Walmart Begins Rollout of RFID and EPC Tags 462
paroneayea writes "There's a lot about RFID tags in the news today. Wal-Mart is officially beginning to use RFID tags on its merchandise. We've heard about Wal-Mart's plans to introduce RFID tags in the past, but this is the first time that this is actually being put into use. To quote the article: 'Wal-Mart is billing this as a trial, but Simon Langford, Wal-Mart's manager of RFID strategies, told RFID Journal that this is the beginning of the company's planned roll-out of EPC (Electronic Product Code) technology.' Meanwhile, California does something right for a change and introduces a bill that will limit the use of RFID tags in stores and libraries to protect the privacy of customers. IBM, which plans to be a major manufacturer of RFID tags, bashes critics of RFID tags as 'anti-retail.'"
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RFID tags (Score:2, Insightful)
My Rights?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think michael and the rest of you paranoid bunch need to give up this anti-RFID crusade. If you don't like RFID, don't purchase it. If someone else does, then that's their business, quit your hysterical bitching.
RFID tags are the least of my worries (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I personally go to Walmart once a year and buy regular commodity crap like toiletries, household supplies, etc. Plus they usually will change my car's oil for $10 less than the other guys. But I go in there knowing I've already checked my soul at the door. RFID is the least of my worries.
The good thing is RFID could reduce costs... (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is all these people talk about privacy and stuff and I bet they wouldn't even encrypt their email.
Connecting info to individuals (Score:3, Insightful)
But what I DO have a problem with is if they connect that information to me personally, wether it be with a shopping ID or whatever. If they start being able to flash personal adds while I'm checking out like: "did you forget your condoms?" because I bought them last time, but didn't this time, I would have a field day in tahiti with my lawyers.
I think it's probable that even without legislation stores will eventually limit themselves, but I say: why let it get to that point? Prevent individual logging now, and limit it to aggregate like TiVo does.
Re:Isn't anyone concerned about this quote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say its a piece of clothing that you buy. Every time you re-enter the store, they know who you are and can start tracking your purchasing habits even if you decide to pay cash for your purchases that day.
Then one day the government decides they don't like you and issue a warrant for your arrest. Walmart could be compelled by the PATRIOT act [slashdot.org] to turn over any information about you and possibly notify the authorities if you show up in any of their stores. They know who you are because six years ago you used a credit card to purchase your lucky hat with an RFID tag on it.
Re:Burn-out device (Score:3, Insightful)
And I don't think wearing a moo moo would allow you to hide one of the devices either.
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its for inventory. Why should I care how Wal-mart or any company manages their inventory? If they try to keep them embedded in the items you purchase such as shoes, or pants, then I'll take issue. Else, its a non-issue. Give it a rest.
Re:RFID tags are the least of my worries (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, label them as "the RFID industry" to distance yourself, and dehumanize them.
"Dehumanize them"? Wal-Mart is a corporate entity. IBM is a corporate entity. They aren't human in the first place, therefore I *can't* de-humanize them.
The problem is when we *humanize* these megacorporations. Then, we are in danger of expecting them to behave in a humane way. The mom & pop store on the corner can be trusted exactly as much as its owner can be trusted. A shareholder-owned corporation can be trusted to do one thing and one thing only: attempt to make money for its shareholders. Remember when Wal-Mart used to be the "Made in the USA" company? When that quit being profitable, it quit being a slogan.
Distributors, who are people, will decide when, where, and how.
Distributors are people? If I can see one and talk to one, sure. Last time I was at Lowe's, I talked to an *employee* of a distributor. He would have no more control over RFID tags than I would. No, it's companies -- who are NOT people -- who will decide when, where, and how. And I don't like it.
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:3, Insightful)
She takes the idea that tagged merchandise can be loaded into trucks, and shipping companies can track their trucks with GPS, and then speaks out about satellite monitoring of RFID.
She's a little heavy on the FUD.
As far as the work of the Big Guy in the Sky, while I've never heard her mention it publicly, I know that she is a mark-of-the-beast-er. I find the beliefs kind of silly, but if you translate them into activism without pushing your values on others, more power to you.
Simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiot (Score:2, Insightful)
NO, that is NOT what we are concered about. We're not all fscking idiots.
I don't want into a store or into work and have a scanner read off 32 unique product codes identifying every item on my body.
Heay Bob! What are you doing with that Victoria's Secret black lace bra? Isn't that the one Sally wore in this morning?
-
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because enough people will take what she says as absolute truth and not actually look into the issue themselves. Particular to this is using derogatory terms -- you mentioned the use of "God's work" as an epithet, but what else would you call "spy chips". Mob mentality -- if you convince enough people that some object or power is evil and dangerous, even the safest, most harmless devices will get banned in the backlash.
There are definitely scary, privacy-invading uses of RFID tags -- but there are also beneficial uses that don't invade privacy. The problem is not the tags, in and of themselves. It is in the data that can be stored on them and who can access that data. She does have valid points, and the RFID industry would do well to heed her concerns. Her aim does not appear to be working to find the optimal path that works for both sides -- it is totally consumer oriented.
Another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand this store. They censor CDs that have explicit lyrics without any on-the-package indication. Yet, they sell guns? Seems like two sets of values to me.
I hate Walmart
Re:RFID tags (Score:3, Insightful)
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they should use greencards to track their illegally hired under paid immigrant employees.
Strike 2 against Wal-mart (Score:3, Insightful)
And the problem with the electronic draft of your checking account is the lack of controls that prevent them from drafting your account AS MANY TIMES AS THEY WANT TO!
Don't think it can happen? Well I got news for you. Not only can that be done, but they can also modify the amounts and draft it again.
It happened to me, which is why I don't shop at Wal-mart any more, or anywhere else that uses said technology. I got lucky, in that my bank ended up covering the difference because the base mistake that caused the merchant in question to modify the draft was the bank's mistake (a supposedly invisible to the users conversion of their checking system).
Beware, Wal-mart doesn't care about the customer and never has.
Re:Isn't anyone concerned about this quote? (Score:3, Insightful)
Walmart is just replacing KMart, so who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
The small downtown stores were killed 15 years ago by the surburban strip malls. Nothing to do with Walmart.
About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be able to say Copyright infrigement does not equal theft. But can you say walking out of Wal-mart with items isn't theft? How could it invade your privacy by them tracking their inventory? Its not your goods unles you purchase them. You can demand that there be no RFID tags on products that you buy. You could go some where else. Here in AR we know that it is possible to compete and stay in business against Wal-mart. I find it hilarious that those in other states are afraid to compete against a little chain store from AR.
Re:RFID tags are the least of my worries (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL. You want to live inside a little closed community, never poking your nose out, convinced that every time you buy something made by foreign devils you are trading a piece of your soul for it -- be my guest.
I am living in a global world. Most of the stuff I buy, both cheap and expensive, comes from different countries -- Japan, China, Germany, Mexico, etc. Periodically -- oh, horrors! -- I actually go on trips to foreign countries and leave a chunk on money there, paid for hotels, and food, and services, and what not.
Local independent retailers? What's that? Ah, those horse-and-buggy guys who had, basically, no selection at all and strangely high prices? I am not sorry to see them go. For example, am quite happy to have a Home Depot in my town -- the local hardware store never had what I needed and charged around three bucks for a pair of nails...
My local community is the world.
Re:UPC (Score:3, Insightful)
As I learned with EDI, it's the big dogs which drive the technology. GM insisted their suppliers use EDI or they wouldn't be suppliers. EDI made rapid progress in the auto supplier industry, Ford got on the badwagon, too, as it made logistics simpler.
With a big dog like Walmart wagging the RFID tail, suppliers will find other customers willing to use those RFID tags, too.
"What's this in my hotdog?"
"It's a feature, eat up and the next time you come in the store another just like it will be wating for you."
"Cool!"
people vs. BIG Corps (Score:2, Insightful)
A magnetic pulse generator does strange things to RF devices. Anyone know where I can get the plans for one. Perhaps designed to fit within a cane?
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which a large number of people find offensive.
Neither your offense nor theirs confers any behavioral obligations upon the other.
As it happens I really don't like yellow. I don't know why, I just don't. It offends me. I do, however, recognized that as my problem, not the problem of the people who paint their kitchens yellow or drive yellow cars.
It seems to me that if you wish to be effective in doing God's work (and there are some God fearing people who find that idea offensive. It is taking the Lord in vain. He is perfectly capable of doing his own work), the first thing you have to do is learn not to offended by people who take exception to that. Anger ( and offense is a form of anger) is not one of the Christian tools.
Peace, brother.
KFG
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:2, Insightful)
This has got to be one of the most asinine things I've ever read. Even on Slashdot.
A company is nothing more than an organization of...people.
The CEO of Wal-Mart made the decision to use RFID, probably after putting it to a vote of the board of directors.
Sheesh, you talk like a company is some sort of non-coporeal life form making decisions and then ordering its human slaves to comply.
Are you sure you haven't been using your tinfoil hat to focus microwave radiation into your brain? You sound pretty fried to me.
I want RFID. (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "What is this?"
I then want to see the specs appear on my computer screen.
I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "I'm happy to lend this." I'd like my neighbors, if they are looking for a vacuum cleaner, to be able to see that there is a willing lender nearby.
I don't care if my neighbors scan my apartment, and find out that I have underwear, and a toaster, and books.
"Naughty" stuff is not going to leave a store with RFID. If they're willing to ship in a brown paper bag, then they're smart enough to ship with the RFID tag taken off.
About Packaging (Score:4, Insightful)
People who are not weary of RFID always point to things such as
Sure that's valid right now, but how about the cost decreasing benefits of NO packaging. Gilette Razor blades for instance, packaged in a big box so they are harder to steal.
They can sell the idea of embedded chips, by saying it decreases packaging costs (which it will). Then, you can't throw it away.
Further, if anyone has noticed, ANY media which can be used as advertising IS used as advertising. From buses, The Internet, to the damn program Guide on your Cable Box, even the products in Movies. How long before RFID is used for that as well, once they have sold the idea of embedded chips.
Re:Isn't anyone concerned about this quote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I look forward to the day when I pull my shopping cart up to the register and it gives me my total.
Re:Isn't anyone concerned about this quote? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:1, Insightful)
Translation: chips don't spy on people -- people spy on people.
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a person who only studies economics by being a consumer [and I may be totally wrong] I'd say that for the most part, when inventory control is bad and leads to loss, the end consumer pays the difference. When inventory control is good, and specifically when it will be good for Walmart and few other companies at the moment, the added profit will be pocketed by the company, not the consumer.
Re:Isn't anyone concerned about this quote? (Score:5, Insightful)
While all this putting together of credit card info and gathering of RFID's, there's also a live *person* handling the transaction!
If you *didn't* want people to know you just bought underwear at a Wal*Mart, you'll need to send a friggin servant or wear a decent disguise.
California Assembly Ponders Digital Camera Ban (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot would be better off to stick to technology and not bother itself with juvenile Luddite ranting.
Practical application (Score:1, Insightful)
Customer: "Do you have On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando?"
Me looks it up on the computer: "Yes, we do. It's in our classics section."
Customer looks, doesn't find it. Two weeks later it shows up in westerns next to the Magnificent Seven.
With RFID
Customer: "Do you have On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando?"
Me looks it up on the computer with RFID: "Yes, we do. It's been misplaced in westerns according to the computer."
It could also reduce theft significantly. Theft is a big problem with most video stores. I should patent this!
(And thusly I expect this to be stolen shortly.)
Auto Pay (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where you drive up your baskart to the register, it gets scanned in basket, and you get billed for the cost. Its supposed to be 'convenient'
It also would be able to easily record all the serial numbers of the tags and attach to your buying habits.. with the ability to identify you at a later date purely due to the tags, in order to do 'targeted marketing' as you shop..
Yes this assumes you pay electronically.. but the technology is there for the tracing, and was their stated end goal.. Once costs and user acceptance catch up..
Re:OK, so now, what can we do. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can see some problems with this approach, though. I doubt these tags are re-programmable, and it probably works like UPC, with the first several digits of the code identifying the manufacturer, and the rest denoting the SKU and individual unit. And if the technology is such that readers can scan entire pallets of merchandise all at once, as they're off-loaded from trucks at the loading dock, then counter-measures probably wouldn't be effective -- you'd show up as a pair of Dockers, a pack of gum, AND a truckload of VCRs.
Still, if enough people obfuscated enough product, such that after-sale tag scanning was known to be completely unreliable, the incentive to do it might be eliminated.
Re:My Rights?? (Score:5, Insightful)
False. They don't "broadcast" anything. They're passive receivers. They are unpowered. They respond to radio stimulation. They no more "broadcast" a number than the money in my wallet is "broadcasting" serial numbers.
False. The scanners used to detect the passive tags can only do so from a short distance (on the order of a few inches, maybe a foot or two). It is extremely technically impractical to build a scanner powerful enough to scan and detect items several dozen yards away. What you're suggesting is as absurd as claiming that my garage door opener will potentially open up garage doors all over the city when I press the button while pulling into my driveway. Not to mention the problem of discerning quantum signals from a mess of more than 5 devices shouting "Here I am!" all at once. These detectors can't discriminate between more than a few tags simultaneously without getting confused.
False. Uncle Sam, if he were seriously interested, wouldn't waste time driving by your house with one of these massively powerful, imaginary scanners that can read all the tags in your house (while not getting confused with the tags answering from your neighbors' houses). He'd simply use the USAPATRIOT act to subpoena your bank records and see what you've bought.
False. People have always sought to dictate what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes. Witness the anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books in some places.
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's "anti-retail" if you try to limit the use of RFID tags to just in-store use. The retailers can always find some use of out-of-store tags in such a way to "enhance" their hold on the customer. At the most basic level, the live tags can be used by anyone who wants to pay a fee to Wal-Mart to gain access to the (Wal-Mart customer) information they get off of pinging the tags when they come by their own properties.
In America, placing any restrictions upon commerce is now viewed as being "anti-business", much like criticizing the political leadership or military is viewed as "anti-American". These views are very apt; they just demonstrate as clearly as possible that the corporations are in total control of the economic environment (rather, they think they have to right to be in control) and those that disagree must be condemned and eventually forced to accept their hegemony.
Re:Auto Pay (Score:2, Insightful)
This leads to their ultimate goal, that is, to eliminate staff to increase profit margins
-----
Indeed! If every industry could be fully automated then all staff could be eliminated and profit would be maximized.
And there would be no customers because no one would have jobs.
Re:Not that simple. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there no supermarkets near you? No Stater Brothers or Albertsons or whatever you have in your area? What about Target? What about a mall for that matter?
What is it you're looking for that you can't find at K-Mart that you need to go to Wal-Mart for??
Re:RFID tags are the least of my worries (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you actually think that if the closest retail outlet is 1.5 hours away no one will open up a store closer to take the market? Bullshit.
Punishment - a key difference (Score:3, Insightful)
You've made some of the most thoughtful replies on the topic, so I'll answer this one:
What other things comprise a corporation? Do you know of a corporation that has turned over decision making responsibility to a non-human?
Here's one big difference: a person can be punished in a number of ways, when he or she commits a crime. These range from financial penalties, to loss of freedom for a varying length of time, to the ultimate penalty of death. For individuals whose motivation is less than altruistic, these punishments provide a needed deterrent to behavior that hurts the rest of society.
A corporation, on the other hand, can *only* be punished in one way: financially. You can put corporate officers in jail, but the corporation itself will continue to exist with the same rights and freedoms that it enjoyed before. There is no "6 to 10 years in prison" for a corporation. Even the ultimate penalty, bankruptcy, isn't a death sentence for a corporation. It's just another financial penalty -- witness Enron and MCI.
Even the notion of ethics influencing behavior breaks down at the corporate level. A person may naturally be a saint, or he may be a sinner kept in line only by the threat of punishment in the next life. A publicly held company, on the other hand, is the ultimate atheist: its god holds its stock, and will mete out punishment in this life. There is no concept of ethics, other than artifical constructs that outside entities (ie, governments) have built to constrain the company.
In short, humans can be punished according to their crime, corporations can not. Humans have a soul, corporations do not. It is therefore a fallacy to give an artificial construct like a corporation equal rights with a human being -- not because of what it does right, but because of what you can't do when it does wrong.
An Opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
May I propose a bright Side?
We GIVE thousands of bottles of medicine to hospitals in Iraq. The day they arrive they are taken out the back door and distributed by a mafia blacl market.
That and not a fanatical religion is what is standing in the way of progress.
Progress in developing countries can be measured as the time it takes for people to assume that dishonest acts will be punshished.
Transparency.org tracks public perception regarding corruption for various countries.
The point is the ITEM LEVEL IDENTIFICATION is a disruptive technology for reducing the ability of corrupt economies to operate anonymously.
If we could RFID every item of material support we send to IRAQ we could satisfy the essential needs of the masses without enriching a few warlords - which means our boys could be home for Christmas.
I'm not sure we need this here - but let's look at some world class problems which could be solved.
AIK
Anti-Retail due to consumer spying.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was just watching a news piece on last night's local TV broadcast about how sophisticated the cameras have become at Home Depot stores. Apparently, their entire store is covered by cameras on the ceiling, and photos are taken and digitally stored of each person as they make purchases at the checkout counter.
They were bragging about how a murder case was solved in this manner, because a label and UPC code were found on the handle of a rake used in the crime. This traced it back to Home Depot, where they were able to input the UPC code and retreive perfectly clear photos of the person buying the rake. Home Depot claims they store all of this information for at least 1 year.
Perhaps just as interesting was that despite Home Depot's assertion that "This information is only used internally, and not provided to govt. agencies or any private outside individuals." - the police were able to get those photos of the guy buying the rake just by walking in a store and asking for them.
Target stores are also known for using sophisticated surveillance systems (and similar to Home Depot's setup, they're obviously able to retreive photos of who bought what in the past - as witnessed by the recent case where the college student faked being kidnapped, and was caught when they showed camera footage of her purchasing duct tape and rope, etc. at the local Target store just before it happened).
A private investigator interviewed on the news was quoted as having obtained this type of evidence from a retail store in New York, after he was hired to try to spy on a suspected cheating husband. (He purchased lingerie on his credit card, and then tried to claim his card was stolen - so the P.I. obtained photographic evidence that it was indeed him buying the items.) They asked the P.I. if he had permission to obtain this information from the retail store. He said no, but he had "confidential sources" that got it for him anyway.
That's the problem with all of this stuff. Once this type of data is indexed and stored somewhere, it has the potential to fall into the wrong hands - and eventually *will* do so. It's only a matter of time.
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point made (parent thread) about CASPIAN is right on: if you are leading you never acknowledge the competition as it only gives them power they otherwise lack; when they are already on par or beating you, you mention them. The fact than CASPIAN is mentioned at all, and particularly in disparaging, ad hominae attacks already means that the issues raised legitimate and important enough that they no only can't be simply ignored. It also suggests that the pro-RFID has only self-serving economic arguments against them with no constructive strategy to address the real issues. They've failed to properly do a "stakeholder analysis".
I strongly believe that RFID can be a really good thing for all involved but only if the privacy issues are dealt with structurally and architecturally through standards definitions and legal protections.
Well, DUH (Score:3, Insightful)
From driving down wages and destroying small businesses to employing illegal aliens to driving near-slave labor in other countries, Walmart is just a HUGE can of worms. Just another notch in the belt IMO.
And those are just the political reasons. Dirty stores. Merchandise and boxes all over the isles.
Make it known that you don't want to shop there, for RFID and the other noted reasons. I'm sure walmart will say it will immensly cut down on theft, but honestly, with the amount of businessnes they do, they probably don't notice it anyway. They will say that this will drive down prices for the consumer, but the consumer hardly benefits from this at all. Walmart will benefit by improved inventory control/tracking/ potentially seeing customer buying habits.
Re:You know they're scared when... (Score:5, Insightful)
This scheme is nothing new; Walmart is enormously succesful precisely because of their cutting-edge inventory management systems, and they have _always_ passed the savings on to their customers. The direct, immediate connection between them saving money and their customers seeing lower prices and better stock management is why there are so many WalMarts. It's the key to their success.
It's kind of interesting to study -- they have an incredibly low profit margin compared to other stores in their industry, and that low profit margin has made them one of the biggest companies in the U.S.
-Billy
Re:Another reason... (Score:2, Insightful)