Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RFID Tech Infiltrating a British Institution

Posted by kdawson on Tue Nov 14, 2006 03:53 PM
from the tea-and-tracking dept.
An anonymous reader writes, "According to silicon.com, Marks & Spencer — a department store as quintessentially British as tea & cake — is so pleased with its trial of RFID clothes-tagging that it's planning to roll it out nationwide. Considering that the UK's Information Commissioner recently made a lot of noise around the RFID track and trace tech, warning that Britain is 'sleepwalking into a surveillance society', Marks & Sparks seems to be setting itself up as a tweed-clad Public Enemy Number One."
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealSurreal (620564) * on Tuesday November 14 2006, @03:56PM (#16843694)
    Given that the RFID tags are on disposable paper tags I don't see the problem. If you're too dumb to take off the label before you wear your new clothes you deserve all you get.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2006, @04:06PM (#16843906)
      Following your advice would allow the Marks & Spencer satellite to pinpint the exact location of your rubbish bin! No thank you, Mr. Big Brother apologist.
    • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MartinG (52587) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @05:05PM (#16844866) Homepage Journal
      So it's okay for some random thieves standing in the doorway of the shop to scan my bags on my way out and know that I've just spend 900 quid on clothes, is it?

      Come on, have some imagination. This is wide open to abuse.
      • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Macthorpe (960048) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @05:15PM (#16845024) Journal
        This is obviously easier than them looking at you carrying bags full of clothes and deducing you've spent a lot of money on clothes, right?

        I would say you need a far more active imagination to determine exactly how this is 'wide open to abuse', but to be honest you're paranoid enough for all of us already.
      • Re:Not so bad (Score:4, Informative)

        by slashnik (181800) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @05:34PM (#16845282)
        The tag only has an ID, (think MAC address) you require access to the backend database only then can know what is in the bag.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        > So it's okay for some random thieves standing in the doorway of the shop to scan my bags on my way out and know that I've just
        > spend 900 quid on clothes, is it?

        Marks and Spencers isn't that expensive. If you're worried about it, take the stickers off.

        > Come on, have some imagination. This is wide open to abuse.

        You need a pretty good imagination to imagine someone wanting to guess who's bought what. If you want to rob people who've bought expensive clothes, why not pick a high-end/designer shop
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        "No, but you could be tracked all the way back to your house.

        Or M&S could track you as you visit other stores, to build up a picture of your shopping habits"

        Please tell me how M&S are going to build extremely powerful radio transcievers sensitive enough to pick out the signal from an RFID tag from several miles away in every single one of their stores and then triangulate your location without anyone noticing or M&S going bankrupt.

      • No, but you could be tracked all the way back to your house. Or M&S could track you as you visit other stores, to build up a picture of your shopping habits

        'Could' and 'will' are two entirely different concepts. I 'could' meet someone on the net, track down where they live, go round to their house and kill them. But it doesn't make the technology itself dangerous, and neither does it mean I 'will'.

      • ... the woman who does the current M&S ads is probably trying to hypnotise us all through the TV. "This. Is. Your. M & S.......You. Will. Obey. Us"

        Sounds to me like it should be called S & M.

        (Oh come on, you knew this comment was coming.)

      • by stunt_penguin (906223) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @06:44PM (#16846130)
        This is not just surveilence, this is hand picked, organic, creamy devonshire survelince, served with only the finest cuts of succulent datamining tools, and wrapped in delicious, healthy cost savings

        This is not just a police state, this is an M&S police state.
        • All nothing to do with RFID, all the above can be tracked by credit cards and bar codes.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            No. They can't.

            Retailers don't store credit/debit card numbers longer than necessary (i.e until the funds clear and are audited), and even then they aren't even linked in the backend with specific purchased products, just a total.
              • Re:Not so bad (Score:4, Interesting)

                by jb.hl.com (782137) <`ten.niwdlab-eoj' `ta' `eoj'> on Tuesday November 14 2006, @06:39PM (#16846056) Homepage Journal
                Where I work, store cards aren't either, they get processed with other payment methods and then ignored forever...

                Anyway, enough nitpicking, you're correct. RFID won't affect any of those things. All of this is FUD...if it helps reduce stock take time (stock take is where you count the stock of everything in the shop at once, which takes an ungodly amount of time-last I heard at my work it took them pretty much all night...) then I don't see how anyone (in retail at least) could NOT be in favour of an RFID system.
  • what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bunions (970377) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @03:58PM (#16843746)
    They're just using RFID to prevent shoplifting. Buy the item, take the tag off - beats the hell out of those giant plastic things you see now. Can someone explain to me how this is bad? I mean, for people who aren't shoplifing.
    • They're just using RFID to prevent shoplifting.

      If you had bothered to RTFA instead of jerking your knee, you'd have read that they're using it for inventory control.

      • Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bunions (970377) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @04:12PM (#16844040)
        > If you had bothered to RTFA instead of jerking your knee, you'd have read that they're using it for inventory control.

        This is in fact true. Still, the point remains: how does this contribute to a surveillance society again?
    • If they were to treat them in the same manner as the current anti-theft devices and remove the buggers at the till I'd be more than happy for their use. I just don't like the idea that the marketing men might get it into their heads that tracking what I'm carrying into or out of their stores is ok. Also, I fail to see how a tag that you can easily remove is going to stop any except the most stupid of shoplifters.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Actually they're just used for inventory.. the article mentions nothing of loss prevention.

      The RFID tags are contained in throwaway paper labels attached to, but not embedded in, a variety of men's and women's clothing items in stores.

      Someone could simply rip off the label before exiting the store if they wanted to shoplift.

      Anyway, I think people's objection is that eventually the RFID tags will become commonplace. But instead of placing them in easy-to-remove paper lables, they will be embeddeded in the f
      • > Actually they're just used for inventory.. the article mentions nothing of loss prevention.

        Right. That other guy noted that. I am suitably abashed.

        > I'm not saying that will happen, although I think someone will try, or that there's any legitimate risk of people being tracked using these things, but that's "how this is bad" in a nutshell.

        And you could use a kitchen knife to kill someone. That doesn't make kitchen knives bad things. This seems like a completely legitimate use of RFID technology.
  • Britain is already there, the place is infested with video cameras.
    • Only on streets. Not in peoples' houses.

      As soon as that happens on a wide scale, THEN we can talk about a surveillance society.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          It's a public place. A person could feasibly stand out in the open and look at you doing something, therefore you have no reasonable right to privacy. As soon as you enter a private premises though, you have all the privacy the owner of that premises (be they you or someone else) wishes you to have.

          I thought this was common sense...
          • Have you thought about the fact that a camera can record, and that recording can last forever? Whereas with a person watching you, they soon after forget or misremember? Couple that with the fact that these recording can be put into a database, and the fact that a database can be altered (purposefully or by accident/error) without leaving traces of that alteration...

            You basically end up with recordings residing in a error-prone computer system, which, even when there aren't any problems, keeps a record of y

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Britain is already there, the place is infested with video cameras

      ... and in the US, *every phone call* is monitored and recorded. Let's see, that's a tough call, cameras in public areas where you have no expectation of privacy anyway, or every single phone call you make tracked and recorded for later examination. Hmm, it's a tough one but I'll take the first one!
  • by creimer (824291) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @03:59PM (#16843778) Homepage
    Number One is a department store? That would explain where Number Two and Number Six got their suits.
  • It's removeable (Score:5, Informative)

    by dafz1 (604262) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @03:59PM (#16843784)
    "The RFID tags are contained in throwaway paper labels attached to, but not embedded in" the clothing.

    Buy garment, remove RFID tag. Hopefully, it will be on one of the easily removed tags that you cut off anyway.
  • What is the name of the store? Marks & Spencer or Marks & Sparks? Slashdot surely has gone downhill if there are inconsistencies even in the summary!
  • From this article:
    Considering that the UK's Information Commissioner recently made a lot of noise around the RFID track and trace tech, warning that Britain is 'sleepwalking into a surveillance society'


    But just a couple hours ago, there was another article [slashdot.org] warning that
    ...the country's oversight agency now puts that figure at $24 billion, and two Members of Parliament say the project is "sleepwalking toward disaster"...


    Perhaps someone should look into this sleepwalking. I'm sure there's some kind of treatment.
  • by biglig2 (89374) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @04:06PM (#16843922) Homepage Journal
    ...all my clothes are from M&S... all UK geek's clothes are from there, except our batman t-shirts - because M&S is where British people shop when they want to buy a pair of nice trousers without actually knowing anything about fashion...frightened to move... can my corduroy trousers see what I'm typing.....erk.
  • It's for stock control and shoplifting prevention. They're not monitoring their customer's movements or anything in the slightest bit sinister.

    Go and find something more useful to post, eh?
  • I say yes. Boycott M&S. Surveillance society, yeah. Disgusting. ;)
  • by GreenEggsAndHam (317974) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @04:14PM (#16844074)
    The only slippery slope I'm seeing is Slashdot's growing tendency for alarmist article summaries.
  • by Brett Buck (811747) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @04:18PM (#16844134)
    What in the heck are you talking about? They're trying to keep people from stealing stuff, and the tag comes off when you get it home. How is this "sleepwalking into a survellience society"? Not every use of RFID technology is Big Brother come to fruition.

            Brett
  • Many others have commented on this already, but this announcement shouldn't be a problem, and for two reasons: The tags come off, and they are only monitoring what is being sold, not what is coming in the shop.

    Because the tags are not embedded, it's not a lasting concern. Remove the tags, you are wearing any other garment. I fail to see the worry with this implementation.

    And, because the monitoring is simply for automated stock taking, there is no ulterior motive. Anyone that has worked in the R

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2006, @04:29PM (#16844308)
    They are anti-theft tags. We've had those for years, you just remove them when you buy the thing.

    The problem we have in Britain is with cameras, they are multiplying like a virus. One street in London
    I am watching currently has 82 cameras (I counted them), when it reaches 100 I'm writing an article for the
    newspaper. Some spots on the street are covered by up to 4 cameras. This is an ordinary public space.

    I hope we become more like the French and people start going out with shotguns, rocks and paint to
    vandalise and destroy these creepy nuicance devices which are proven not to reduce crime but lure
    people into false security so that next time you get mugged or raped you merely get to have everyone see
    it on YouTube.

    Also they are a vast waste of taxpayers public money which is goung to line the pockets of these
    so called "security companies". The money would be much better spent putting more police out on
    the streets.
    • A better prank:

      Wait until the street is empty. Climb up to just under the camera and take a picture.

      Attach the picture to the camera so the camera sees only the picture. They'll just record an empty street all day. (That's why you waited for the street to be empty.)

      Hey, it worked on the A-Team.
      • Attach the picture to the camera so the camera sees only the picture. They'll just record an empty street all day.

        Or darkness and/or fuzziness, because your picture blocks out most of the light and is too close to the camera to be in focus.
  • Marks & Spencer -- a department store as quintessentially British as tea & cake -- seems to be setting itself up as a tweed-clad Public Enemy Number One.

    They clothe their businesses in the UK? That is weird.
  • Marks & Sparks seems to be setting itself up as a tweed-clad Public Enemy Number One.

    No, they aren't. Really. Go into a Marks & Spencer store, and ask customers at random if they are concerned about RFID, or even what it is.

    About 90% of them will have never even heard of it, and a further 9.9% or so will know what it is but not care.

    • Wait until the Daily Mail or some other shitrag publishes an alarmist story (much like this one) in a day or two...
    • And they will be pro RFID when they understand that the store is more likely to have their (all) sizes in stock.
  • by niks42 (768188) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @05:08PM (#16844914)
    RFID tags on my clothing wouldn't bother me. Tracking my mobile phone wouldn't bother me. Store cards that track my purchases wouldn't really bother me. Cameras that can recognise my face, my vehicle index .. well they kind of bother me. How about my car insurance company wanting to track my vehicle movements so they can gauge my risk?

    (I would at some times welcome a way of having an ID card - have you tried opening a bank account lately, with having to prove you are who you say you are, and you live where you say you live ? Waiting two weeks while they run $DEITY knows what checks on you ?)

    Having to go through a criminal records check to get a job as an IT architect in London .. that doesn't bother me that much. However, when all this data starts to join up - now I start to get scared. Maybe I have been watching too many movies, but the prospect of data being joined together is far more scary - the whole being much, much greater than the sum of the parts. The technology exists - all it would take is a bit more 'anti-terror' legislation and a good ETL and ta-da!

    Add to that a little identity theft, the possibility of others' criminal activity corrupting your data; your digital footprint being messed up with cross-references and data duplicates that shouldn't be there; laws that assume guilt instead of proving it; laws that can put you away for two years for forgetting a password; and bugger me, it is time to leave the country.

  • As a part tme job to get me through uni I work in woolworths, I really like the idea of RFID tags for two reasons. Firstly the security tags stores use are a major pain, I can lose a lot of time when new shop workers either forget to remove them or diasble them. Some of the tags DO damage clothing, having the ability to simply put the tag in the barcode which you can rip off would be great, we'd stop damaging some items of stock, my time wouldn't be wasted and we would cut done of shop theft since not ever
  • The uses are clear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 91degrees (207121) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @05:37PM (#16845326) Journal
    These are handy for stock control.

    The potential for abuse is a lot more abstract and hypothetical. They could work out that people are buying certain items together, but most superstores are already collecting that sort of information. These are largely anonymous so there's a complete lack of personal information. Exactly what they're spying on is a bit vague.

    However, we do have some pretty competent privacy legislation in this country. If RFID tags do become a problem I'd imagine the legislation will be expanded.