Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

You Need Not Be Paranoid To Fear RFID 509

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You Need Not Be Paranoid To Fear RFID

Comments Filter:
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @06:41AM (#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
  • Patent War Chest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @06:44AM (#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.
  • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @06:46AM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @06:51AM (#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 dougman ( 908 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @06:56AM (#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 @06:59AM (#13755369)
    Don't leave that empty pack of smokes at the bar. They'll show up at the crime scene later.
  • by Joakim A ( 313708 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:03AM (#13755374)
    No, because
    Barcodes do not identify the individual item.
    Barcodes cannot be remotely scanned without the owner noticing.
    Barcodes are usually on the packaging material and not on the product.
  • by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:05AM (#13755381) Journal
    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 advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:08AM (#13755391)
    (Or just use cash).

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

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

    by doublem ( 118724 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:20AM (#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 ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@earthsh ... .co.uk minus bsd> on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:23AM (#13755436)
    Use coins. I already do anyway. The authorities must think I have a massive gambling habit, but really I'm just going into amusement arcades to change serial-numbered notes for unnumbered coins. Coins, being made of metal, cannot have RFID devices embedded in them. Radio waves will not travel through anything that conducts electricity {this is a fundamental limitation of the universe and cannot be overcome by invention}. If you are really paranoid, you can test each coin for conductivity in several places using a simple home-built device {a store-bought AVO may have been rigged}.
  • the point (Score:2, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:26AM (#13755446)
    the point is, why the fuck should we have to go to all the trouble of frying chips just to stop people aquiring my information without my consent.
  • by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <tuxette.gmail@com> on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:29AM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:32AM (#13755463)
    Today you need to *go through* that garbage to get the information. It's a manual, long and expensive process.

    With RFID, the process is completely automatized and takes less than half a second. You can integrate a reader in the garbage collection chain (or even in the garbage collection trucks) and get all that information at an industrial scale -- i.e. big-brotherize everyone.

    Generally, who cares? Well I do.
  • Chilling effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by badfish99 ( 826052 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:36AM (#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.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:40AM (#13755482)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Alef ( 605149 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:40AM (#13755484)
    Yes, you can do that, but it is messy and takes a lot of time. With RFID tags you could do it without even having to open the trash bag, and the whole process could be automated and performed at a massive scale, and that makes the information cheap.

    I'm not saying anyone would actually do that, but it is certainly feasible from a technological point of view.

    It has always been possible to gather personal information about someone, if you have sufficient resources. Secret services all over the world do it routinely. The scary part is that such information could soon be available to anyone (large corporations anyway) for a couple of bucks.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:41AM (#13755486)
    This whole thread is bullshit! it's based on the nonsense in the original post that said something like "your cc no. will be written to the RFID tag and forever be associated w/ that product." what a load of crap! Do you REALLY think something like that will fly? RFID is a self-broadcasting barcode. it speeds things up b/c an RFID reader can scan a wholebuncha items just by close proximity to the items rather than physically pointing each barcode at a laser. yes RFID tags enable each item to have a unique s/n rather than just the generic UPC code that barcodes allow. if there is anywhere that that unique s/n will be forever ass'd w/ your cc. no. it is in the retailer's Db, NOT on the individual RFID chip itself. Once the retailer has sold you a pair of $12 indonesian shoes why in the hell would they want to maintain the individual s/n for that item? i don't think so. most likely they are only interested in the generic identification that you purchased a size 10, brown, pointy-toe slip on. they will aggregate this info to determine buying PATTERNS in general. that's how they make money. no one is going to be making money by tracking your ratty-assed shoe after it's been to the goodwill store. therefore IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. you can take the tin-foil hats off now.
  • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:48AM (#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 LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @07:55AM (#13755540)
    All this chatter is about potential abuses of RFID by nasty corporations. I imagine that their are areas in the government simply drueling over the possibilities ... that bullet was purchased at KMart in Osh Kosh on October 19th at 7:22pm by ...

    And what about the IRS, and the state governments. I am sure the state of Massachusetts, which never leaves any revenue stream untapped, is intrigued by the possibility of being able to "capture" all those lost sales taxes from people shopping outside the state (neighboring NH has no sales tax and the parking lots in the malls are always filled with cars with Mass plates). Imagine getting a retro-active sales tax bill with an itemized list of everything you bought.
  • by Knight2K ( 102749 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:21AM (#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.
  • by BVis ( 267028 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:24AM (#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.
  • Re:Ubiquity (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:35AM (#13755738)
    => Automatic searches at the airport when a scan of your luggage turns results that deviate from the norm?

    RFID aside, this already happens. I forgot to take off my belt before going through the metal detector. Somehow that flagged me for them to do the full body pat-down and going through my stuff. They claimed to 'discover' chemicals on my baggage handle. The 'traces' of whatever on my shoes led them to ask me if I was recently on a farm (I had been in a park, though). They took my name and address. Hoo-fucking-ray, I bet they made their quota. Hope they realize they're missing real drug traffickers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @08:36AM (#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 lmlloyd ( 867110 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @09:15AM (#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.
  • by ifwm ( 687373 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @09:28AM (#13756029) Journal
    "My trash bin sits on my property, and the only person who has any right to step onto my property and take are the folks who work for my garbage service. So that means that anyone else who tries this is going to be looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge"

    Or they could simply drag your bin onto public property and take their time.

    Or they could dump your bin out and take the trash with them.

    I know you don't sit in your yard guarding your trash all day.
  • by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @09:34AM (#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.
  • by Hrodvitnir ( 101283 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @09:48AM (#13756159)
    I mean really. Right now, anyone can follow me around all day and see:

    - what my spending habits are like
    - what my diet is like
    - what my consumption rate is
    - what my interests are
    - what my personal timeline is like
    - samples of my dna
    - samples of my finger prints

    The point is, people don't do these things because it's not worth it. Now it is.
  • by Generic Guy ( 678542 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @10:06AM (#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.

  • hard money (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ChristTrekker ( 91442 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @10:31AM (#13756393)

    Another reason to get back on the gold standard. Not only can't the gov't screw with the value of money by practicing inflation, but RFID can't work either.

  • by virtcert ( 512973 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @10:48AM (#13756527) Homepage
    > 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).

    You're missing key differences here:

    1) Scope of Identification

    Bar codes identify a type of product
    RFID identifies a unique item.

    2) Size and Stealth

    Bar codes are fairly large and obvious
    RFID chips have already shrunk down to the size of a grain of sand

    3) Scanning Requirements

    Bar codes must be visible with line-of-sight with the barcode reader
    RFID requires only proximity, no line-of-sight with the chip required

    From what little I've read, RFID scanners are already sensitive enough to pick up tags from 30 feet away, and the technology is still in its infancy.

    I don't have any problem with the use of it by informed choice, but I have no doubts that there will be abuse of the system (as there is with any system). I had to tell the cashier at Target the other day that she missed scanning an item, I have little doubt that disabling RFID tags will be overlooked as well.

    And the information is easily correlated. Just driving through the Toll Booth on I-95 with your EZ-Pass RFID toll-paying-gizmo could trivially be linked with picking up the responding tags of all your RFID-enabled property in the car that can get a signal out and associating it with you personally.

    The state could make all kinds of money selling off that information to marketers, and considering the cash-strapped condition of many states, I doubt "ethics" would interfere with anything that could increase revenues.

    You can make all the crazy projections you want as to abuses, and they still probably will pale with what actually happens in real life.

    Just don't walk into your sin-preventing RFID-scanning church door with those smokes, flask and that copy of Big 'uns under your jacket... :-)

      - Brian
  • by guaigean ( 867316 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @12:32PM (#13757416)
    Here's the problem though. We moved away from the gold standard long ago. Now, when inflation happens, the value of a coin can become less than the value to make said coin. With paper, the value doesn't really inflate that much. Paper is renewable, we don't have to find another mine to produce it cheaply. It's easy to put out new currency and make changes, as opposed to retooling a minting press. Paper is economically more feasible (and just happens to be lighter to carry).
  • by Kaiwen ( 123401 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:36PM (#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 mkcmkc ( 197982 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:38PM (#13758405)
    I recently had occasion to spend several hundred two-dollar bills in my day-to-day transactions, and it's made this question of why unconventional coin and currency haven't succeeded quite clear. In my experience, people almost uniformly love these rare items.

    The reason they don't achieve widespread use is because merchants pull them out of circulation, rather than giving them out as change. Why do they do this? Perceived inconvenience, the idea that employees will mistake their value, etc. The solution? Remove alternatives (as the parent suggested), or offer them at a discount (e.g., 100 dollar coins for $99).

    All of this theorizing about customers not liking them is just so much self-serving bilge.

  • by Bent Mind ( 853241 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @05:10PM (#13759464)
    I've been watching the debate over RFID for a while now. The technology could have a lot of benifit. I currently work in a high security warehouse. I have to walk through a metel detector, have a wand passed over my body, pull my pockets inside out, remove belts and shoes, pull my pant waist away from my body, and pull up my pant legs to get outside. It would be nice if RFID would allow me to simply be scanned for RFID tags and exit. In the home, it could make computerized inventory a reality. My pantry would be able to tell me I'm low on tomato sauce before I go to the store.

    However, I can also see the dark side. I've lived in neiborhoods where you're asked to leave if you don't cut your grass a certain way. RFID would be a godsend to the busybodies that live in these places. Just think, they could kick you out for buying generic food. Of course I can choose not to live in such places. I currently avoid them if I know about them in advance. However, I can see other problems.

    1. Alcohol. You say good because If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. You go on to say that premiums might be lower for those who drink in moderation. What about those places where alcohol is illegal? What if you have children? Have you heard the garbage taught in schools concerning alcohol?

    2. Birth Control. You say There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. What does it matter if anyone knows you used them? The fact that you have them can cause all sorts of problems. Many religious groups would like to see birth control made illegal. The examples are only silly if you exclude all of the silly people out there. Thinking back to high school, I wonder how many girls carried condoms. I wonder if people would have considered them sluts if everyone knew they were on birth control. It kind of discourages the use of contraceptives.

    I'll pass on three. Though I don't want everone knowing what perscriptions are on my body, thieves don't need RFID to find out what is in my garbage.

    4. Books You say More ridiculous alarmist thinking... I'm not too worried about my employer knowing what books I read. Actually, I'd be more interested in knowing what books my employer read. However, I can certainly see getting nasty anonymous letters in the mail based on my reading habits. When you expand this to movies and games, I might even end up in jail or having my children taken away. I have violent games in my house. My daughter loves to watch me play Halo. However, she's not allowed in the game room when I'm playing Doom III.

    On my way to work this morning, there was a news story on the radio about a couple that had been arrested for watching porn. They confiscated the TV and DVD player. The police had received a complaint about the TV being too loud. Just think, with RFID, the police won't need a complaint to dictate how you live your life in the privacy of your own home.

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...