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.'"

Comments

You know they're scared when...

[RobertB-DC]

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?

Re:You know they're scared when...

[Safety Cap]

Wal-Mart is a corporate entity. IBM is a corporate entity. They aren't human in the first place ~.

They may not be humans, but they are legal Persons, with many of the same rights (and more, in some cases) than we meat-people.

Re:You know they're scared when...

[v0r]

I think you should take a look at a documentary called "The Corporation" that is currently being played at various theatres across Canada and the US. It addresses the fact that Corporations are legally viewed as a person and examines just what kind of person that entity is. It's not pretty. I think it's dangerous to view a corporation as a person since there aren't any specific people held accountable when it does something wrong. You can't put a corporation in jail or rehabilitate it, etc.

You can find out more information about the documentary at http://thecorporation.tv

Re:You know they're scared when...

[rah1420]

It is unclear to me how unique the ID's are, and if they could be used this way.

I'm doing some work with RFID now in a school project. We have a scanner and a bunch of sample tags. They are serialized at the factory and there is free form memory that can be written to. The sample app that comes with the tags is supposed to allow you to read the serial number of the tag and read and write to the memory of the tag to store strings. (In point of fact only the Windows based app works; the Java app that is running under X throws an exception when you try and write data to to the tag. But that's more the quality of the manufacturers' programmers than it is the reliability of the hardware, and is of no moment to this discussion.)

My employer is one of those mentioned in TFA and I have a peripheral interest in this, and my department is somewhat involved. The EPC number -- the Electronic Product Code -- is probably what's most likely going to be stored. My guess is that this will be the electronic version of the GTIN, for whatever level the GTIN is identified -- consumer unit, inner pack, case, pallet, whatever. Each GTIN will be either part of or encompass the EPC burned on the tag.

Bottom line? You'd have to have an EPC and/or GTIN cross reference to derive useful intelligence if you were to mine these tags for data.

But that's just my guess.

Isn't anyone concerned about this quote?

[Shivetya]

"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.

Re:Isn't anyone concerned about this quote?

[Jim_Maryland]

The tags do not tell the store WHO you are.

Actually at some point they can. Once you go to the checkout, you'll likely be identifiable via non-cash payment (debit/credit card, check, or a customer discount card). Putting together the clues from the items you have and the items you actually stopped to check out may be possible, depending on the item you initially pick up (if you check out items before one you actually purchase, they likely won't be able to detect these).

They can't see you walk out

Actually they can. The article about IBM discussed ID bracelets that could track people to make sure they didn't leave the property (for safety of course, but still a form of tracking).

The RFID technology will present some privacy concerns that shoppers should at least be aware of. I'm not saying that the technology is necessarily bad, but as consumers, we should at least have an idea of what's going on.

Re:Isn't anyone concerned about this quote?

[NineNine]

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.

First off, 8% of all retail is fucking huge. Many times bigger than any competitor. Remember that retail includes selling any kinds of goods, whatsoever.

Secondly, they ARE a monopoly in many parts of the country for general merchandise, and are quickly taking over grocery stores too. Just because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled as such, doesn't mean that they're not a monopoly.

Thirdly, last I checked, Wal-Mart accounted for 2.5% of the GNP of the US. If that's not big, I don't know what is.

I don't know what you were getting at, but "only" and "8% of the retail market" shouldn't be used in the same sentence, because it's ridiculous.

Re:RFID tags

[Adriax]

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.

History repeats itself

[Hecubas]

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.

Re:History repeats itself

[Uninvited Guest]

UPC's couldn't be read without an optical scanner; ie, you know when a UPC in your possession is being scanned. With RFID's, all you have to do is walk close enough to any scanner for it to pick up the ID.

I want some way to burn out RFID's after I buy something. If Wal-Mart won't supply it, I'll have to buy one.

Burn-out device

[Kaa]

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...)

Tempest in a teapot!

[YankeeInExile]

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)

Developer tools for RFID?

[Tikaro]

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?

Follow Existing Practice!

[VernonNemitz]

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!

California doing something right? A real laugh.

[steve buttgereit]

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.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[grrliegeek]

I see absolutely no problems here. If you're worried about your privacy, remove/disable the rfid tags onec you've purchased the products.

I'm so glad you found the answers to two questions that I've seen go unanswered for so long in this debate.

1 - Just remove the tag - this has been made difficult in the past due to the fact that it is the size of a spec of dust. So, obviously you have better eyesight than me if you can find the "electronic" spec of dust on your shirt, in lipstick a la Gilette at Wal-Mart), or condom wrapper. Or, you've come up with a device that can see and remove these? Great! Where do I get one?

2 - Just disable the silly thing - Of course, you genius, you came up with a way to do that ahead of everyone else. Have you published your method anywhere? There are many concerned citizens that would be grateful for this information.

Seriously - get the facts before spouting off such too-easy-sounding-to-be-true advice. Oh wait, this is Slashdot...

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

But we like low prices. We want RFID tags to defer theft and immigrants are a whole lot cheaper than Union Bob.

Illegal on doorways in US

[dnoyeb]

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.

Re:RFID tags are the least of my worries

[stanmann]

Why would I change my own oil??

Changing my own oil
4 qts oil $1.29 each =~5.20
oil filter $3
Oil disposal fee(where applicable) $1.50
1 hour of my time ... PRICELESS

Walmart/autozone/whoever
Oil change $10 With coupon
10 minutes of my time
complete systems check belts hoses etc


You make the call... for most of us the choice is clear.