Gillette Pulls RFID Tags In UK Amid Protests 376
akb writes "Indymedia UK is reporting that after protests against the trial of RFID tags by Gillette at a Tesco store in Cambridge, increasing press coverage, a boycott, and the growing mobilisation of campaigners against the intrusive use of the technology, Gillette have withdrawn their trial. RFID (Radio Frequency ID) tags are small tags containing a microchip which can be 'read' by radio sensors over short distances (for background see SchNEWS Feature / 2 part Guardian Article)."
Good on the Poms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to see that with trillions of these devices implanted in everyone, no one will be able to distinguish you from the noise. If they are able to, then they would've been able to visually follow you anyway. What's the big deal about that?
Again, if you really don't like them, remove them. But this feels like a whole "tinfoil cap" thing.
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
In the article, they mention that the new EU copyright directive could make it illegal to deactivate RFID tags after you leave the store.
If they just included these tags on _packaging_, I would have no problem with it. But to include them in the product and then criminalize removal or deactivation is just wrong.
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, the market bears the current prices, why should they go lower?
Replace "you" with "the store" and you have a point, from the perspective of "the store". Maybe thats why they leapt on this now that I think about it...
Re:protest (Score:5, Insightful)
While funny, and apparently a good analogy, it fails for a very simple reason...
When people need to see what it would take to prevent unathorized scanning by optic nerves [sic], they can do so simply by looking around.
To prevent scanning by RFID tag sensors, one must first
A) Get a suitable detector
B) Configure it to read each and every of the potential wavelengths for all RFID tags,
C) Configure it to understand the protocol(s) and protocol variations for all RFID tags in the area
D) Then, without being able to actually see limits of the area being scanned, one must scan the entire area.
The issue isn't really the RFID tags, it's the relatively indefensible position they leave you in against somebody with more techology/money than you have.
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bag nazi at the door is there to look for employee theft, not shoplifting. And they don't accomplish that, either.
Deactivating tags (Score:3, Insightful)
Because RFID tags contain intellectual property in the form of a computer chip, deactivating the tag would count as circumventing an intellectual property control measure, and so would be illegal under the IP Enforcement Directive.
Isn't that like saying that breaking a CD in half is illegal because it also disables the copy protection?
RFIDs can be read+write devices ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Because Rafsec is a multi-protocol, multi-frequency supplier of RFID transponders, the Wooden Pallet Transponder can be used with any RFID technology, from low-cost read-only to higher-cost encrypted read-write memory."
Say yes to RFIDs, but only if they are disabled after initial use. Passing the doors of the store could tell the RFID to stop responding.
Cambridge? (Score:4, Insightful)
Best disinformation campaign in recent history (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Embedding it into the tag on my pants, rather than the pants themselves, for inventory management and anti-theft purposes. However, if we allowed that, and there wasn't a law against doing anything more invasive with it, you know that the RFID tag would slip from the tag on the pants to the inside of the fabric in the space of five years. And after that, if surveillance cameras are any indication, the government would find some invasive use for it and it would be protected under the usual argument: "Private businesses do it, so why not the government?"
That's the real problem. There are a lot of great, useful applications for RFID that aid both businesses and consumers, but there are also a lot of malicious/greedy uses for it. Since average citizens usually can't litigate multinational corporations into submission in the same way that the RIAA can sue Kazaa, Grokster, and their users,
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
That sort of theory works well for candy bars (to the detriment of public health mind you).
I'd consider razors a somewhat fixed market. Consumers aren't going to start shaving all day because a pack is a buck cheaper, in fact a buck today for something you don't get horribly often could be seen as negligible.
You're throwing generic theory at me, we do have a specific subject here.
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:3, Insightful)
shops are not allowed to invade your privacy by going through your bag and pockets.
Companies (Score:2, Insightful)
I read somewhere on the net these tags sell for around $.25 each for 1 billion or $0.05 for 10 billion. This is a huge market.
Any knows any leading companies that sells these? I might consider buying their stocks.
What planet are you living on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really that naive?
As a businessman, when you lower your cost base you *don't* cut your prices unless you have some cutthroat[1] competition who is already kicking your arse on price.
[1] Pun intended.
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
If razors cost more, I am going to buy less. I'll probably use one for an entire week (like I did in High School when I could barely afford my school clothes).
If razors are cheaper, I might even use two or three in one day. I like sharp razors and I notice that by the time I hit the left side of my face, the razor has already begun to dull. So I would love to be able to use two or three in a day without worry of the cost.
Compare the number of people who shave today to the number of people who shaved 100 years ago. It was actually fashionably to grow a beard back then. Many people did so, but not because they were fashion conscience, but because shaving was too expensive for them. Either razors were prohibitively expensive, and difficult to maintain, or the barber shop was too far away and cost too much.
Razors are not a "fixed market" as you call it. If they are cheaper, people buy and use more. If not, they won't. The cost of the razor is more than the price, of course. It includes things like how much pain the razor induces, how long it takes to shave with it, and whether or not it has RFID.
Is that specific enough for you?
Stop being so anal (Tags are a good idea) (Score:2, Insightful)
See it like this, if it was to work it would work like this. When you go to product X which has a tag on it, there is a sign to tell you. You take the product in the knowledge you will be photographed. You are photographed, you pay for the product, the tag is disabled (by whatever device) and your picture is deleted.
What the hell is wrong with that??!?! If you aren't going to steal the product who cares if your picture is on some database for 30mins while you shop. Personally I'd like to see this scheme, if it means that some twat with a knife will think twice before trying to steal a load of razors or whatever I welcome it.
It's only anal people that can't handle the fact that someone wants to take a picture of them for security purposes, If your not going to steal the damn thing you shouldn't care. Lets face the fact you're on someone else's property therefore they have the right to survalliance and to enfore security where needed. Razor blades are one of the biggest problems as far as criminals are concerned and anything to reduce theft is good.
So people you know who you are stop being so up your own ass and help the supermarkets reduce crime and potential risks to yourself. If a crim isn't in a supermarket theres no way they can cause you personally a problem.
I understand the issues of leaving tags on or storing pictures of people for longer than needed, which is why I believe this scheme will be excellent as long as photos get deleted upon purchase and that the tags are disabled after leaving the store. Anyone who thinks theres something wrong with that has issues, serious issues (probably self-image and insecurity isses
rant over
Traceability (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RFID doomed to failure. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, most people prefer control over their privacy to pathetic incentives to give it up. This is why the people of the United States, for instance, boldly boycotted a supermarket program to artificially inflate prices and only lower them back down through the use of "shopper cards" with customers' personal information attached that would not only be sold to other companies, but also used to send them tons of junk mail. This ended the junk mail problem in the United States and we are all now blissfully unaware of the scourge of junk mail flyers.
Oh, wait... no.
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that the law does not "specifically forbid Europeans from removing or deactivating Radio Frequency (RFID) tags embedded in clothing and other consumer devices", that the just their interpretation of the law. I believe it is a bad interpretation, rather like saying something like "because the law says under 18s can't drink alcohol in public places, parents could be sent to jail for giving their children certain medicines in public places!" It's just a bad interpretation of a proposed law - it's the interpretation that's stupid, not the proposed law (although I don't agree with it).
RFID in European Banknotes by 2005 (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of choice ? (Score:4, Insightful)
So where will your "freedom of choice" stand when all the shops have adopted this system ? Make no mistake: this is actually what RFID chips providers are puhing for.
Oh, and I could also talk about how genetically engineered food is being forced down our throats as well, but that would be another can of worms (slightly OT by the way).
"Freedom of choice" is there as long as it is compatible with the lobbies' points of view. It IS a basic requirement in an ideal free market, but the main (corporate) actors of the current "free market" are trying to avoid it at all costs. Never take it for granted : we have to fight for it everyday.
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:2, Insightful)
I think there will be a market for a doorframe airline style gate for homes that will fry rfid's as you walk through the door.
would it be cool if I could rekey the things (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd really like one for the car, and the vcr, and the laptop...
Re:What planet are you living on? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a silly question, not your fault you're just the victim of hysterical FUD. Do you know of any actual uses that ARE used to invade anyones privacy? Sure there is potential there and it is something that needs to be watched but it's not what these things are *for* nor has anyone anounced any plans to use these in any way that invades anyones privacy.
The idea behind these things is to allow physical objects to be identified by computers for all sorts of uses. To bring the kind of efficiencies and automation that computers are currently able to apply to binary information to bear on the physical objects in the real world. They were invented by researchers at MIT that were involved in robotics to solve the old problem of robots being able to sense what was around them... instead of a visual & touch based system with pattern matching far beyond our capabilities just have RFID tags tell the robot what the object is. Of course having computers able to identify physical objects in the real world has uses other than their physical manipulation by robots. The first and most obvious uses are to manage inventory to know exactly how many and exactly where every item in your warehouse or store is and even your entire supply chain is. That use alone could revolutionize the supply chain making it spectacularly more efficient. Of course at the retail end the part you could see (but by no means the most important) you could get rid of cashiers, just walk through an RFID reader without unloading your cart and swipe your card - done! And that is only the immediately obvious use, like the internet this is a foundational technology which will enable all sorts of other technologies and uses.
The protests over speculative abuses of this new technology are *exactly* the same as if people had protested the internet in the mid 90's when it started to emerge as a popular technology. "Think of all the privacy abuses if we networked all the computers together... Does anyone know of any good uses that don't invade our privacy. No of course not, I'm going down to picket my local ISP they're robbing us of our freedom!" Yes a global network of computers *IS* a threat to our privacy (and in ways even more obvious than RFID tags) and yet I suspect that most
This technology has the potential to be as significant and beneficial as the internet. Most corporations that deal with the global supply chain think it will be MORE significant.
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's no more a violation of privacy than when someone asks you if they can record your phone call and you say it's OK.
Just because the government has been sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong (like smoking bans - if I run a store where I think people should be able to smoke, that should be MY choice) doesn't mean that total regulation is here, yet.
I've seen plenty of stores with "we reserve the right to search bags" signs, and I haven't heard of a case yet where the government stepped in and told them they couldn't do it.
Now, maybe someday there will be laws passed that outlaw the practice. Personally, I dread when the goverment micromanages businesses against the business owner's wishes. YMMV. Don't talk to me about losing rights when no one forces you to shop at a store whose policies you disagree with.
Re:RFIDs are Meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
Those savings will translate to higher stock value for shareholders
Become a shareholder, then.
Re:Are there any good uses? (Score:1, Insightful)
As for the other one, theft under $10000 is rarely worth prosecuting for a large organisation. Shame really because the culprit will go on to rob someone else who may not be able to so easily absorb the cost. It is interesting however that a lot of store chains will rabidly go after shoplifters while leaving employee theft alone. Granted in most cases it's mainly to scare the (mostly juvenile) shoplifter - kind of a wink and a nudge compact with the police.