![Privacy Privacy](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/privacy_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
![Technology Technology](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/technology_64.png)
Wal-Mart Cancels RFID Trial 411
EABird writes "CNet is reporting that Wal-mart has announced that they have canceled the RFID trial they were planning. Unfortunately, it looks like they are canceling it to focus on the use of the same technology in the warehouses and distribution centers instead, and waiting for the cost to come down before using the RFIDs in the stores."
Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh well, is Tesco still going to use them?
Re:Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)
"Come here CornCobb Holder 6pk you little shnookums"
Re:Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)
I always use my dog's name as a password. M/g1k-Ø3 hates the name.
But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... (Score:5, Informative)
Animal shelters scan incoming pets for microchips and contact the owner. It's an ID tag that is hard to lose. The American Kennel Club recommends the procedure.
See this article [atlantakennelclub.org] for more information.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... (Score:2, Informative)
And you can't track them, you can only identify them, which is only slightly helpful when unleashing an army of rats upon the city.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... (Score:5, Informative)
SOME do this. very few of them have the funds to buy the scanners and pay the monthly subscription to the database. espically the privately run animal shelters (you know the ones that don't simply kill the animals 3 days after they get them.) that can barely keep their doors open let alone deal with some expensive technology.
I know many people that had their pet's chipped and were contacted a YEAR later when fluffy was taken to a vet finally and on a chance was scanned. Fluffy was already adpoted by another family over 6 months previousally...
it's not a worthwile thing to do until ALL places are required to scan the pets and the national database is free for use.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still worthwhile - perhaps not as effective or bulletproof as people may thing, but still worthwhile.
Why? Simply put, it's a chicken and egg scenario.
Until many/most pets have it, shelters won't buy the scanners/subs as they feel they're a useless extra expense.
Until most shelters have scanners, skeptics feel it's a waste of money to chip their pets, and don't.
You can help brea
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... (Score:3, Insightful)
A very simple, low tech way of letting people know WHO the pet belongs to and WHERE to call..
and it doesn't rely on some database that you have to pay to access.
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But you CAN track your pets with RFID tags... (Score:5, Funny)
Can a dog be in violation of the DCMA for chewing the tag off?
Re:Dammit! (Score:3, Funny)
I read that as
Oh well, is Taco still going to use them?
and thought, damm Kathleen has him on a short leash!
Re:Dammit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't a better idea be to use RFIDs to track the politically inconvenient? Implant them under the skin, on the forearm perhaps. It's a little less conspicuous then tattoing numbers on them.
Unfortunate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunate? (Score:2)
Simple answer(s) (Score:5, Interesting)
You're comment "How would you know?" points out a big part of the problem. RFID tags can be/are hidden very effectively (including manufactured INTO the soles of shoes). As it stands now, destroying the RFID tag (assuming you can find/get to it) is the only way you can be sure that it will not continue to allow you and your purchases to be tracked. (Microwaving doesn't work since it would cause the chip and your items to catch fire). Without clear legislation mandating the removability of RFID chips post-purchase, the marketplace (which is notably non-privacy minded) and what they think they can get away with will decide the continued usage of these tags. And that's unfortunate.
Re:Simple answer(s) (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I should RTFA, but it seems to me that the RFID tags would naturally be destroyed at the checkout counter -- that's what they do with current RF security tags (destroy or remove them). If it can't be done forcibly with an overload, then design them to respond to a "suicide" command.
If it's a concern that the chips will
Misread (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the writer meant that it was unfortunate for the RFID industry that Walmart is backing down from the more ambitious plan; it's not exactly great PR any time a client downgrades their plans. Walmart was supposedly the main power behind UPC barcodes and hence their every move is watched...and if they're backing down and going for a less-ambitious implementation, it might be interpreted as a sort of warning flag to the business world that maybe RFID isn't quite ready for primetime.
It's not a terribly surprising move, and is pretty intelligent, honestly; this is sort of the retail equivalent of the "staging" concept in IT. Walmart's forging new ground, so they're taking it one step at a time. Warehousing operations are more centralized, there's fewer units of equipment than for a POS system change, and so on. It's also a little easier to keep it transparent to end users.
big deal if they use it in warehouses? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would assume most retail theft occurs when the product is actually in the store, but I could be wrong.
If that was the case, then wouldn't it be a much better idea to continue if protecting their products were the reason.
In my view, for a new technology to be tested, it's a much more sterile enviornment in a warehouse.
Which will give you a better idea of the trials of an in store debut.
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would assume most retail theft occurs when the product is actually in the store, but I could be wrong.
A LOT of it occurs in retail, but not all. Theft can occur between the warehouse and the store. Back in high school I worked at a store that had a problem with people skimming an item or two from a pallet after it was taken off the truck, but before it was checked into in-store inventory. Same for return items. A lot of times someone would bring an item back, and it would just disappear before hitt
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the slippery slope, but I can picture some guy in a dark room watching little blips move around on a screen ala Enemy of the State. How lon
Ahh.. but it is to easy to... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be TRIVIAL to attach that Unique ID Number to the Credit Card Number or Bank Account Number of the person that bought the article of clothing. Cross reference that with all the other RFID tags on that same person and a VERY logical deduction could be made that the person in the store is you, the one that bought all that stuff...
Then, you nonchalantly walk about picking up thi
Re:Ahh.. but it is to easy to... (Score:3, Insightful)
My question is, what are people so afraid of? I doubt stores would loudly greet you with an automated "welcome back to MegaStore, Mr. Consumer - your favorite scat-fetish magazines can be found in Aisle 8, on special today only!"
The bottom line is that you have very little "privacy" today anyway. In Scott McNealy's words
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the problem is that RFID tags can also be used to track your products after someone buys them. It creates another means for someone to invade your privacy.
In practice, it's not such a big deal if you can disable the RFID tags after purchsing the product. There's no guarantee the store will do this (it may be in their best interests *not* to do this) and telling people how to do this themselves will probably violate DMCA, not to mention state and local laws.
Re:big deal if they use it in warehouses? (Score:3, Funny)
Why does it feel as though if I stare at someone the wrong way, I may be violating the DMCA?
Is it just me?
Most theft? (Score:5, Informative)
What you mean is that most shrink is caused by employees. This includes theft, but also includes things like cashiers failing to ring everything in a cart up, ringing up something cheap instead of a more expensive item, failing to detail recieve every item that is delivered, breaking an item and failing to report it as damaged, using an item in the store and failing to report it as store used, issuing too much money for a return, incorrectly pricing an item, etc.
Some shrink is caused by theft. Percentage wise, not a whole lot in high volume stores.
Most theft in high volume stores is from outsiders. Theft, however, is not nearly as important a number as shrink.
FYI, shrink is the total retail value of all items that should be in the store and sellable, minus the actual retail value of the items inventoried in the store. It's the difference between the value of the inventory the store thinks it should have, minus the value of the inventory it thinks it counted when it did an inventory.
Of course, there are many mistakes made during all of these processes for a high volume store such as Wal-Mart or Home Depot, resulting in a shrink number that can never be precise, due to so many errors in the inventory process.
Yes, most inventory loss is Theft (Score:3, Informative)
Most of retail theft is by employees.
>Nope. You don't mean that.
Yes, he DOES mean that.
According to the National Retail Security Survey, November 2002 conducted by the University of Florida:
Retail Shrinkage:
48.5% Employee Theft
31.7% Shoplifting
15.3% Administrative Error
05.4% Vendor Fraud
Total Inventory Shrinkage $31.3 billion, or $440 in higher prices as a result, per family per year. Source. [about.com]
I am also a fraud investigator [hamlinx.com], and overall, the vast, vast majority of all white collar crime
Great (Score:5, Funny)
"Unfortunately"???? (Score:2, Insightful)
This will sound like flamebait... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Do mods even read the article, th
Re:This will sound like flamebait... (Score:2)
Re:"Unfortunately"???? (Score:2)
This assumes you have a choice. ou do not have a choice if everybody has them. Thats a problem.
I have no problem with them using themin there ware house. I have no problem if they make them easily removable. However, it is only a matter of time where all stores make it so you can't return an item without one.
The people need certian protections from misuse of rfid tags, or any kind of tracking, for that matter.
I don't see the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with them using RFID for their internal inventory tracking. Sure, we'll be facing this same argument all over again when the price does drop enough to deploy in stores, but it can wait until then.
Re:I don't see the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
no it can not. This is part of the pacification of consumers(RFID companies term, not mine).
Once it gets heavily used in the warehouse, they'll move it to the store, and since it has been in use, it will be harder to get the protections we should from the misuse of RFIDs.
Once something is in place,its harder to get it stopped or changed.
Not cancelled, just delayed... (Score:5, Interesting)
On a related note, I work at a hospital that is starting a barcode initiative on drugs. We only just now had the power to convince the drug companies that they need to supply us their drugs in individual doses, prelabeled and barcoded.
--D
Good decision by Walmart. (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think it's a much better idea to use the technology in warehouses and distribution first. Hell, I can't beileve they'd even consider moving to a full scale store deployment before a long bit of testing in warehouses.
I think this is a smart move by Walmart, regardless of the precieved failure that may come by such bold claims, and then a back down.
Re:Good decision by Walmart. (Score:2, Insightful)
Putting RFID in the individual packages doesn't really affect their distribution model too much, since they're scanning everything with bar codes in the checkout line anyway.
Re:Good decision by Walmart. (Score:2)
Exactly. You stated that better than I did.
Cost saving measure? Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect the claim that this is a cost saving measure is, itself, actually a face-saving measure. I suspect that they are making the claim so that they don't have to admit that they were wrong.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with this?
Gillette shelf is not so smart (Score:2, Interesting)
RFID (Score:5, Interesting)
For now, the cost is too high to put in smaller denominations, but I'm guessing that with the huge numbers of bills, the cost will eventually no longer be a deciding factor.
You can check it out here. [wired.com]
You mean Europe isn't FREE? (Score:2)
I know I'm burning some karma here, but seriously, folks, for every dubious project the US undertakes, I hear about five in Europe.
Re:You mean Europe isn't FREE? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is in general a lot less free and less liberal than most other western countries (think drug laws, does 'Total Information Awareness' ring a bell, how about laws against gays, its 2003!!!). This is type of thinking is the result of constant brainwashing by the US media that the US is the 'land of the free', where i
Re:RFID (Score:5, Insightful)
To stop counterfeit bills, not to stop anonymous cash transactions. You honestly think someone is going to setup a database and link all of the bills against your CITIZEN.USER_PK1 unique ID number just to make sure you can't be anonymous?
Sometimes I just get utterly confused as to what you people expect. Why do you guys even leave the house? I got a news flash for you -- you still don't have anonymous cash transactions because people still see you! Yeah, you better go saw your face off as it's a way of identifying you.
Re:RFID (Score:2)
Personally I don't worry, because money is only used because people assign value to it. People can just as easily assign value to paper without RFID tags, or little glass beads. In the end people that want to make anonymous transactions will.
Re:RFID (Score:2)
Never trust anybody that didn't give birth to you or gives birth to your children. It would be next to impossible to track bills, as people would setup laundering services instantaneously to get "clean" bills. It's ridiculous to think it's even remotely feasibl
Re:RFID (Score:2)
And tell me, how the in the hell is tracking money supposed to make this different? You think it's easier to setup RFID trackers (or break into the imaginary boogie-man database) than to just follow someone around?
The problem with the privacy nuts is they don't think past the "Ah, they get my informatio
Good lord (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RFID (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly does that "eliminate the anonymous cash transaction?" Newsflash: CURRENCY ALREADY HAS SERIAL NUMBERS ON IT. The fact that the bill has a number is useless unless they know the details of every transaction in which it was ever exchanged. If you lend me $20 and I spend it at Subway and get $10 back in change... how on earth would they ever track any of that? How would the Sub-lady know that it was me who bought that sub?
Re:RFID (Score:2)
the EU may implant RFID tags into the Euro, basically eliminating the anonymous cash transaction.
How does this stop anything being anonymous? Are people going to ask for ID every time you buy everything and enter it into a DB? What about the thousands of establishments that won't bother with the RFID reader as many currently don't bother with a UV lamp? There won't be a 'data trail' to follow back to the cash machine, and I doubt the cash machines would even scan the notes on the way out (after all, they
Re:RFID (Score:3, Interesting)
Active RFID tags will always be too expensive for tracking/authenticating small denomination currency or high-volume/low-cost merchandise.
Passive RFID [inkode.com] has a much lower cost-per-unit and it's better in many other ways as well. It's perfect for currency as it cannot be duplicated.
I can't figure out why Walmart isn't jumping all ove
Re:RFID (Score:5, Interesting)
To eliminate anonymous transactions they would first have to ask for ID before either giving change, or accepting cash. Identifying the bill doesn't identify the person who holds it (notice that all US notes carry a unique number as well; ooh! they are watching us!) If you want to theorize that the data could all be collected and used for central tracking of the flow of public money then you'll have to admit that the same thing is possible for any serially numbered printed bill (indeed serial numbers have been used in the US to trace criminal money laundering operations.) The EC just wants to make their bills harder to forge.
How would it stop annon cash transactions? (Score:3)
Re:RFID (Score:4, Interesting)
One cannot see the serial numbers on the bills you have in your wallet while it's in your pocket. You have to take them out and show them.
With RFID tags in the bills, all you have to do is walk past a scanner, and they know how much cash you have on you.
You can bet that pickpockets will have scanners built/bought the day before RFID-tagged bills go in to circulation. (Then we'll get to enjoy a long series of laws trying to ban the ownership of RFID scanners).
Go RFID! (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine, for instance, walking down the sidewalk and having a high-tech sexy girl humanoid flash her breasts at you because it recognized the hotdog in your pants.
Now That's the kind of future I'd like to see. Go RFID!
Duh! (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's see.. completely revamp and replace all your cash registers and portable readers and software to use a product that you now have to pay $$$ for each item you sell...
or stick with barcodes, your equipment already supports it and to put a barcode on a product is free (I.E. your products ALREADY comes with barcodes on them.)
It's just plain old smart business sense...
Unfortunate? Depends... (Score:2)
If, however, they are using them as an alternative to barcoding on each crate (which is what the article suggests), then there is nothing unfortunate about this, and it strikes me as a perfectly good use of a technology which is not inherently evil.
They're coming to the stores (Score:5, Insightful)
- easy to inventory...no more midnight teams counting stock and taping notes to the shelves
- no more scanning trouble (dirty scan window or munged barcode)
- meta information can help keep stock fresh...embed an expiration date and have the product tell you when it's expired
- reduce loss from fraudulent returns - stores could tell if a product was purchased at that chain.
Those are just a few simple examples of the usefulness of tags. I do have some questions though...
- What's the range of scanners? What if I buy a candy bar in one store, stick it in my pocket, then go to another store. Will the scanner pick up what's in my pocket?
- People seem to be worried about being tracked. What will washing do to the tags?
I'm not sure why this is a "rights" issue. Is there a right to privacy written somewhere?
Re:They're coming to the stores (Score:2)
To the uninitiated, there are people who find great deals on DVD's, software and similar items that are brand new. Then they return them to wal mart with their no receipt necessary policy and get the full price refunded and make a few $$$ in the process.
Re:They're coming to the stores (Score:3, Funny)
It'll be a while before RFIDs are cheap enough to attach to candy bars. By the time they are, you can bet this problem will be licked, or people will have to shop naked to avoid having to constantly repurchase their pants. :-)
Re:They're coming to the stores (Score:2)
Re:They're coming to the stores (Score:2)
Later laws on the books (various privacy acts) have addressed that relationship, somewhat.. but the 'right of privacy' much like the 'right of free speech' is restricted only to a persons interaction with government and does not extend to censure or infringement in other domains.
This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I've received two mailings in the last four years that said: "Mr. Miller! Here are some wonderful coupons that are tailored to your unique shopping needs!"
Both times the results were laughable. Not a single coupon was for somethind I used, or wanted to use, or might have been persuaded to use, based on the data they've 'gathered'.
For the tinfoil hats out there, if my experience in Government is any indication, Big Brother doesn't have the resources or money or true knowledge to abuse this information the way you think they will.
When was the last time cookies were used to betray your privacy? They were a big hot nasty item in the near recient past too.
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:4, Interesting)
All this really tells you is that you don't know what the data is being used for. Grocery stores spend big bucks setting up and maintaining those systems. Not to mention the "discounts" used to entice people to sign up. You've probably "saved" hundreds of dollars. A couple of mass mailings sure isn't making up that kind of cost.
So you've shown that direct mail marketing does not appear to be the primary use of all that data. Well then, what is the primary use? My theory is that the insurance companies are or will be the largest consumer, since I expect that that data is possibly a better predictor of future health costs than almost anything else. In fact, that data would be so valuable that insurance companies would be almost negligent in their duty to the shareholders to not buy it.
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:2)
I didn't ...got the card..use it..but, is still anon. as far as I know. If they were smart, they'd tie transactions with the card to swiped credit cards and checks...but, I"m fairly sure they aren't doing that......yet?
Anonymous Grocery Club Cards (Score:3, Funny)
Messing with their data is much more fun than simply being anonymous.
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:2)
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose I'm your local grocer. Steak costs me $6/pound. Tampons cost me $3/pack.
You buy steak. You've shown the store you're willing to pay $10 per pound for steak, regularly. You tell the store that you're willing to pay $10/lb for steak every week you go grocery shopping, when you buy one of my 16-oz New York Strips. And I make $4.00 fr
"They" were right (Score:4, Interesting)
If you get into a dispute or a lawsuit, you may find that the other side has a lot of revealing information that it will try to use against you. When a shopper slipped and fell in a Von's supermarket, Von's used the records from his Von's Club card to try to show that he bought a lot of liquor and, by implication, was probably a drunk. [net4tv.com]
When was the last time cookies were used to betray your privacy? They were a big hot nasty item in the near recient past too.
Same page; search for "hotmail." Is it due to cookies alone? No - it's because of misuse and careless application of the technology. Never underestimate the incompetence and corruption of others.
Which isn't to say I've never had a "club card." I have - but it sure didn't have my name on it. And when I used it I paid in cash. And when I moved away it went in the trash.
Which is not to say I have the same irrational fear of RFID as many others. I don't sweat it because :
I always pay cash
and...
I own many hammers
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:2)
Re:This is blown WAY out of proportion. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I can tell you it works really well for some people. My amazon "recommended items" section is ridiculous. It's gotten so good, I started checking it when I want to rent a movie, but I don't know what to rent. I don't think it matters how much they know of my movie preferences, but that'd scare the hell out of me if I were
Transport & logistics (Score:5, Interesting)
Further - being attached to something that's generally disposed after receipt - the technology doesn't raise the same level of privacy issues as it does when used for consumer/retail purposes.
RFID in Stores (Score:3, Informative)
Soon after opening, yellow signs appeared on all registers stating that they were beginning to track inventory using a new technology. Items would have to be scanned before brought outside (otherwise security gates at the exit would go wild in some fashion, I guess), and the technology was "not harmful... comparable to FM radio signals". Given the choice of comparison, I imagine the switch is on to RFID tags on all products there. Either that, or it's a huge bluff; I saw some woman walk out of the store without stuff on the bottom of her cart scanned in and nothing happened.
Scoop: RFID privacy tool invented (Score:5, Funny)
Note: if the tool itself also contains an RFID marker, you may need to buy two...
Consumer tracking (Score:3, Insightful)
To be completely honest, they've been doing a good job of tracking us anyway over the past decade. Of course, this is a bad thing, so it's nice to know that we won't have an electronic bulls' eye stuck on our package of Sam's Peanut Butter Cups for the time being.
Still, keep in mind that everything we buy with that special discount card from your local grocery store is linked to your name, address, telephone number, date of birth, annual salary, previous purchases, purchase trends, purchase times, and favorite cashiers. I would mind heavily if they didn't pay me for mine - of course, that's because I work at Meijer [meijer.com] for mine, and I now have an associates' degree, so the tracking can be more easily rectified by finding a new job and leaving the 10% discount behind.
I would recommend finding tinfoil bags for your groceries soon, however.
What's so bad about RFID? (Score:2, Funny)
I know that sounds kind of far fetched, but aren't there steps that can be taken to effectively neutralize any threats to privacy resulting from RFID tags? Don't you think it would be fun for some big chain to throw lots of money into some technology like that to find that
To all who bitch about "what is unfortunate" (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I was a little disappointed when I read it and found out that they weren't cancelling it due to consumer backlash. That would be the ultimate victory.
Going a little too far? (Score:2)
Also, contrary to this post's title, Wal-Mart still plans a major implementation of the technology in its distribution centers [wirelessweek.com].
We're safe, for now (Score:2)
not a cost issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you honestly think they didn't reun cost analysis before the first announcement was made?
This is the "pacification of the consumer" stage. they want people to be apathetic so they can control how they are used to manipulate the consumer, i.e. us. It is only a metter of time before we find ourselfs in a situation where we get marketed to in our homes, start seeing price adjustment based on what we are wearing.
once everybody is wearing them, it only make sense to put monitors in key places, just in case something goes wrong? right?
If you are a minority, you should be fghting for protections against RFID.
Ned I remind you we live at a time when the cost of an item may be dictated by what browser your using? or that 'harmless' cookies are used to track where you go and send you 'marketing advice'?
Privacy Concerns are SO overrrated (Score:5, Insightful)
All these privacy concerns people bring up, about people tracking you down are really overrrated.
Why?
The stores (walmart and others) have the same concerns. They preferably just want their own scanners to recognize their own products. Why? If an average joe can create a reader that identifies the actual product, what's to stop their competitor from parking a van outside their store with a powerful reader? The last thing a store wants to do is let anyone else knows their inventory levels. They're practically on the same boat.
and why won't they have the incentive to kill the tags when you leave the store? If you're talking about Walmart, people that buy clothes from walmart most likely will go BACK to walmart at some point in the future wearing those clothes. The last thing they need is a line of 100 house-wifes lining up at the customer service center wondering why they were accused of stealing.
Re:Privacy Concerns are SO overrrated (Score:3, Informative)
WRONG. RFID tag IDs have a namespace hierarchy similar to IPv6. Manufacturer code, product code, serial number. They have an option to use a private namespace with their own mappings, but most likely they won't, since the money saving simply isn't there when you have to rip out the old tags and put new ones in for every warehouse you move to and from.
Secondly, anything that is sold should be marked as such in the st
boxes (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been selling manufacturing equipment for boxes for about 6 years.
RFID tags have many, many uses in warehousing. The idea that an RFID will somehow automatically lead to an invasion of privacy is silly.
Sometimes RFID tags are used so the forklift operator knows what's on a pallet they're moving. The traditional way is to hang a piece of paper from the load. However, paper can and does fall off, get ripped, etc.
RFID can also be used on physical portals to measure traffic. A huge amount of savings can be made in a warehouse by knowing where the physical bottlenecks are. The most cost-effective and reliable way to do this is a system of non-invasive sensing and automatic data collection. Ever been in warehousing operations? There's a LOT going on and it's easy to lose stuff. I've had trouble finding a shipment at a customs depot that was only garage-sized. Everything is a different size, shape, and appearance.
Will the FUD never stop?
Ever buy something like a power tool, CD, or memory strip from a retailer? There's an inventory control strip in there, right? Duh.
Beyond that, do some investigation to the problems of bar codes. Betcha didn't know there's a very limited number of options there which are basically exhausted. Ever consider the sensing difference between barcodes and RFID? Hmm...maybe you could know what something is and what's INSIDE without having to physically touch the box.
Yes, I know there are barcode readers that work at a distance. They don't work THROUGH other boxes. How do you know what's inside a mixed pallet of boxes which is sealed with plastic wrap? How better to detect a discrepancy between shipping documents and the actual items than by non-invasively knowing AND COUNTING what's inside such a mixed pallet?
RFID and other non-invasive knowledge technologies don't automatically mean you are being spied on. It's far more likely a way to increase efficiency and lower costs. We DO live in a price-competitive society, don't we?
As far as the reply about tracking what you buy. Uh...ever hear of credit cards and so-called discount cards at retailers?
Re:boxes (Score:4, Insightful)
The general anti-RFID sentiment goes beyond FUD, in my opinion, and approaches neo-luddite proportions. The level of some of the paranoia on Slashdot is pretty damn astonishing. There's definitely a bandwagon effect, and people seem to jump on to causes without really applying much sense.
From what I've seen (including this most previous Slashdot article and its use of the word "unfortunately" when referring to Wal Mart's continued use of RFID), people don't want RFID technology to be used, deployed or further developed -- in any way, at all. All because it could potentially be used to invade their privacy.
So -- they are opposing the technology, just because of the potential for misuse.
Yet Slashdot regularly slams RIAA, the MPAA and others for opposing technology (P2P) due to its potential for misuse.
The hypocrisy is obvious.
RFID in the warehouse (Score:5, Informative)
The big problem in retail stores is theft, because they let the public roam the aisles. Stuff on the shelves represents tied-up money, so store inventories are kept to a minimum, therefore keeping track of stuff in the stores is not that big a deal. They already use tags to deter theft of big-ticket items such as health and beauty aids. RFID will not help them with this problem any more than the existing tags, so there is not much incentive to use them there. No worries, at least yet.
Opposing technology because of its POTENTIAL harm (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA, MPAA and others are opposed to P2P technology due to its potential for misuse. So how is your anti-RFID stance any different? From what I understand, there are plenty of very legitimate uses for RFID technology.
CNN has picked up on it (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/09/beamed.ba rcodes.ap/index.html [cnn.com]
One of the choice quotes from the National Grocer's Association:
"You do give up a bit of privacy but the benefit could be that you live"
uh, excuse me here, [you fucking dweebs] (Score:3, Interesting)
you're complaining about unique identification, and putting a sticker outside a box which is later opened and discarded before the end user even sees it on a shelf cannot possibly be seen as uniquely identifying you.
Re:Such a noble company (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Such a noble company (Score:4, Insightful)
They sell (unmarked) censored versions of music because the company find them morally wrong.
Consequently, I can't buy music there, since everything I buy has a 'parent advisory' on it.
Re:Such a noble company (Score:2)
He meant listening to us.
Re:Such a noble company (Score:2)
I'm not sure it is because they are the cheapest.
I don't shop there because of their practices. I avoid the place like the plague.
However, I bet there are many, many, many more people that go to Walmart because of that specific reason.
Because they are gung-ho $$$ grabbing with a heavy dose of Christinanity thrown in.
Re:Nice but won't affect much. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but they might listen to a few million fundamentalist Christians concerned about the mark of the beast.
Geeks don't have a monopoly on privacy concerns. Perhaps if you'd not decided that the rest of society was "trash" and paid some attention, you'd know this...
Re:Nice but won't affect much. (Score:2)
Whoops. Damnit People, please post who's $200 PC's we can buy!
Re:Nice but won't affect much. (Score:2)
It's the only game in town. And I sure ain't gonna drive 45 min for a pack of lightbulbs. Or pay 2 bucks extra at the local grocery.
Unless, of course, they want to put RF tags on everything. Then I guess it's put up or shut up time.
Re:RTFA? (Score:2)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:2, Interesting)
I shop there every chance I get, now.
Re:Actual benefits after point of purchase? (Score:3, Funny)
1)Theft: If goods are registered to your name, it makes their return that much easier in the event they are stollen. Suppose someone steals my underwear. When the cops bust the smuggling ring, my boxers can be quickly returned to me since they will be registered in my name.
2)Ease of checkout: Picture this: your at Wal-Mart, it's 4 pm and 40000000 are standing in line waiting for the 2 cas