low,everyday price"!
The tags don't give your name away, but your credit card does. Personally, I use cash whenver it's not too incovnenient, but the mjoriy of purchases, especially those over $40, are made with credit cards. The store then has the ability to see what RFID tags you bought (along with the products) and see where you take them.
How about anonymous, pre-paid debit cards then? I'd use 'em, if only to help enforce my personal budget. I think they were tried before as "e-cash", but the smart cards never caught on here (US). But you could implement it using the current technology.
I contribute monthly to the EFF, and I've spent the past 5 months working with and understanding RFID technology, right down to getting baked by a reader.
There are two types of RFID tags: Active and passive. Active tags have a battery and transmit a signal. They cost a few bucks apiece; they're cheap enough for a lot of good uses, such as locating expensive mobile equipment in hospitals ("Oh, the machine that goes, 'Ping!" is on the third floor women's bathroom!"), but far too expensive to track consumer items -- say, a can of soup. They're also pretty large, since they need an antenna and a battery.
Passive tags are powered by the radio waves themselves. These are the ones that will eventually be cheap enough that they can be put on individual cans of soup, maybe in two to three years.
In order for a passive tag to get enough power to transmit its unique identification number, a few things need to happen. The tag itself -- although it's a very small chip -- needs a rather large antenna to pick up enough energy to get power. The smallest ones I've seen are about 3" long. The RFID reader needs to have a VERY powerful microwave transmitter and antenna. The devices I worked with required me to be at least nine inches away from them most of the time to keep from getting cooked. Even with this powerful reader and large antenna, I've had to hold tags about a foot away from the antenna for a good second or three to see them show up.
Now what are we afraid of regarding RFID? Well, we're afraid that beyond the point of sale, someone will put a reader on us and know all about us or be able to track our movements, because we'll be covered in these RFID tags with unique identifiers.
Now we've seen technology advance, but Physics is Physics. A tag with an antenna no smaller than 3" in size has to be held within a foot of a reader powerful enough to warm your skin for a second to transmint 30-odd bits of data. This is not going to change unless the laws of Physics change first -- there is no technology to change this.
You're going to be able to find RFID tags in your stuff, because the large antenna will give itself away. And you're not going to patiently stand and pose next to a high-powered reader while it tries to sort out all of the tags you're wearing ("Excuse me, can you kneel down so I can get the one on your eyeglasses? Now lift your feet, I can't see your shoes..."), unless you're cold and want to warm up really fast.
What I've laid out here is not common knowledge. That's a big part of the reason I'm writing this now: I know that Slashdot readers are concerned about the issue and are capable of understanding the science behind the issue. Once you understand the issue, you realize that the government isn't going to be using this to track your movements -- from a foot away. People are not going to be able to surreptitiously scan you to learn all about you -- while asking you to stop and pose for the antenna. You're not going to be covered in three-inch-long RFID tag antennas without your knowledge.
I believe that you should be taking neither my word for it nor CASPIAN's. You should do your own research and learn. Don't co-opt someone else's point of view or trust that they've done their due diligence just because you share the same political point of view as he or she does. You may be pro-EFF, just like me -- that doesn't mean you should trust what I've said. You may have beliefs similar to Albrecht's -- but you shouldn't trust that she's done her homework, either!
In practice, you, me, and everyone else does trust the leaders of organizations we agree with to have done their due diligence and to know more than we do about issues. And we do co-opt their points of view. That is why IBM is speaking out: Because it's clear that although Albrecht doesn't understand RFID technology, people are listening to her.
I'm concerned enough about the preservation of civil liberties to donate regularly to the EFF. After working with RFID technology for the past several months and seeing its inherent limitations, I feel that we have little, if anything, to fear from this technology. But don't take my word for it because I claim this is true; do your own research.
"They took our jaaabs!"
That's right. All your base.
I do not believe for a single second that you HAVE to shop at WalMart. That is either a bold faced lie, or the saddest thing I have ever heard. Just because you like the cheap selection, of crappy, made in china goods, that are actually putting your neighbours/friends/relatives out of work, doesn't mean you CAN'T shop elsewhere. If you can't, then you a) aren't trying hard enough or b) Really need to move.
It is a great lesson for life, sometimes it is not easy to stand up for what you believe in, sometimes you will have to suffer for your beliefs. So what, you have to get a ride 20 minutes away, to NOT support a cancer on the planet (These retail scum bags dont just affect the US, the plague is world-wide). Then you make this "huge" sacrifice, and get the ride. If your CD costs 5$ more down the road, then so be it. Every dollar that you spend in that revolting institution, just gives them more power, and makes any competition weaker.
I am in no way a zealot, I eat meat, shoot stuff (for fun, and for nibblies), and drive a car, but WalMart is evil enough, that I haven't spent a single penny there since 1999 (and had only shopped there about 4 times previous to that). I have been to the store, when friends want to get stuff, but I will make the extra trip to avoid giving them ANY money AT ALL.
As a side benefit, I find that I have way fewer nightmares about horribly overweight people, in spandex, with bad teeth, fighting over a pair of $4.00 plastic shoes.
You've made some of the most thoughtful replies on the topic, so I'll answer this one:
What other things comprise a corporation? Do you know of a corporation that has turned over decision making responsibility to a non-human?
Here's one big difference: a person can be punished in a number of ways, when he or she commits a
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
(Sorry, hit the wrong key on previous reply)
You've made some of the most thoughtful replies on the topic, so I'll answer this one:
What other things comprise a corporation? Do you know of a corporation that has turned over decision making responsibility to a non-human?
Here's one big difference: a person can be punished in a number of ways, when he or she commits a crime. These range from financial penalties, to loss of freedom for a varying length of time, to the ultimate penalty of death. For individuals whose motivation is less than altruistic, these punishments provide a needed deterrent to behavior that hurts the rest of society.
A corporation, on the other hand, can *only* be punished in one way: financially. You can put corporate officers in jail, but the corporation itself will continue to exist with the same rights and freedoms that it enjoyed before. There is no "6 to 10 years in prison" for a corporation. Even the ultimate penalty, bankruptcy, isn't a death sentence for a corporation. It's just another financial penalty -- witness Enron and MCI.
Even the notion of ethics influencing behavior breaks down at the corporate level. A person may naturally be a saint, or he may be a sinner kept in line only by the threat of punishment in the next life. A publicly held company, on the other hand, is the ultimate atheist: its god holds its stock, and will mete out punishment in this life. There is no concept of ethics, other than artifical constructs that outside entities (ie, governments) have built to constrain the company.
In short, humans can be punished according to their crime, corporations can not. Humans have a soul, corporations do not. It is therefore a fallacy to give an artificial construct like a corporation equal rights with a human being -- not because of what it does right, but because of what you can't do when it does wrong.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
This is not to discount the privacy issue - but
May I propose a bright Side?
We GIVE thousands of bottles of medicine to hospitals in Iraq. The day they arrive they are taken out the back door and distributed by a mafia blacl market.
That and not a fanatical religion is what is standing in the way of progress.
Progress in developing countries can be measured as the time it takes for people to assume that dishonest acts will be punshished.
Transparency.org tracks public perception regarding corruption for various countries.
The point is the ITEM LEVEL IDENTIFICATION is a disruptive technology for reducing the ability of corrupt economies to operate anonymously.
If we could RFID every item of material support we send to IRAQ we could satisfy the essential needs of the masses without enriching a few warlords - which means our boys could be home for Christmas.
I'm not sure we need this here - but let's look at some world class problems which could be solved.
AIK
To be honest, the RFID tag issue seems relatively minor compared to the privacy issues we're already forced to endure when shopping at some of the larger retailers.
I was just watching a news piece on last night's local TV broadcast about how sophisticated the cameras have become at Home Depot stores. Apparently, their entire store is covered by cameras on the ceiling, and photos are taken and digitally stored of each person as they make purchases at the checkout counter.
They were bragging about how a murder case was solved in this manner, because a label and UPC code were found on the handle of a rake used in the crime. This traced it back to Home Depot, where they were able to input the UPC code and retreive perfectly clear photos of the person buying the rake. Home Depot claims they store all of this information for at least 1 year.
Perhaps just as interesting was that despite Home Depot's assertion that "This information is only used internally, and not provided to govt. agencies or any private outside individuals." - the police were able to get those photos of the guy buying the rake just by walking in a store and asking for them.
Target stores are also known for using sophisticated surveillance systems (and similar to Home Depot's setup, they're obviously able to retreive photos of who bought what in the past - as witnessed by the recent case where the college student faked being kidnapped, and was caught when they showed camera footage of her purchasing duct tape and rope, etc. at the local Target store just before it happened).
A private investigator interviewed on the news was quoted as having obtained this type of evidence from a retail store in New York, after he was hired to try to spy on a suspected cheating husband. (He purchased lingerie on his credit card, and then tried to claim his card was stolen - so the P.I. obtained photographic evidence that it was indeed him buying the items.) They asked the P.I. if he had permission to obtain this information from the retail store. He said no, but he had "confidential sources" that got it for him anyway.
That's the problem with all of this stuff. Once this type of data is indexed and stored somewhere, it has the potential to fall into the wrong hands - and eventually *will* do so. It's only a matter of time.
You know what, I've never been in a dirty Wal-Mart. I've been in Nasty Albertsons, a Putrid K-Mart, but every walmart I've visited has been clean... and considering the unpleasant people shopping there thats a plus for me.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
P2P has legitimate and beneficial uses, but still has the potential to be abused. P2P is GOOD!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
As if there weren't enough reasons to NOT shop at Walmart, here is another one.
From driving down wages and destroying small businesses to employing illegal aliens to driving near-slave labor in other countries, Walmart is just a HUGE can of worms. Just another notch in the belt IMO.
And those are just the political reasons. Dirty stores. Merchandise and boxes all over the isles.
Make it known that you don't want to shop there, for RFID and the other noted reasons. I'm sure walmart will say it will immensly cut down on theft, but honestly, with the amount of businessnes they do, they probably don't notice it anyway. They will say that this will drive down prices for the consumer, but the consumer hardly benefits from this at all. Walmart will benefit by improved inventory control/tracking/ potentially seeing customer buying habits.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Come on people, commercial entities are not going to use RFIDs for the exotic custom tracking everyone seems to be afraid of. You build these systems. Think of the complexity and cost to track things across multiple supply chains. There won't be enough ROI to bother tracking your underwear past the front door my lifetime. NSA might love to track us all but they can't do it unless the commercial sector sees enough value to build and interconnect the systems and that is just not going to happen in the forseeable future.
Finally, someone with some brains speaks on the subject. Come on, people! Don't let others do your thinking for you, do it yourself!
> Yes, I do pay cash...
How'd you get your cash? If you got it out of a cash machine, how do you know they didn't attach a list of the serial numbers on the bills to your bank account number?
It would be trivial to do. How do you know they aren't doing it?
Oooh, big deal. I'm way beyond that. I'm anti-corporate, pro-individual, &c. IBM calling me anti-retail is like making love to me. I enjoy it and I want more.
In Soviet Russia ^H^H^H^H^H^H America, your clothes shop for YOU.
Basically the technology used for RFID tags can be used for tracking.
No tin foil hat here. Can I borrow your dunce cap?
I'm not really worried about what RFID track as they are really a more efficient system for techniques they already use. I would just like a privacy statement and ideally an option to "opt out".
What are they made of?
Side note. man people predict passive entry will replace key-less entry within 10 years. if this is the case and were all walking around with RFID keys to our cars, privacy concerns could go up quite a bit.
article from Forbes
You also might find this article from the Washington Post educational.
Go ahead and shop at the higher priced, spotlessly clean stores. Of course, they are that way cause there is usually only a handfull of rich or stupid customers shopping there.
Yes, master.
RFID = BOYCOTT...
You are please to enjoy lost profits.
Just say No to the Wal(of~evil)Mart!
OK.
I accept everything you say.
Now, how could such limited devices be of any use in retail?
Are we gonna take the laser scanners out of the clerk's hands and give them microwave transmitter that will cook the customers if they point it in the wrong direction?
Is check-out at the supermarkey gonna start resembling airport security? (with microwaves instead of X-rays)
How can they be used to track theft? Are employees gonna have to submit to a quick microwave "warm up" to check for tags as they leave?
If the tags are really that hard to read, and we are really gonna have to sling microwaves as freely as you indicate to get them to work at all, then they would seem to be a huge step backwards from barcodes.
Who waits for the end of the line to "fill out" a check? And legal tender is legal tender - no matter how you do it.
And if you had internal knowledge of the computer systems that Walmart uses, you wouldn't use any form of electronic payment there.
As for Interac, that happens to be some form of payment that isn't available anywhere I have ever been, so once again you show your ignorance of the problem.
"Now, how could such limited devices be of any use in retail?"
The main benefit of the RFID tag over the UPC label is that you don't have to have the tag aligned a certain way and visible to activate it.
In the supply chain leading to the store, lots of products are buried in a pallet, and organizations need to know what's in there (and how many) to track their shipments efficiently. With RFID tags, the pallet need not be opened to know exactly what's in it. In the warehouse, workers can remain a safe distance away from readers on conveyers, forklifts and the like.
Wal-Mart and the US military have immense supply-chain networks. If they save a fraction of a penny per item in their supply chains through better tracking, they can save hundreds of millions of dollars per year. That's why Wal-Mart and the US military are the first two organizations to sponsor supply-chain RFID pilots.
The other uses you mention are still possible, but require some good engineering work. For example, at the checkout counter, much lower-powered readers can be used, because the checker can put the tag on the reader's antenna at point-blank range, and it's not a problem to wait a second for the tag to slowly charge up and send its data.
Theft prevention would require the cooperation of security cameras. The idea is that store shelves would have readers and antennas, so that when someone would remove an item, there's a record of it leaving a shelf. Then, you would be able to go to the videotape and view the thief taking the item as it happens. So you don't see the item leave the store, but you can see it leave the shelf. Shelf-mounted readers can also help floor managers know when certain items are low on stock, and that sort of thing. Again, since the items sit on the shelf for long periods of time, and since we're talking about a short distance, this sort of thing can happen -- but it's going to take some good engineering work to get solid coverage of large shelves without nuking customers.
I believe the benefits of RFID inside the store have been oversold. I think that's the main reason why people are worried about their privacy now; RFID sounds a lot more powerful than it really is. The real applications will be in warehouses; Wal-Mart isn't going to get a lot of benefit from RFID in their stores, but they're going to save billions in the long run by making their supply chain to the stores more efficient.
Perhaps Walmart will use it's bribery tactics and lawyers to get the DMCA overturned.
WalmartWatch
I could try to get all excited about it... but the reality is that it will increase efficiency in retail, distribution, and half a dozen other fields.
With the competitive nature of a market-driven economy, companies will be working like crazy to figure out how to use RFID to cut costs, make customers happier, and hack the legs off the competitors.
Any pervasive technology finds an equilibrium: If you try to take something from your customers without giving them some benefit, you can be certain that the store across the streer will offer a deal just a little more attractive.
If you said to consumers, "let me stick an RF transponder in your car that identifies you and can be used to track your driving habits. And pay me a buck a month for the privilege", you wouldn't get many takers. Add into that "... and you can drive through toll booths without ever slowing down or looking for change again", you get customers lined up, waving credit cards at you left and right.
The EPC tags Wal-Mart is using can only be read for about 20 feet, not half a mile. The only tags with longer range are "active tags", with batteries, and they're quite expensive (around $20, compared to $1 for the tags Wal-Mart is using).
It's possible range will increase somewhat, but probably not much. The tags have very limited energy available to broadcast their response, and in order to collect enough RF energy to send it more than a few yards, they would have to be very very big tags.
My Web Page
Not true actually; what you're describing is direct democracy. Representative democracy, which is what we have in the state of California, is a system by which we entrust individuals to determine what is in the best interest of the state. Of course, things don't work like this in reality; groups co-opt the process to advance their own agendas.
Another problem with your argument is your suggestion that corporations make these horrible decisions in secret. In reality there are probably more decisions that are publicly available from corporations than from government. Indeed, look back at the human medical trials sponsored by the U.S. Government conducted during the cold war; needless to say they didn't solicit public comment nor even the opinions of the 'subjects'. Is this an example of a looney short lived action that is tolerable? And as I type somehow you know the evil secrets of WalMart.... go fig. That's not to say that corporations can't cause harm, but largely they don't.
Further I submit to you that there is no such thing as corporate greed. There isn't a corporation on earth that can act without the involvement of people and it is the greed of people that you speak. Greed and the lust for power (the two are close cousins) are part of human nature. To suggest that government officials aren't motivated by the same driving forces that drive corporate executives is silly. The only difference is the means by which the people in a corporation and the people that run government pursue their greed. The free market is in fact a more democratic system than any representative democracy that I can think of because a business must obtain the approval of a majority of its intended constituents whereas a government official is easily bought by well place campaign contributions (or worse)from groups that are small when compared to the census count.
Finally, you looney short lived laws directly and negatively impact real people that aren't part of either corporate and government power structures. As you hinder business, especially on a state level, you make it so these greedy companies can't make as much money and hire as many people. A recent study here in California demonstrated that a number of companies have policies that explicity prohibit expansion in California or are actively relocating from California to other states where the regulatory environment is less draconian. This means peoplpe from the management structure down to the junior janitor are shit out of luck.
Give me corporate greed anyday.
Mostly good information, but you're wrong about range. I've got a Matrics and Alien EPC RFID reader on my desk at work, and the range I've measured is 9-12 feet. The advertised range is 15-20 feet. Alien and Matrics are the two big players, and both advertise about this range. You can see a comparison grid for popular readers on buyrfid.com.
My Web Page
You managed to get 9-12 feet out of the Alien? What antenna are you using?
We have gotten 9-12 feet out of Matrics, with their 4" tags.
My Web Page
Matrics is using the same radio waves, but the class 0 tag protocol is much more reliable than the class 1 -- it has less overhead, and is able to retry bad tag data at the bit level, so it makes sense that Matrics would work well. I haven't had the chance to play with one yet -- we just have a lone ThingMagic and a few Aliens.
:)
We haven't done any formal distance testing (because for what we're doing, we don't care). We were able to get the Alien to read at about 2-3 feet as well, but I had to hold them there a few seconds, and it certainly wasn't reliable enough to be useful for surveying tags people walking past the antenna might have in their clothes.
We are using SmartCode due to their better overall performance, but I know they are hard to find as they are working with a select number of customers.
In any case, I don't believe RFID should be flamed. Any technology can be used for good or bad. The benefits are huge if you really thinking about the savings not having to read each item by hand.
P.S.
Since you can track "time of the month" without any database at all, you can pretty much also figure out which women are on the pill. If they ARE on the pill it will work out to exactly 28 days like clockwork. If they aren't on the pill it probably won't be exactly 28 days, and even they do average 28 days there would still be some random fluctuation.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I think you need to be introduced to the fine folks at http://www.rtmark.com , who will be happy to put you in touch with people willing to fund your strides towards 'Corporate terrorism'.
Best of luck!