I agree that the cost is small. However, these tags are a commodity, small costs are the name of the game. Very small costs multiplied enough times become significant cost factors. That said, we've all witnessed the unbelievable explosion in storage capacity over the past decade. I'll agree it's a guessing game to know how much data will be kept of these tags.
I'm intrigued by the discussion surround RFID and retail. Most of the discussions I've seen surround concerns about retailers gathering too much information about their customers' buying habits. The other major concern commonly noted deals with third party tracking of the rfid device once it leaves the store. However, neither of these seem like valid concerns to me.
The ability to track a customer's buying habits, most retailers have that ability now. Bar codes uniquely identify a product. Unless you pay with cash (or a gift card at some retailers), the retailer has access to your name and some corresponding number (checking account or credit/debit card number). Those can easily be stored, RFID is not needed to accomplish this type of information gathering. In fact, many retailers use loyalty programs so that they can track cash and gift card purchases as well as credit/check. All of this begs the question: Is this a bad thing? If more information about your buying habits brings you lower prices, are you willing for your retailer to have that information?
As for tracking the RFID signals once they leave the store, I do not expect this to be a valid concern for long. For a retailer to use rfid on its products for anything other than loss prevention, it needs to be on every product. That means small and cheap, which in turn will drive the manufactures to make them with as low of a signal and as little storage capacity as possible to meet the retailer's needs. And, much like the security tags today, it is a simple thing to disable the tag once it has been scanned/read at the Point of Sale. This would even be preferable, therefore making it easy to scan for tags that are still active trying to make it out of the store (ie, shoplifted items).
All this is not to say there are no privacy concerns here. However, I think too much attention is placed on the retail use of RFID and not enough the other potential uses. Can anyone imagine DL's with embedded RFID? How about the RFID tag in my employee badge? These are the areas that I see real potential for abuse. At a retail store, if you don't want to be tracked, just pay with cash and don't use loyalty. You're data falls into the "other" bucket. If you don't mind being tracked, use your credit card, get your airline miles, your loyalty discount, and save a bucks.
A big part of why you're seeing articles about Novell/IBM now relates to the new Linux for POS offering from IBM/Suse (article here and IBM website here).
IBM and Suse, as it's been noted repeatedly, have been partners for some time. SUSE has a much deeper market penetration in Europe than Red Hat, something we don't notice here in the states as easily.
Keep in mind IBM is not a distributor of linux, just a proponent.
Keep in mind the probable reason behind this move. Wal-Mart is not looking to make money on these songs. That's why they can offer them for $.88 instead of $.99. They're looking to drive website hits, which in turn drives web revenue through other products.
There are on-going battles with Wal-Mart and the major credit card brands (old article here). They recently stopped allowing customers who use a MasterCard branded debit card to use the card as a credit card (ie, sign the receipt instead of enter a PIN). This fight is much bigger than anything to do with the on-line music sales, in my humble opinion.
Don't expect Wal-Mart to try and take over the on-line music industry. It doesn't fit their model very well. As others have said, the real challenge for Apple will come when the likes of Amazon.com or others with true on-line business models enter the fray. For the store based retailer, it's simply a good way of driving additional customers to the website, where traffic translates into sales.
I think you miss the point. The article clearly states that it is believed that very few people in the country have internet access, or event computers for that matter. And you seem to attribute the inteligence of a goose to the North Korean population. Do you really believe that anyone in North Korea really will believe that a government service is not monitored by the government? I sincerly hope not. Though, if you do, then perhaps you'd be interested in some property I have for sale in Arizona. It has this great ocean view...
I didn't read anything in the article that made me think this "service" was for the citizens of North Korea, as many seem to be inclined. If you are a communist state and want to provide a safehouse of sorts for those of a like mind, would a secure e-mail system not be beneficial for those people? I suspect that this will be more of a government tool than a service provided for the people of North Korea.
No, really, they don't have a database of DL #'s. At least not one specifically for that and certainly not anything used for address data mining. It could be stored with the transaction data, I'm not sure about that. Not naivity, I actually know this. They don't read the mag strip for the reason I specified -- No way to get the same data across different states.
They don't use the machines you mention to verify age from DL's for the same reason. The same machine may not work in all states, and then you have another piece of equipment to maintain on every front end register. Besides, those things are expensive and it would slow down the transaction process.
And by "law", I meant "rules". Just a figure of speech...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, they do not care about your driver's license number.
What makes you think that one wage employee behaving differently from another must be a corporate wide conspiracy to track you via your DL #? (To even do so would be a huge pain, because in the states' infinite wisdom, the magnetic stripe on the back doesn't keep all the same data, much less all of it in the same format or place, between states.)
You simply met one lazy individual who didn't care whether or not they got fired for selling liquor to someone underage and another anal individual who followed the letter of the law, even if that was not necessarily the intent of the law.
I forget where the saying comes from, but there's one that essentially goes, "When you remove all of the false assumptions, the simplest solution is the most likely solution". Now which is simpler, a couple of unrelated (and low paid) employees acting in contradictory fashion, or a conspiracy throughout the largest retail store in the world to force you to hand over your identity through scrupulous means?
Besides....If you've ever used credit/debit/check, it's much easier to track you down that way...
For those of you who are truly intrigued by space, time, and the effects it will have on humanity, I highly recommend this book . Hawking is an excellent writer and reknowned scientist, a rare combination, and goes into detail in his book, "The Universe in a Nutshell". I just finished the cd-rom version and enjoyed it very much.
First off, thank you for acknowledging that I wasn't aiming to inflame or incite with this post. I was surprised by that moderation.
You raise some interesting points. Let me address them one at a time, as I see things. Purely opinion, and totally subjective...
But I believe that the idea has been abused by organizations like the RIAA and MPAA far beyond meaningful process...
I could not agree with this statement more. Copyright law should not have grown to where it is today. While there are some benefits for the national economy in general for companies to hold these patents for an extended period, the period has been extended too far and I don't believe the groups fighting on the side of the consumer have enough clout to swing the pendelum back where it came from.
If I thought that IP laws were anything other than a farcical set of laws purchased by these companies for their own express benefit, and if I though that there was anything that the everyman could do in the face of the big money that drove creation of these laws, then I might be more respectful of them...
This statement, however, I must disagree with on a philosophical stance. Mainly I have a problem with the "If I thought" portion and how it sets up the rest of the statement. If each of us is allowed to respect or not respect the law, given our understanding and our belief system, then the law is worthless. What then, of people whose belief system is not the same as yours or mine? There are belief systems that would think little of the loss of property, others of the loss of life even. This is why I feel that we cannot guage the value of a law based upon our own belief systems.
...there are many people who will share files with impunity who would never consider going to a record store and shoplifting the CD to be acceptable. This indicates a tendency to think there's some moral difference here. State that there isn't just because the law says there isn't, and you fall into the same trap that the RIAA/MPAA have.
I think you have to be careful here. And I may be misunderstanding you, so take this as you will. To declare a law in question because a group doesn't agree with it is dangerous (A large or small group is hard to define here. In terms of % of world population, illegal P2P'ers are a tiny group, growing steadily as you decrease the size of the pool). Moral differences have been used to justify some pretty nasty things in the past, from the Christian Crusades to racism to numerous genocides, and plenty of things between. This is not to say that moral differences with the law should be ignored, it is the same moral differences that drove Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, etc. You just must be careful with what you are justifying.
One more point on that last statement. I think you must have misunderstood me a bit. I don't consider downloading to be the same crime as shoplifting, just that taking copyrighted material without paying for it, when payment is required, is illegal. My opinion on why this should be illegal, and the constraints upon it, are a different matter altogether.
The article clearly states that AOL made just such a tool available, but that it was not utilized by AOL users, particularly those that were complaining about the pop-ups.
It's an interesting tactic on AOL's part, and an interesting business ethics question. They are obviously performing a needed service for the majority of their users. However, that same service (unless something in the EULA allows it) is illegal. And they are most likely disrupting some of their customers.
So what is the balance here? Do you bend the rules to help your average client? In this case, I believe this is a good thing, but the potential for misuse is obviuos.
I'm continuously surprised at the lack of respect for IP laws on/. No matter how you justify it, taking copyrighted material without paying for it is not legal. Nor should it be legal.
Does that that mean that I agree with the MPAA's or the RIAA's methods of enforcing their business model? No, of course not. I don't even agree with their business model, much less the tactics they have employed in the past year. That does not, however, entitle me to take their product without compensating them for it. I, like every other consumer in a free market, have the choice to support or not support almost any given public business. I choose not to buy music or (many) DVD's (I gotta have my LoTR and Star Wars). Instead, I support the book publishers and local radio stations. This is how a free market works. If you don't like the method in which a product is offered, and enough people agree with you, then an alternate method will evolve. ITunes is a perfect example.
Would OSDN be very happy about a mirror site to slashdot that offered the same material minus the adds that are funding its existence? What about the local movie theatre if people were sneaking into the theatre? There would be no physical property loss, and those who "bypassed" the ticket booth may have never seen the film if they couldn't do so for free, but it is still illegal!
As much as the free software initiative and independent developers are supported here for the ethical stance taken, I would hope that those who dwell here will also see the direct correlation to ethics in all other areas of business, including IP and P2P issues.
The only piece of this that really surprises me is that the kid was able to sell enough books to make up for the overhead of shipping. One would expect some guy selling books to be cheaper than the on-campus store. No rent, not utilities, and no customer service. What happens when, say, someone who bought from this kid finds that half of chapter 6 is missing? He's out of luck. Theoretically, at a book store (I know, I know, university books stores are reknowned for "you bought it, you deal with it" attitudes), you could return it for a whole book.
This kid has become an active participant of our free market economy. Identify a product people want or need (the book), identify a way to cut the cost to that customer (resale and no guarantee), and do business where the customer already is (outside the class where the book is needed).
Yes, I saw those lines in the paper as well. However, they are no more strict than current IP laws. Because a penalty is provided does not imply that the most sever form of that penalty is used for the most benign offender. In the same manner that a shoplifter will not incur the same penalty as a jewel thief, one would expect a downloader to receive a lighter penalty than a theif caught in corporate espionage. Yet, in both cases, the crime is the same basic crime.
The heading of this particular piece of the outline is a bit misleading. The story summary is also misleading -- this whitepaper is a very biased view of the treaty, not at all what I'm used to when reading a "whitepaper", which is usually from the developers of whatever the paper describes.
The actual articles, from the text summary in the whitepaper, state that the concern for P2P filesharers is that they may now be in violation of the artist's new right of communication if they are already in violation of the distribution and reproduction rights.
I also didn't see anything that made me thing prison terms would be the likely punishment.
This whitepaper is interesting, but I think it was meant to inflame more than to communicate. It's too hard to get to the actual articles and not obvious enough when simple opinion is being offered.
So you're "amazed" that a database company has employees who have access to their database(s)? How excactly is it that Acxiom should do its job while preventing its employees from ever working with the data? Unless the description of the theft is inaccurate, this has nothing to do with hacking and is merely a misuse of priviledges. If the armored car driver steals the contents of the armored car, is it because the car wasn't secure enough?
I was a bit disappointed by the lack of serious consideration for this technology. I grew up working on a farm, and this type of technology raises some different questions for someone of my background.
1. Labor. Currently tens of thousands of wage workers make their living working these machines. If some day, and I mean some day way into the future, the tilling process is truly automated, what will these often low-education workers do instead? Not to say it is a bad thing to improve the efficiency of an industry, just something to be considered.
2. While I'm sure most of you cannot imagine such a life, I contribute much of my success in the collegiate and business worlds to my upbringing in a farm atmosphere. The number of households leading this type of life is growing smaller at a considerable rate (sorry, no stats...). Will this have a lasting impact of small town America?
3. With the advance in the technology used to grow and harvest crops, how will this affect technological advances in the crops themselves. Europe today is especially resistant in some areas to genetically modified crops. The US is more receptive, but still very cautious. I believe this will happen eventually, but not in the near future.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
It will be. Just like the current EAS devices are disabled at the register.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
One more comment and then I am done with this thread...
Ratail RFID will be deactivated at the register, very similar to the current devices. You mention what we call "gator" tags in fabric. These retain their activation for a long time. Don't forget, though, their smaller cousins, that are included in the wrapping of cd's, games, printer ink cartidges, etc. These are deactivated at the register automatically. If it is scanned, it is deactivated (with some exceptions, but there will be some new products soon that improve the hit rate significantly). RFID tags will work much the same way. If you scan it, you deactivate it. You rely on the hardware used by the retailer rather than the level of nitwitty-ness of the cashier. And this won't give them any more info on your buying patterns than they could gather now, though it will be easier. Ie, if you pay with cash (let's assume non-tagged, since that at the moment is speculation), they still don't know who you are. If you pay with anything else, they already can track the items and your patterns. Some do, such as those who have loyalty programs. The retailer I work with (I'm a vendor...a slightly different perspective) does not. They want to streamline their supply chain, and this will drive RFID to improve inventory management (ie, items get ordered when the system determines that the number of items on the shelf and those in the back are not sufficient for the next X days and needs to be replinished). Much more efficient than the current method, which relies on recorded sales and physical counting (ugh), etc, that can be distorted under various situations.
Hmmmm. Gov't trustworthiness. Perhaps that is best left alone. I can sum up my general belief and approach to such things, in that I believe corporations, businesses, gov't institutions, etc, are on the whole not trustworthy and cannot be relid upon to make the right choice on a given decision. However, individuals ARE on the whole trustworthy and CAN be relied upon, because I believe most people are good people.
Perhaps that IS naieve, but if so, I prefer my naievity.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
You're still assuming, though, that Wal-Mart is going to provide that data to anyone. They won't. They'll in fact disable the tags as they walk out the door. Wanna bet??? (=
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
Ok, in a more serious post...You're points are all well taken, and yes, I was attempting (and probably failing) a bit of humor in my previous post. The articles ref'd were last second additions...Not meant to withstand rebuttle ( =
So, for some real opinions, here is why I like RFID tags and why they do not concern me from a security standpoint...
The article that kicked off this whole discussion discusses a relatively small subset of RFID products, namely those used is Supply Chain and Retail. Working in Retail myself, I am quite certain that those pushing RFID are first and foremost concerned about Supply Chain applications of this technology, which translates into savings for me, John Doe consumer. I like savings.
Let me now address a concern I see voiced often but I believe is unfounded. The concern is that certain retailers (I read one today ref'ing Wal-Mart) will gather customer data and sell that data, such as companies like Tivo have been accused (do they actually? I don't use the device, and haven't follow up) of doing. I can assure you that the major retailers will do no such thing. Information is gold to these companies, and selling information that would help their competitors market to their own customers would be a serious blunder.
And so back to some type of point. I think this discussion was in some fassion directed towards surveillance. So, here are my thoughts:
RFID tags are cheap. They will become a simple commodity, with simple price and support determining where companies or even individuals choose to buy. Readers on the other hand, will not be cheap. Even now simple bar code readers are very expensive, considering the technology used. And a reader needs power. So, from a surveillance perspective, the reader would be very expensive, because it would have to be self-powered (can't be running extension cords to those hidden readers), small enough to hide in the type of places that current surveillance devices are used, and much more powerful than the average reader.
Don't misunderstand me, everything you suggest is entirely possible. However, it is also already possible (short of the $$ tracking) with current, cheaper technology. Audio recorders and miniature cameras can transmit real-time data much more informative than simple id numbers. I don't see RFID tags improving on this type of surveillance. Perhaps this is where I am mistaken, but I assure you it is a technical mistake, not one of naievity. And for longer range surveillance, directional audio and satellite surveilance will suffice nicely. The right entity can very quickly match a voice to an ID (social security, foreign passport, what have you) very quickly.
The money question is a bit more interesting. I think my thoughts fall back to my belief that the types of uses you suggest just won't come to pass. While yes, the gov't can pass what laws they will, we the citizens do still possess the right to elect said gov't. And as for the nitwit judge, and the drug scandal you describe, that just doesn't concern me. The lawsuits that would come out of that type of scenario would quickly discourage further 'incidents'.
So, perhaps you are right, and I am simply too trusting. Perhaps I am right, and you are simply too distrusting. More probable is that it is somewhere in the middle (isn't it always?). But for what I can tell of this technology, it is evolving into something that will make economies much more efficient. Efficiency means lower costs, and that means I have to work less to save enough for my retirement and for my kids education. To me, that's worth the risk that may be inherent in any new communications technology, including this one.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
Ok, if you want to go into the consipiracy theory bit, then here we go...
The FBI wouldn't use RFID because it's already deprecated technology. They would instead send in their Microsoft (ie, root of all evil) developed spy roaches equiped with the newest micro camera/audio recorder. These would communicate directly to the agents outside wearing their new invisibility cloaks watching the whole event (the roaches are just for hard evidence) with their X-ray glasses (the real ones, not those clunky things used in the airport).
And all this because a group of dissenters wants to cook up wild stories about black helicopters.
What do you think?
Seriously, RFID as surveillance sucks. You still have to be within feet of the device. And anyone will be able to buy equipment to look for devices searching for a signal. Just not very practical for subterfuge. The gov't has much nicer toys.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
You're still assuming that whoever placed the tag in the jeans, bolt of white cloth, etc, communicates their data with the monitor, in this scenario the gov't. That just won't happen. Big Bro will not walk (ftp, whatever) into w*m and dowload data on which tags have entered/exited the store. It's not going to happen.
And yes, disabling at the store will happen. It's already been specified.
Re:Interesting technology
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 0
I'm sorry, but I just have to refute this comment. It makes no sense whatsoever. I ranted a bit, but all these crazy posts about "hailstorms of invisible communication" drive me crazy.
First, as for the comment about complaining about the moron-in-chief, or any authority figure for that matter--It's an RFID tag, not a digital voice recorder. This is so far off base as to make the whole comment a troll.
Second, as for the concern about visiting places of dissenting views, how is it you think the gov't, or anyone else, is going to track you there unless the place of dissent 1.)installs readers, 2.)tracks by some identifying characteristic, and the least plausible 3.)provides that information to the gov't themselves? I mean seriously, these tags have an activation range of a few feet AT MOST. How is Big Brother going to watch you walking into you're local 2600 meeting at someone's house unless they install a reader and report you?
Third, the author of the original article uses the same red herring argument. Assuming our tires are marked with RFID tags, as well as our jeans and our money. Are the states going to place rfid readers (not tags mind you, readers that require power) in the streets of our cities and interstates connecting our nation? And do so such that every 4 square foot is covered, just to know you drove down to the EZ Mart to grab a Slushie? And each company who uses tags and readers is going to make all their data available to all the other companies so that everyone knows what everyone is buying and where they bought it, right? Of course not! W*M no more wants Target to know their customer's buying patterns than you want Big Bro to know yours. It's called corporate security, and they won't go for that. Look for RFID tags that only respond to certain signals such that only the retailer that sold the item can power the device and require a response. It makes much more sense and will be demanded by the security-minded retailers (like W*M).
And lastly for RFID tags in money--Who really cares? How does that do anything to your private security? Keep in mind people, these things are writable devices. They may become that way at some point, but what we're talking about now are simple transponders that get a request and reply with data BURNED INTO THEM. They don't keep a record of "joe recieved me in change at w*m, spent me at ez mart, gave me to mark, mark spent me at...". That's now what they are for. They simply say "I'm here. I'm device number XXXXXXXX. I've been alive for yyyy days."
And for any functionality, you need to be within feet. No satellites. No monitors on the side of the road. No central database in the country seat tracking all these tags all over the place. Just companies streamlining the supply chains and guarding their data like the pot of gold it is, from everyone else, including Big Bro, the competitor down the street, and you and me.
You assume. And they may have, which would be why the product will never make it to market. What politics has to do with this I have no idea. You're rural=republican statement is false, which I can testify to by being born in a county with only 3 towns (only 1 of which is large enough for a stoplight!) and less republicans (not actually, but its funny). They don't have DSL, Cable, or ground based wireless because there's no money in it! And you think some company is going to profit from floating a multi-million dollar wireless network that is impossible to support over sparsely populated rural areas consisting of people who, for the most part, don't even own computers? They'd fall flat within the a week of the announcement...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the cost is small. However, these tags are a commodity, small costs are the name of the game. Very small costs multiplied enough times become significant cost factors. That said, we've all witnessed the unbelievable explosion in storage capacity over the past decade. I'll agree it's a guessing game to know how much data will be kept of these tags.
I'm intrigued by the discussion surround RFID and retail. Most of the discussions I've seen surround concerns about retailers gathering too much information about their customers' buying habits. The other major concern commonly noted deals with third party tracking of the rfid device once it leaves the store. However, neither of these seem like valid concerns to me.
The ability to track a customer's buying habits, most retailers have that ability now. Bar codes uniquely identify a product. Unless you pay with cash (or a gift card at some retailers), the retailer has access to your name and some corresponding number (checking account or credit/debit card number). Those can easily be stored, RFID is not needed to accomplish this type of information gathering. In fact, many retailers use loyalty programs so that they can track cash and gift card purchases as well as credit/check. All of this begs the question: Is this a bad thing? If more information about your buying habits brings you lower prices, are you willing for your retailer to have that information?
As for tracking the RFID signals once they leave the store, I do not expect this to be a valid concern for long. For a retailer to use rfid on its products for anything other than loss prevention, it needs to be on every product. That means small and cheap, which in turn will drive the manufactures to make them with as low of a signal and as little storage capacity as possible to meet the retailer's needs. And, much like the security tags today, it is a simple thing to disable the tag once it has been scanned/read at the Point of Sale. This would even be preferable, therefore making it easy to scan for tags that are still active trying to make it out of the store (ie, shoplifted items).
All this is not to say there are no privacy concerns here. However, I think too much attention is placed on the retail use of RFID and not enough the other potential uses. Can anyone imagine DL's with embedded RFID? How about the RFID tag in my employee badge? These are the areas that I see real potential for abuse. At a retail store, if you don't want to be tracked, just pay with cash and don't use loyalty. You're data falls into the "other" bucket. If you don't mind being tracked, use your credit card, get your airline miles, your loyalty discount, and save a bucks.
A big part of why you're seeing articles about Novell/IBM now relates to the new Linux for POS offering from IBM/Suse (article here and IBM website here).
IBM and Suse, as it's been noted repeatedly, have been partners for some time. SUSE has a much deeper market penetration in Europe than Red Hat, something we don't notice here in the states as easily.
Keep in mind IBM is not a distributor of linux, just a proponent.
Keep in mind the probable reason behind this move. Wal-Mart is not looking to make money on these songs. That's why they can offer them for $.88 instead of $.99. They're looking to drive website hits, which in turn drives web revenue through other products.
There are on-going battles with Wal-Mart and the major credit card brands (old article here). They recently stopped allowing customers who use a MasterCard branded debit card to use the card as a credit card (ie, sign the receipt instead of enter a PIN). This fight is much bigger than anything to do with the on-line music sales, in my humble opinion.
Don't expect Wal-Mart to try and take over the on-line music industry. It doesn't fit their model very well. As others have said, the real challenge for Apple will come when the likes of Amazon.com or others with true on-line business models enter the fray. For the store based retailer, it's simply a good way of driving additional customers to the website, where traffic translates into sales.
I think you miss the point. The article clearly states that it is believed that very few people in the country have internet access, or event computers for that matter. And you seem to attribute the inteligence of a goose to the North Korean population. Do you really believe that anyone in North Korea really will believe that a government service is not monitored by the government? I sincerly hope not. Though, if you do, then perhaps you'd be interested in some property I have for sale in Arizona. It has this great ocean view...
I didn't read anything in the article that made me think this "service" was for the citizens of North Korea, as many seem to be inclined. If you are a communist state and want to provide a safehouse of sorts for those of a like mind, would a secure e-mail system not be beneficial for those people? I suspect that this will be more of a government tool than a service provided for the people of North Korea.
No, really, they don't have a database of DL #'s. At least not one specifically for that and certainly not anything used for address data mining. It could be stored with the transaction data, I'm not sure about that. Not naivity, I actually know this. They don't read the mag strip for the reason I specified -- No way to get the same data across different states.
They don't use the machines you mention to verify age from DL's for the same reason. The same machine may not work in all states, and then you have another piece of equipment to maintain on every front end register. Besides, those things are expensive and it would slow down the transaction process.
And by "law", I meant "rules". Just a figure of speech...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, they do not care about your driver's license number.
What makes you think that one wage employee behaving differently from another must be a corporate wide conspiracy to track you via your DL #? (To even do so would be a huge pain, because in the states' infinite wisdom, the magnetic stripe on the back doesn't keep all the same data, much less all of it in the same format or place, between states.)
You simply met one lazy individual who didn't care whether or not they got fired for selling liquor to someone underage and another anal individual who followed the letter of the law, even if that was not necessarily the intent of the law.
I forget where the saying comes from, but there's one that essentially goes, "When you remove all of the false assumptions, the simplest solution is the most likely solution". Now which is simpler, a couple of unrelated (and low paid) employees acting in contradictory fashion, or a conspiracy throughout the largest retail store in the world to force you to hand over your identity through scrupulous means?
Besides....If you've ever used credit/debit/check, it's much easier to track you down that way...
For those of you who are truly intrigued by space, time, and the effects it will have on humanity, I highly recommend this book . Hawking is an excellent writer and reknowned scientist, a rare combination, and goes into detail in his book, "The Universe in a Nutshell". I just finished the cd-rom version and enjoyed it very much.
First off, thank you for acknowledging that I wasn't aiming to inflame or incite with this post. I was surprised by that moderation.
...there are many people who will share files with impunity who would never consider going to a record store and shoplifting the CD to be acceptable. This indicates a tendency to think there's some moral difference here. State that there isn't just because the law says there isn't, and you fall into the same trap that the RIAA/MPAA have.
You raise some interesting points. Let me address them one at a time, as I see things. Purely opinion, and totally subjective...
But I believe that the idea has been abused by organizations like the RIAA and MPAA far beyond meaningful process...
I could not agree with this statement more. Copyright law should not have grown to where it is today. While there are some benefits for the national economy in general for companies to hold these patents for an extended period, the period has been extended too far and I don't believe the groups fighting on the side of the consumer have enough clout to swing the pendelum back where it came from.
If I thought that IP laws were anything other than a farcical set of laws purchased by these companies for their own express benefit, and if I though that there was anything that the everyman could do in the face of the big money that drove creation of these laws, then I might be more respectful of them...
This statement, however, I must disagree with on a philosophical stance. Mainly I have a problem with the "If I thought" portion and how it sets up the rest of the statement. If each of us is allowed to respect or not respect the law, given our understanding and our belief system, then the law is worthless. What then, of people whose belief system is not the same as yours or mine? There are belief systems that would think little of the loss of property, others of the loss of life even. This is why I feel that we cannot guage the value of a law based upon our own belief systems.
I think you have to be careful here. And I may be misunderstanding you, so take this as you will. To declare a law in question because a group doesn't agree with it is dangerous (A large or small group is hard to define here. In terms of % of world population, illegal P2P'ers are a tiny group, growing steadily as you decrease the size of the pool). Moral differences have been used to justify some pretty nasty things in the past, from the Christian Crusades to racism to numerous genocides, and plenty of things between. This is not to say that moral differences with the law should be ignored, it is the same moral differences that drove Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, etc. You just must be careful with what you are justifying.
One more point on that last statement. I think you must have misunderstood me a bit. I don't consider downloading to be the same crime as shoplifting, just that taking copyrighted material without paying for it, when payment is required, is illegal. My opinion on why this should be illegal, and the constraints upon it, are a different matter altogether.
The article clearly states that AOL made just such a tool available, but that it was not utilized by AOL users, particularly those that were complaining about the pop-ups.
It's an interesting tactic on AOL's part, and an interesting business ethics question. They are obviously performing a needed service for the majority of their users. However, that same service (unless something in the EULA allows it) is illegal. And they are most likely disrupting some of their customers.
So what is the balance here? Do you bend the rules to help your average client? In this case, I believe this is a good thing, but the potential for misuse is obviuos.
I'm continuously surprised at the lack of respect for IP laws on /. No matter how you justify it, taking copyrighted material without paying for it is not legal. Nor should it be legal.
Does that that mean that I agree with the MPAA's or the RIAA's methods of enforcing their business model? No, of course not. I don't even agree with their business model, much less the tactics they have employed in the past year. That does not, however, entitle me to take their product without compensating them for it. I, like every other consumer in a free market, have the choice to support or not support almost any given public business. I choose not to buy music or (many) DVD's (I gotta have my LoTR and Star Wars). Instead, I support the book publishers and local radio stations. This is how a free market works. If you don't like the method in which a product is offered, and enough people agree with you, then an alternate method will evolve. ITunes is a perfect example.
Would OSDN be very happy about a mirror site to slashdot that offered the same material minus the adds that are funding its existence? What about the local movie theatre if people were sneaking into the theatre? There would be no physical property loss, and those who "bypassed" the ticket booth may have never seen the film if they couldn't do so for free, but it is still illegal!
As much as the free software initiative and independent developers are supported here for the ethical stance taken, I would hope that those who dwell here will also see the direct correlation to ethics in all other areas of business, including IP and P2P issues.
The only piece of this that really surprises me is that the kid was able to sell enough books to make up for the overhead of shipping. One would expect some guy selling books to be cheaper than the on-campus store. No rent, not utilities, and no customer service. What happens when, say, someone who bought from this kid finds that half of chapter 6 is missing? He's out of luck. Theoretically, at a book store (I know, I know, university books stores are reknowned for "you bought it, you deal with it" attitudes), you could return it for a whole book.
This kid has become an active participant of our free market economy. Identify a product people want or need (the book), identify a way to cut the cost to that customer (resale and no guarantee), and do business where the customer already is (outside the class where the book is needed).
Yes, I saw those lines in the paper as well. However, they are no more strict than current IP laws. Because a penalty is provided does not imply that the most sever form of that penalty is used for the most benign offender. In the same manner that a shoplifter will not incur the same penalty as a jewel thief, one would expect a downloader to receive a lighter penalty than a theif caught in corporate espionage. Yet, in both cases, the crime is the same basic crime.
The heading of this particular piece of the outline is a bit misleading. The story summary is also misleading -- this whitepaper is a very biased view of the treaty, not at all what I'm used to when reading a "whitepaper", which is usually from the developers of whatever the paper describes. The actual articles, from the text summary in the whitepaper, state that the concern for P2P filesharers is that they may now be in violation of the artist's new right of communication if they are already in violation of the distribution and reproduction rights. I also didn't see anything that made me thing prison terms would be the likely punishment. This whitepaper is interesting, but I think it was meant to inflame more than to communicate. It's too hard to get to the actual articles and not obvious enough when simple opinion is being offered.
So you're "amazed" that a database company has employees who have access to their database(s)? How excactly is it that Acxiom should do its job while preventing its employees from ever working with the data? Unless the description of the theft is inaccurate, this has nothing to do with hacking and is merely a misuse of priviledges. If the armored car driver steals the contents of the armored car, is it because the car wasn't secure enough?
I was a bit disappointed by the lack of serious consideration for this technology. I grew up working on a farm, and this type of technology raises some different questions for someone of my background.
1. Labor. Currently tens of thousands of wage workers make their living working these machines. If some day, and I mean some day way into the future, the tilling process is truly automated, what will these often low-education workers do instead? Not to say it is a bad thing to improve the efficiency of an industry, just something to be considered.
2. While I'm sure most of you cannot imagine such a life, I contribute much of my success in the collegiate and business worlds to my upbringing in a farm atmosphere. The number of households leading this type of life is growing smaller at a considerable rate (sorry, no stats...). Will this have a lasting impact of small town America?
3. With the advance in the technology used to grow and harvest crops, how will this affect technological advances in the crops themselves. Europe today is especially resistant in some areas to genetically modified crops. The US is more receptive, but still very cautious. I believe this will happen eventually, but not in the near future.
It will be. Just like the current EAS devices are disabled at the register.
One more comment and then I am done with this thread...
Ratail RFID will be deactivated at the register, very similar to the current devices. You mention what we call "gator" tags in fabric. These retain their activation for a long time. Don't forget, though, their smaller cousins, that are included in the wrapping of cd's, games, printer ink cartidges, etc. These are deactivated at the register automatically. If it is scanned, it is deactivated (with some exceptions, but there will be some new products soon that improve the hit rate significantly). RFID tags will work much the same way. If you scan it, you deactivate it. You rely on the hardware used by the retailer rather than the level of nitwitty-ness of the cashier. And this won't give them any more info on your buying patterns than they could gather now, though it will be easier. Ie, if you pay with cash (let's assume non-tagged, since that at the moment is speculation), they still don't know who you are. If you pay with anything else, they already can track the items and your patterns. Some do, such as those who have loyalty programs. The retailer I work with (I'm a vendor...a slightly different perspective) does not. They want to streamline their supply chain, and this will drive RFID to improve inventory management (ie, items get ordered when the system determines that the number of items on the shelf and those in the back are not sufficient for the next X days and needs to be replinished). Much more efficient than the current method, which relies on recorded sales and physical counting (ugh), etc, that can be distorted under various situations.
Hmmmm. Gov't trustworthiness. Perhaps that is best left alone. I can sum up my general belief and approach to such things, in that I believe corporations, businesses, gov't institutions, etc, are on the whole not trustworthy and cannot be relid upon to make the right choice on a given decision. However, individuals ARE on the whole trustworthy and CAN be relied upon, because I believe most people are good people.
Perhaps that IS naieve, but if so, I prefer my naievity.
You're still assuming, though, that Wal-Mart is going to provide that data to anyone. They won't. They'll in fact disable the tags as they walk out the door. Wanna bet??? (=
Ok, in a more serious post...You're points are all well taken, and yes, I was attempting (and probably failing) a bit of humor in my previous post. The articles ref'd were last second additions...Not meant to withstand rebuttle ( =
So, for some real opinions, here is why I like RFID tags and why they do not concern me from a security standpoint...
The article that kicked off this whole discussion discusses a relatively small subset of RFID products, namely those used is Supply Chain and Retail. Working in Retail myself, I am quite certain that those pushing RFID are first and foremost concerned about Supply Chain applications of this technology, which translates into savings for me, John Doe consumer. I like savings.
Let me now address a concern I see voiced often but I believe is unfounded. The concern is that certain retailers (I read one today ref'ing Wal-Mart) will gather customer data and sell that data, such as companies like Tivo have been accused (do they actually? I don't use the device, and haven't follow up) of doing. I can assure you that the major retailers will do no such thing. Information is gold to these companies, and selling information that would help their competitors market to their own customers would be a serious blunder.
And so back to some type of point. I think this discussion was in some fassion directed towards surveillance. So, here are my thoughts: RFID tags are cheap. They will become a simple commodity, with simple price and support determining where companies or even individuals choose to buy. Readers on the other hand, will not be cheap. Even now simple bar code readers are very expensive, considering the technology used. And a reader needs power. So, from a surveillance perspective, the reader would be very expensive, because it would have to be self-powered (can't be running extension cords to those hidden readers), small enough to hide in the type of places that current surveillance devices are used, and much more powerful than the average reader.
Don't misunderstand me, everything you suggest is entirely possible. However, it is also already possible (short of the $$ tracking) with current, cheaper technology. Audio recorders and miniature cameras can transmit real-time data much more informative than simple id numbers. I don't see RFID tags improving on this type of surveillance. Perhaps this is where I am mistaken, but I assure you it is a technical mistake, not one of naievity. And for longer range surveillance, directional audio and satellite surveilance will suffice nicely. The right entity can very quickly match a voice to an ID (social security, foreign passport, what have you) very quickly.
The money question is a bit more interesting. I think my thoughts fall back to my belief that the types of uses you suggest just won't come to pass. While yes, the gov't can pass what laws they will, we the citizens do still possess the right to elect said gov't. And as for the nitwit judge, and the drug scandal you describe, that just doesn't concern me. The lawsuits that would come out of that type of scenario would quickly discourage further 'incidents'.
So, perhaps you are right, and I am simply too trusting. Perhaps I am right, and you are simply too distrusting. More probable is that it is somewhere in the middle (isn't it always?). But for what I can tell of this technology, it is evolving into something that will make economies much more efficient. Efficiency means lower costs, and that means I have to work less to save enough for my retirement and for my kids education. To me, that's worth the risk that may be inherent in any new communications technology, including this one.
Ok, if you want to go into the consipiracy theory bit, then here we go... The FBI wouldn't use RFID because it's already deprecated technology. They would instead send in their Microsoft (ie, root of all evil) developed spy roaches equiped with the newest micro camera/audio recorder. These would communicate directly to the agents outside wearing their new invisibility cloaks watching the whole event (the roaches are just for hard evidence) with their X-ray glasses (the real ones, not those clunky things used in the airport).
And all this because a group of dissenters wants to cook up wild stories about black helicopters. What do you think?
Seriously, RFID as surveillance sucks. You still have to be within feet of the device. And anyone will be able to buy equipment to look for devices searching for a signal. Just not very practical for subterfuge. The gov't has much nicer toys.
You're still assuming that whoever placed the tag in the jeans, bolt of white cloth, etc, communicates their data with the monitor, in this scenario the gov't. That just won't happen. Big Bro will not walk (ftp, whatever) into w*m and dowload data on which tags have entered/exited the store. It's not going to happen.
And yes, disabling at the store will happen. It's already been specified.
I'm sorry, but I just have to refute this comment. It makes no sense whatsoever. I ranted a bit, but all these crazy posts about "hailstorms of invisible communication" drive me crazy.
First, as for the comment about complaining about the moron-in-chief,
or any authority figure for that matter--It's an RFID tag, not a digital
voice recorder. This is so far off base as to make the whole comment a troll.
Second, as for the concern about visiting places of dissenting views, how is
it you think the gov't, or anyone else, is going to track you there unless
the place of dissent 1.)installs readers, 2.)tracks by some identifying
characteristic, and the least plausible 3.)provides that information to the gov't
themselves? I mean seriously, these tags have an activation range of a few feet
AT MOST. How is Big Brother going to watch you walking into you're local 2600
meeting at someone's house unless they install a reader and report you?
Third, the author of the original article uses the same red herring argument.
Assuming our tires are marked with RFID tags, as well as our jeans and our money.
Are the states going to place rfid readers (not tags mind you, readers that require
power) in the streets of our cities and interstates connecting our nation? And
do so such that every 4 square foot is covered, just to know you drove down to the
EZ Mart to grab a Slushie? And each company who uses tags and readers is going
to make all their data available to all the other companies so that everyone knows
what everyone is buying and where they bought it, right? Of course not! W*M
no more wants Target to know their customer's buying patterns than you want Big Bro
to know yours. It's called corporate security, and they won't go for that. Look
for RFID tags that only respond to certain signals such that only the retailer
that sold the item can power the device and require a response. It makes much
more sense and will be demanded by the security-minded retailers (like W*M).
And lastly for RFID tags in money--Who really cares? How does that do anything to
your private security? Keep in mind people, these things are writable devices.
They may become that way at some point, but what we're talking about now are simple
transponders that get a request and reply with data BURNED INTO THEM. They don't
keep a record of "joe recieved me in change at w*m, spent me at ez mart, gave me to
mark, mark spent me at...". That's now what they are for. They simply say "I'm here.
I'm device number XXXXXXXX. I've been alive for yyyy days."
And for any functionality, you need to be within feet. No satellites. No monitors on the
side of the road. No central database in the country seat tracking all these tags all
over the place. Just companies streamlining the supply chains and guarding their
data like the pot of gold it is, from everyone else, including Big Bro, the competitor
down the street, and you and me.
You assume. And they may have, which would be why the product will never make it to market. What politics has to do with this I have no idea. You're rural=republican statement is false, which I can testify to by being born in a county with only 3 towns (only 1 of which is large enough for a stoplight!) and less republicans (not actually, but its funny). They don't have DSL, Cable, or ground based wireless because there's no money in it! And you think some company is going to profit from floating a multi-million dollar wireless network that is impossible to support over sparsely populated rural areas consisting of people who, for the most part, don't even own computers? They'd fall flat within the a week of the announcement...