Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

You Need Not Be Paranoid To Fear RFID

Posted by Zonk on Mon Oct 10, 2005 05:32 AM
from the tales-of-horror dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A story at the Boston Globe covers extensive privacy abuses involving RFID." From the article: "Why is this so scary? Because so many of us pay for our purchases with credit or debit cards, which contain our names, addresses, and other sensitive information. Now imagine a store with RFID chips embedded in every product. At checkout time, the digital code in each item is associated with our credit card data. From now on, that particular pair of shoes or carton of cigarettes is associated with you. Even if you throw them away, the RFID chips will survive. Indeed, Albrecht and McIntyre learned that the phone company BellSouth Corp. had applied for a patent on a system for scanning RFID tags in trash, and using the data to study the shopping patterns of individual consumers." I think they may be going a little overboard with their stance, but it's always interesting to talk about.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2005, @05:34AM (#13755299)
    Whenever you purchase something, just fry the RFID chip by putting the stuff for 15 seconds in your microwave. Problem solved.

    (Or just use cash).
    • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:41AM (#13755319) Homepage Journal
      The only problem I see here is that not everything is microwave safe.

      How do oyu microwave your brand new microwave?

      What happens when your steel toe capped boots go in there?

      Will the fabric on your GFs dress screw up if you you zap it?

      Will the DVD you just bought be playable or writable?

      thats just a few thoughts, but microwaving should be safe... YMMV
    • by advocate_one (662832) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:08AM (#13755391)
      (Or just use cash).

      and when the notes have RFID chips in them???

        • by hummassa (157160) on Monday October 10 2005, @07:00AM (#13755562) Homepage Journal
          Coins will be made of plastic (the rfid being the way of authenticating them) before 2020.
          • by BVis (267028) on Monday October 10 2005, @07:24AM (#13755675)
            Here in America...they've tried several times to come out with a dollar coin, only to have it fail time and again. Even when they try to change the color of the dollar coin so it's not confused with a quarter, people still balk at it. People want their paper money here.
            The attempts at dollar coins have failed in the US because of several reasons:

            • Non-removal of one dollar bills from circulation (at the bank level)
            • Poor design of the coins themselves (too easily mistaken for a quarter, etc). This could be fixed by following the model of the UK one pound coin: it's about the same size as a US nickel but twice as thick, much easier to recognize in your pocket and in the cash drawer. Unfortunately this leads to:
            • Resistance from the vending machine industry (machines would need to be retooled to accept a coin significantly different from the ones currently in use)
            • The perception by the great unwashed that coins aren't "real money", lack of education about the new currency (think of the oft-repeated Taco Bell two dollar bill story); this goes hand in hand with Americans' fanatical opposition to being educated.

            It's just another case of Americans' short-sightedness, where the fact that some inconvenience in the short term would lead to significant benefits in the long term (in this case, lowered US currency production expenses, in non-trivial amounts) is completely irrelevant, and stating otherwise supports terrorism | Communism | Socialism | the Liberals | the hippies | $randomUnAmericanGroup.
    • If you're going to use cash, beware of this [eetimes.com]
  • Patent tin-foil garbage bags.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2005, @05:39AM (#13755315)
    Don't you realise this is essential to stop terrorism????? Think of the children for a change instead of these stupid "rights" or whatever they're called.
  • Patent War Chest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2005, @05:44AM (#13755324)
    The Good News:
    1) BellSouth is a huge company that can't figure out what to do about PTSN loses, much less how to deploy RFID scanners.
    2) This is just a patent to be added to their war chest. Every large company is likely to be sued, so they need methods to fight back. Patents are often the most cost effective manner, since getting them is cheaper than mounting any defense against of a real lawsuit.
  • I see a market.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr@ma c . c om> on Monday October 10 2005, @05:45AM (#13755327) Journal
    ...for RFID-killers. Shouldn't need more than a watt or so at the right frequency to kill the chip.

    -jcr
    • DMCA voilation?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by doublem (118724) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:20AM (#13755429) Homepage Journal
      Since RFID tags are so useful to corporations, I see any "RFID Killer" being classified as illegal as soon as it hiss the market.

      After all, it could be used to steal items from a store, or interfere with the RFID chips that people DON'T want deactivated!!!

      It'll be classified as a burglary tool or something worse in short order, if there aren't aspects of such a devise that aren't already illegal.
        • by The Monster (227884) on Monday October 10 2005, @07:23AM (#13755667) Homepage
          I see any "RFID Killer" being classified as illegal as soon as it hiss the market.
          Well, I don't have quite such a pessimistic outlook.
          Ever hear of 'paraphernalia' laws? Tommy Chong went to prison for selling pipes that could be used to smoke marijuana. This is typical of how new laws are often made: A law is passed to criminalize activity based on a correlation to an existing illegal activity as a means to make the latter easier to enforce. After some time passes, the process repeats, with a new class of behavior criminalized to make it easier to enforce the prior law.

          Soon we'll see laws against making 'precursors' to 'circumvention devices'; just you watch it happen.

  • by ettlz (639203) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:45AM (#13755329) Homepage Journal

    Surely this is nothing a drill*/pair of scissors/giving up smoking/strong high-frequency magnetic field couldn't solve. After all, it's your RFID chip. So destroy it!

    *You probably shouldn't try this if the chip is on a condom.

    • Condoms?!? (Score:5, Funny)

      by binaryDigit (557647) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:56AM (#13755368)
      *You probably shouldn't try this if the chip is on a condom.

      Duh, just wait until after your done with it ;)

      Actually, now that I think about it, I could see an interesting market for personal rfid scanners. You can sell it to women to take on first (or 2nd or 3rd) dates and it can scan for the product id's for condoms. That way they can catch a bit of a glimpse of what types of intentions (or hopes, or in the case of most /.'ers, dreams) their date has :)
      • Duh, just wait until after your done with it ;)

        Easier said than done. Even if I could be bothered, in a post-coital daze, to get out my Black & Decker and mangle the chip, the resulting noise and mess would hose the mood something proper. And as for waiting until morning and rummaging through the bin — no way!

  • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:46AM (#13755333)
    Already the scenes from 2002s movie Minority Report, where your retinas are scanned and "personalised" advertising is beamed at you, seems quaint. Now we know you'll be RFID scanned, and up-sold on the shoes you're wearing, as the brand, size and age of your shoes will be instantly known. And cash won't help, because RFID chips will be in that too.
  • Shopping patterns (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:48AM (#13755340) Journal
    What's so bad about studying them?

    Like with Google ads, if I have to live with ads, I much prefer directed ones with at least some research behind them than undirected ones. In other words -- in this case with shoes, if they wished to send me ads by mail, I'd rather only get ads for men in my age than women and kids.

    Of course, connecting these studies to other databases from other companies could make it very wrong, but that's another problem I think need other laws (unless there aren't any already -- IANAL).

    And at least where I live, there are already laws against storing personally identifiable data in a database, such as your social security number. I guess age, gender, and other purely statistical data don't fall under this law, and I don't see a compelling reason to why it should. Is it really such a big deal?
    • Like with Google ads, if I have to live with ads, I much prefer directed ones with at least some research behind them than undirected ones.

      Google doesn't connect me with my credit card number and name. It also does this up front, not going around to your house and going through your garbage.

      Although it seems simple to me, pay cash, don't give any stores your name, phone number or postcode. If they insist, lie or stop shopping there.
    • by twitter (104583) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:48AM (#13755508) Homepage Journal
      What's so bad about studying them[shopping patterns]?

      Here's a short list of things that you might not want everyone knowing:

      1. Your drinking habits.
      2. Your method of birth control.
      3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs.
      4. The books you read.

      All of these things can be used against you by your employer or insurance company.

      You only think you want targeted ads. Imagine your wife getting ads for the wrong brand of tampon at just the right time. That's how invasive and awful your phone company's snooping can be. The grocery store comes close right now. The targeting works as intended and is as annoying as hell because the stupid coupons are always for the wrong brand.

      Finally, ask yourself what snooping through your garbage has to do with phone service. Is this why federal, state and local laws protect incumbent phone providers from competition? BellSouth, thank you for a new low.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2005, @07:36AM (#13755753)
        Parent post is right on. 20 years ago, political operatives wanted SC nominee Robert Bork's video rental records. 10 years ago, everybody wanted to know who didn't pay tax on their nanny's salary. Last month, the New York Times wanted SC nominee Roberts' children's adoption records, just in case the children might have been illegally offered to him and thus be a sensational story. The threshold of who is snooping continues to move downward; the pool of who might incidentally want that information and have the means to get it continues to increase; and the threshold of privacy they want to invade continues to move inward. And it won't respectfully stop when it reaches your comfort level.

        In the near future, your neighbor, the blogger, might just decide you need to be put in your place by posting what his Acme RFID-Max SuperScanner can find next time you're away. And the Internet Wayback machine and Google may ensure that it is never difficult to retrieve or forgotten.

        The best way to secure sensitive data is to NOT enable its collection in the first place. Unless you actually want a society where everyone is afraid to deviate from the community's blandest common denominator.

        • by Generic Guy (678542) on Monday October 10 2005, @09:06AM (#13756250)

          As I said before, if this info is publicized or shared, it's a completely other problem and I do believe it shouldn't be shared.

          And no, I wouldn't mind the store I shop from knowing my drinking habits. I have nothing to hide, I'm no alcoholic, if they see I indeed prefer a brand of beer over any cider, big deal?

          There was recently a case in my state where a fellow slipped and fell in a store and ended up needing to sue for medical treatment. It seemed like a pretty clear-cut case, but the store was trying to weasel out of responsibility and decided to pull up his "customer loyalty card" info and tried to use a defense implying that the guy was a drunkard based upon his alcohol purchases -- on the public record in court! Anyway, it didn't save their case and the guy won. And as I recall, he bought a lot for hosted parties and the like, and didn't drink much of it himself but irregardless he should never have been put in a position to defned his purchases let alone even needing to explain himself.

          Anyway, it was the first time I actually saw the media show concern about all this personal data collection. And that was just with a store card. I stopped using all my store loyalty cards after that expose. RFID seems more insidious if anyone (think: lawyers) can scan your car, house, or trash trying to establish patterns for whatever reason. The old 'I have nothing to hide' argument doesn't mean we should allow any of this, because it will be abused. No one should have to actively think or worry about how their shopping purchases might look to uninvolved RFID observers after the fact, especially when it can be so easily twisted against you.

        • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Monday October 10 2005, @09:50AM (#13756549)
          1. Your drinking habits. . .

          2. Your method of birth control. . .

          3. Medications especially for things like anti-depressants or treatments for STDs. . .

          4. The books you read. . .

          All of these things can be used against you by your employer or insurance company.

          HOW? You can't just throw FUD out there and hope it sticks. How these things could be used against you?

          Just a few examples off the top of my head.

          1. Alcohol. Higher insurance premiums for drinkers, or heavy drinkers, or malt-liquor drinkers. The question of did he or did he not actually consume it would be irrelevant for the users of the data, they're not trying to prove it in a court of law, they're just using it as an excuse.

          2. Birth Control. Again, higher insurance premiums for people who use too many (or too few) condoms. Increased risk of STDs and pregnancy. Or maybe you're the IT director at some fundamentalist whack-job church -- any purchase of birth control gets you sacked for not being fruitful and multiplying enough.

          3. Perscriptions. Your employer probably already knows if you're on the company insurance plan, and your insurance company certainly knows unless you self pay. But again, insurance co. would love to know as much as possible about you, legal or not. They're not going to tell you they went through your trash.

          4. Books. Again, I think we'd assume for harassment purposes that you read any book you buy. Whole categories of readers could be assumed to be untrustworty in their jobs because of their reading habits. Jobs with secrets, or working with children, or the elderly, or in a pharmacy, just to name a few.

          I imagine someone paid to come up with evil things to do with personal infomation (like HR director or Insurance risk-analyst) could make a much longer list than mine.

          Also, with regard to "throwing FUD out there" . . . the "U" is "uncertainty", the unknown. You cannot, by definition, enumerate the unknown. It's difficult to discuss the future without some degree of speculation.

            • by Kaiwen (123401) on Monday October 10 2005, @01:36PM (#13758383) Journal
              I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation.

              So do many insurance companies. Which, of course, was his point.

              There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom....

              Unless each one were individually tagged. Next morning out goes the garbage with a couple of condoms in it. But never mind that. Purchasing records show Tom Jones picking up a 10-pack of Trojans on the way home from work on Monday. Friday night he purchases another. That alone tells us a hell of a lot about Tom's sex life, even if we don't know exactly when each condom did duty.

              You CAN'T penalize someone for seeking treatment for a disease/disorder in the US. The ADA makes it a civil rights violation to do so.

              But I can easily imagine drug companies bedding down with insurance firms to subtly pressure their customers into seeking the right brand of treatment. And in the real world it's only a violation if you get caught. Remember, age- and race-discrimination are also civil rights violations. Doesn't change the fact that it happens a hundred thousand times a day in the U.S., and 99.44% of the time it's damn near impossible to prove.

              Unless of course you believe your employer/the government is going to follow you home and scan your books while you're out.

              Ah, then you've forgotten the flap over Amazon.com's "purchasing circles" back in '99. Do employers care about what their employees read? Damn straight they do. Just ask the Microsoftees who found themselves in deep doo-doo when Microsoft discovered they had been purchasing anti-MS books.

              Only a couple of years ago RFID tags couldn't be read from more than a few inches away. Today it's 30 feet. Within a few years it will be possible to inventory your entire house in a couple of seconds from inside a moving vehicle. Insurance companies would love to know what's sitting inside your medicine cabinet or fridge. Legal or not, I expect in the near future drive-by scannings will become part of the standard background check all insurance companies and employers do.

              Or forget insurance companies. I imagine even those of us who have nothing to hide are happier living in a country where police can't just come barging in our doors on a whim. There's a reason police need subpoenas for anything that's not in plain sight. But we're now entering a world where police can search our homes from the comfort of their squad cars, where every police-wielded radar gun has a built-in RFID scanner, and "plain sight" just may include anything in the EMF range.

              Lee Kaiwen

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2005, @05:49AM (#13755345)
    Come on, people, think about it. RFID on everything? It's not going to happen. The statistical data gained would be horribly inaccurate because nobody would ever know whether or not you're actually the one wearing the shoes. For instance, what if they were a gift for somebody 3,000 miles away?
    • by foreverdisillusioned (763799) on Monday October 10 2005, @08:34AM (#13756062) Journal
      Oh look, an Anonymous Coward who has absolutely no concept of statistics. Modded up to +3 too. Impressive and/or sad.

      RFID on EVERYTHING means that anomalies like that become less and less significant. Cross-reference enough data and you can spot patterns without having the faintest idea why they're there. (There's actually a famous psychiatric test based on this principle, though the name escapes me. Basically, it's a bunch of crazyass questions designed to give the shrink a statistical probability that you're suffering from a mental disease. The individual answers themselves are irrelevant; only the statistical whole counts. Thus, the potential for an individual to purposefully alter his answers is in effect built into the final percentages--there's really no way to cheat.)

      You've missed the point completely. How often do you send shoes to someone living 3,000 miles away? Do you think Nike or Reebok care about the handful of people who've done such a thing? Marketing people only care about the fat, juicy center of the bell curve. Yeah, there are also those niche markets at the edges, but the instant you change your focus to that niche, then it becomes the center of the bell curve.

      On the whole this isn't all terribly evil so long as it's used for relatively non-obnoxious advertisements, but the potential for abuse by insurance agencies, banks, law enforcement, etc. is very, very high. If you're not in the statistical norm for the targeted advertisement, who cares? You ignore the ad. But if you're far out of the statistical norm for "law abiding citizen" and the local PD finds out, you can bet your ass you'll be hounded until the day you die (or move to a saner country.) It won't matter if you're an exception; it won't matter if there's only a 55% chance you're a criminal. They'll do it because it's efficient. It'll be like racial profiling except it will apply to every single minority conceivable, from Yanni fans to gays to diehard otakus to atheists. Your difficultly in the world will be inversely related to your conformity. Stray too far out of the norm and your insurance rates will skyrocket, you credit rating will plunge, and cops will look at you that much harder next time they've got an unsolved crime on their hands.

      It's not bizzare; it's not even inherently evil. Living by statistics is just an efficient way of doing things. The problem is that greater efficiency is bought with something far more precious; individuality. For now, I can ignore the ads, but for heaven's sake let's not get complacent.
  • Ubiquity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the bluebrain (443451) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:51AM (#13755350)
    Looking at the way the **AA are carpet-bombing all and sundry with outree requests in support of their business model - in the hope that the odd one will stick - once RFID tech is used widly, I foresee a future where first major brands, then other retailers and law enforcement will be making similar requests, more or less "because it's technically possible".

    => EULA when you buy a Ralph Lauren shirt, making it illegal to disable the tag?
    => Extra tax if you nuke your trash before putting it by the roadside? ("WallMart has a right to know!")
    => Automatic searches at the airport when a scan of your luggage turns results that deviate from the norm?
    => A new "coming of age" rutual, whereby you have your mandatory kiddy-goes-to-school tag removed when you turn 18 21?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2005, @05:51AM (#13755353)
    I mean really. Right now, anyone can go through my garbage and recyclabes and see:

    - what my spending habits are like (empty product boxes along with the other trash)
    - what my diet is like
    - what my consumption rate is
    - what my interests are (above mentioned product boxes, tossed junk mail, etc)
    - what my personal timeline is like (how much trash is developed at various times)
    - samples of my dna (various personal care item cast offs, hair, finger nails, etc)
    - samples of my finger prints

    and lord knows what else. Really, all we're really talking about here for the average person is that they can do several of the above without getting really messy and stinky.
  • by richy freeway (623503) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:53AM (#13755359)
    but it's always interesting to talk about.

    I think you may be confusing RFID with womens beach volleyball.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10 2005, @05:54AM (#13755361)
    ...but this already happens WITHOUT RFID. I work for a marketing company (who will remain nameless, and hence why I'm posting as an AC) who's work is partly geared toward this sort of work. You go to a store. You pay with a credit card. It stores your CC # (in an undecryptable hash format of course) and what items you bought. It looks for patterns and even gives competitors a chance to gain your marketshare. If Pepsi wants Coke marketshare they can pay us to print a coupon for the guy who buys Coke everytime he goes to the grocery store. We don't need RFID for someone to be monitoring our purchases.
  • by dougman (908) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:56AM (#13755366)
    Sure - in theory all that's possible. However, when the world's largest retailer (Wal-Mart) will be disabling them at checkout [com.com] you can bet others will follow. The market will take care of itself. Look - people thought barcodes were going to do the same thing and now you wouldn't do without 'em (everything from UPS to all the food in your kitchen).

    Personally I would like to have it in some items. Books and DVD's could be quickly added to my delicious library [delicious-monster.com] (currently I scan the barcode), I could manage the inventory in my kitchen much better (which would integrate well with recipe software) and it would be great if I could just put my wine on the racks in my cellar and not have to track it manually.

    Take off your tinfoil hat and put on your thinking cap. Let's figure out how to take advantage of a great technology and figure out how to make it safe.

  • by smchris (464899) on Monday October 10 2005, @05:59AM (#13755369)
    Don't leave that empty pack of smokes at the bar. They'll show up at the crime scene later.
  • Mistaken Identity! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ami-in-hamburg (917802) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:03AM (#13755375)
    Ok, you buy a second hand jacket. I wouldn't, but a lot of people do. The tag has been connected with a child rapist by the FBI. You go to the train station. You get scanned.

    Suddenly, 15 FBI agents slam your face into the dirty floor and take you away for questioning in hand cuffs. You submit to a DNA test (no, not like the CSI TV show, it really does take a long time). It will take days if not weeks to prove they got the wrong person !!! In the meantime, there is no way they are going to let you out.

    Since perception is reality, you lose your job, your wife, your friends, etc...etc... because you're a deviant child molester. I mean, you must be, the evening news said you're a suspected deviant so it must be true.

    Perhaps a little bit extreme for an example but not out of the range of RFID possibility.
    • by patio11 (857072) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:25AM (#13755443)
      >>It will take days if not weeks to prove they got the wrong person !!!>>

      Crimety, you're right! If only people would carry their name and photo on a little piece of plastic inside their wallet, with a copy of the same information backed up on a network law enforcement had access to, then we wouldn't have to wait a week to prove our identities! We could just show the card!

  • by Zog The Undeniable (632031) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:06AM (#13755387)
    Shoplifters in Manchester, England, put small high-value items into a metal biscuit tin lined with aluminium foil (a bit of overkill there) which is supposed to screen the RFID tags from the sensors by the door. I saw it on a documentary about junkies last week - it's common for the police to find these tins in their houses along with the usual drug paraphernalia.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:10AM (#13755399)
    Indeed, Albrecht and McIntyre learned that the phone company BellSouth Corp. had applied for a patent on a system for scanning RFID tags in trash, and using the data to study the shopping patterns of individual consumers.

    I seem to remember that, back in the day, a large portion of the information used in phone phreaking was gathered through dumpster diving for internal manuals at Ma Bell. I guess turnabout really is fair play.

  • Chilling effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by badfish99 (826052) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:36AM (#13755472)
    From TFA:
    His organization has a code of ethics ... So how about putting these principles into law? ... any regulation "would have a chilling effect that would put us back years"

    In other words, the RFID maker claims to have a code of ethics, but doesn't want to be held to that code.
    That smells to me like his code of ethics is going straight out of the window the instant it suits him.

  • by o0SupaCB0o (905823) on Monday October 10 2005, @07:02AM (#13755570)
    They don't need RFID to collect anymore information than they already.

    I've seen the amount of information they collect at these POS systems. You use a credit/debit card, your card encodes your zip code, first name, last name. Your purchase is collected already by scanning the item into the register.

    Your info is then sent to the 3 credit bueraus and your infor is merged with those large databasese. If you give your email to the retailer, your email is attached to your credit report. Through those credit reports the credit bueraus then sends back your address to the retailer and all other information the retailer can afford.

    Your information is already available in catalog dealers, your internet info is available at experian online (yup experian started an internet division). How much you make and how much own is already available at experian, transunion and can't remember the last one.

    The retailer already got the information they need, RFID is just a way to track inventory, really no joke. RFID does not add any additional information that the retail/catalog industry does not already have. Oh yea, they used to be able to get large amount of info through the DMV before 9/11.

    Experian will sell your info to ANYBODY at the right price, private detective already have this ability, without license. Now the funny thing is the only person that has a hard time getting your info, is yourself! Oh yea don't get me started on the 2 files they keep, one public one that you see, and one that is hidden, that keeps every single transactions you've made in your life. the law says some items fall off the report, but the hiden one is available to anybody with money and can make your life horrible. There are no laws saying that your bank need to tell you they based their decision on this second file. So you think your report is clean, but the hidden one says otherwise. Oh yea that second one contains all your purchase habbits too.

    God where's my hat? I can't see an after market of people scanning garbage from a particular locale/district etc. The marketing drones already have this information. Retailers routinely sell their lists to each other. Catelogs company give them to each other as "gifts". Or worse TRADED like comodity. You people are not paranoid enough!
    • by Knight2K (102749) on Monday October 10 2005, @07:21AM (#13755659) Homepage
      If your two file theory is true, then I think the easiest way to solve this is: mandate by law that the 'second file' (obviously some different legal terminology could be used here) be available to the consumer for free. These companies are obviously making a lot of money off the residue of our consumer lives, so this wouldn't affect their revenue stream. But I would love to have a record of every transaction I make, if only because I'm not the world's greatest bookkeeper. Then I would see some actual value from providing this information to retailers, rather than feeling f*&ked over when asked for it.

      And if people become upset about how much information truly is stored, then public outcry may see some changes made. As long as the information collection is effectively invisible, then it will be difficult to get the public excited about this.
    • Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zog The Undeniable (632031) on Monday October 10 2005, @06:12AM (#13755402)
      Er...no. The RFID tag can carry a unique code for every individual item, not the same code for every item of that type (as a barcode does). That means YOUR new shirt has a different code to all those others on the rail.
    • by tuxette (731067) * <tuxetteNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 10 2005, @06:29AM (#13755456) Homepage Journal
      I mean, is it so hard to understand why someone would want to know when they're out of something and should go buy more?

      I (and lots of others) have no problems remembering to pick up a liter or two of milk on the way home from work, and this is without having to have some chip installed in my refrigerator, recycling bin, garbage can, whatever...

    • by lmlloyd (867110) on Monday October 10 2005, @08:15AM (#13755955)
      You would be surprised who would care. Many businesses ask for permission to run a credit report on applicants before hiring them. They will then pay a fair amount of money to get a fairly detailed report that tells them a lot more about you than you might be comfortable with them knowing. By the same token, once they have that permission, they never need to ask for it again. Performance at work dropping off? Let's run another detailed report and see what's going on in his life outside of work, before we decide how to approach this. I have even known (particularly unpleasant) women who would run a detailed credit report on a guy before deciding if they wanted to get serious with him! I also know several people who rent properties they own, and you would be amazed at the detail they can (and do) get before deciding if they want to rent you a house. I have a friend who lived at my apartment for quite some time, simply because a good job, plenty of money, and a clean-cut appearance wasn't enough to get him over some irregularities on his credit report. He couldn't rent an apartment in any decent part of town, he couldn't buy a house, he couldn't stay in a hotel (no credit card for them to hold). He was a grown man forced for years to live with friends, simply because of his credit report. If that isn't ruining someone's life, then I don't know what is. Sure, if you own a house in the suburbs, never plan on moving, have a stable job, and plenty of money in the bank, I suppose you can be cavalier about how everyone is being paranoid. But if your life is at all out of the norm, then the amount of information being tracked about up can actually cause some very real problems in a society that is evermore leaning towards treating a credit score as an indication of how good a person you are.