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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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?
So Walmart is using RFID tags to track their merchandice.
Maybe they should use greencards to track their illegally hired under paid immigrant employees.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.