Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Benetton Says No to RFIDs ... For Now 146

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-only-a-matter-of-time dept.
securitas writes "In a dramatic reversal of Benetton's previously announced plans to embed RFID tags in all of its clothing, the retailer has responded to customer privacy concerns and canceled its plans to go ahead with the project. Wired News and ComputerWorld also have stories on this stunning turn of events, which RFID manufacturer Philips is undoubtedly unhappy about. Benetton says it 'reserves the right' to use RFIDs in the future."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Benetton Says No to RFIDs ... For Now More

Benetton Says No to RFIDs ... For Now

Comments Filter:

  • so they are included into clothing... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @08:55AM (#5685685)
    am I able to reserve the right to remove them? I want them to be a completely seperate color and I want them to be easily removed. If these two conditions aren't met, I am not going to buy them.

    • Re:so they are included into clothing... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      am I able to reserve the right to remove them?

      No, of course not! What are you? A terrorist? Off to the Camp X-ray!

    • Easily removed is going to defeat at least one of the reasons for having them. Though i can't see any reason they can't take them out / neutralise them at the check-out like they do with other theft-prevention devices these days...
      • because other theft prevention devices aren't sewn into the clothing.

        Who the hell is going to walk around with a huge tag that looks like a woman's nipple after giving birth? Better yet, who the hell is going to leave the store with a tag that spews ink?

        These can remain sewn into the clothes. I want them to stick to the current deterrents. They work, they are NOTICIABLY removed, and the items to disable them are pretty bulky. If someone creates a "disabler" like was proposed in a previous reply it wou
    • ... look what happened to the counting sheep with
      matress tags....

    • Re:so they are included into clothing... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      completely seperate color and I want them to be easily removed. If these two conditions aren't met, I am not going to buy them

      If these 2 conditions aren't met, you're not going to know.
    • The police can easily track nude people moving about in the populace, too. So boycotting RFID'd clothing probably isn't going to help...
    • Why is everyone getting so upset about having RFIDs in the close they are wearing? Oh no, someone up to 10-15 feet away from me might be able to determine that i'm wearing a blue tshirt. Of course your welcome to fry it as soon as you get home, but you should expect to be charged a hefty "retagging" fee if you try to take it back for some reason.

  • If they can be destroyed easily.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 1337_h4x0r ( 643377 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @08:56AM (#5685690)
    Why not let them put them in? If some company makes an "RFID Neutralizer" that blasts them with 3000 watts like in a hair dryer type of configuration, buy your clothes, take them home, spray them, you're done. This thing should be easy and cheap.

    • Re:If they can be destroyed easily.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @08:59AM (#5685712) Homepage Journal
      "RFID Neutralizer"

      Like a microwave oven?

      • Re:If they can be destroyed easily.. (Score:4, Funny)

        by archeopterix ( 594938 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:34AM (#5685895) Journal
        Like a microwave oven?
        Frying clothes in a microwave oven has disadvantages. First, a microwave oven usually smells of the last 20 meals prepared in it - some people might find it unpleasant (this is only a disadvantage if you meet people). Second, you risk burning the clothes (this is only a disadvantage if you don't like your clothes burned).
      • Many articles of clothing contain metal (buttons, zippers, eyelets) so the microwave probably wouldn't work too well.

      • they can't be destroyed easily.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by anticypher ( 48312 ) <anticypherNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @11:06AM (#5686458) Homepage
        After seeing several companies at CeBit showing off tiny RFID tags, all of them promote the fact that they can't be destroyed by putting them in a microwave, or with other types of high energy RF systems. They have been designed to withstand most easy things thieves/consumers can do to disable them.

        Only way to disable them is to locate them in the clothing, and tear them out. Those things are tiny, like smaller than a dried grain of rice, with tiny loops on the ends for threads to hold them in place.

        the AC
        • Damnit. Just when I'd figured out how to slip into the Wal-Mart DVD section with a Microwave oven and a portable generator stuffed in my windbreaker.

          Good thing I have a backup plan... RFID sniffing ferrets!
        • Only way to disable them is to locate them in the clothing, and tear them out.

          If you can locate them, seems like a few hard blows with a hammer against a suitably firm background should take care of things without doing any damage to the clothing.
    • Now make a portable zapper. Walk through various stores that emplot the RFID chips. Sit back and watch the fun. Culture Jammin' 21st century style.

      Sort of like watching modern cash register jockeys coping during a power outage.
      • or find out a major chains coding scheme for one of their sets from buying things there and see if you can aquire a duplicate lot of a few thousand then drop a handful or two through their doorway or include them in small items people may carry with them that you then sell on ebay ;>.

    • Surely it would be possible, but eventually illegal under the DMCA. Anything is possible, just some things could land you in jail.

      I recommend everyone bulk up on thrift store items.

      1) Buy tons of used clothing!
      2) Wait for the RFID tags to take control!
      3) Sell the clothes on the black market!
      4) Profit!!!

    • "RFID Neutralizer"

      How 'bout a ball-peen hammer?

      Oops... Hold on, I don't think any of this will work. From the article:
      Philips' I.Code chips, embedded in the labels, are incorporated into garments during manufacturing. They are
      imperceptible to the wearer and remain in the clothing items throughout their lifetime.
      So do we just need to cut out the labels?

  • Privacy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @08:57AM (#5685697) Homepage
    I for one can't say that I'm unhappy. I didn't like the idea of people being able to work out where I bought my clothes from by scanning me. Of course the RFID's might of been destroyed at the checkout. I mean if people really want to know they can ask me or look at the label.

    With all these sort of things its a balance between privacy and eas of use. For food for example I can see why storing the Use-By date would be handy but for some things it just won't really work

    Rus

    • Good Will (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They can already tell you bought your clothes at Good Will because of the piss stains all over them. Oh yeah, and the 70's fashion designs.

  • how many geeks wear Benetton??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @08:57AM (#5685700) Homepage
    I dont think many geeks wear Benetton. All I wear is the t-shirts/jackets I get from expos. So until they start putting tracking devices in those freebies, I am not worried.

  • Not really that surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by idfrsr ( 560314 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:00AM (#5685719)
    Obviously there are huge privacy concerns with RF tags, but the other side of the coin is that such a system does have lots of benefits for the retailer.

    The trick will be finding a way to accomplish those goals will maintaining the privacy of the customers. Perhaps some sort of decaying device that after it ages for a certain period it physically ceases to work.

  • maybe (Score:4, Funny)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asvNO@SPAMivoss.com> on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:02AM (#5685722) Homepage Journal
    They should worry about thier fashions instead of inventory. Seriously, the last time I remember Benetton being popular in the US was those bright logo sweatshirts from the mid-80's were everyone would roll up the sleeves, right around the members-only jacket phenomenon. I guess they are still popular in the EU?
    • No, they are not popular in the EU.
      Besides, if i remember correctly, they were planning to use RFID in the "Sisley" subbrand.
    • We get blasted with adverts for the "United Colours of Benetton". However if you asked me I couldn't tell you where you could buy any of their stuff

      Rus
    • Benetton being popular in the US was those bright logo sweatshirts from the mid-80's were everyone would roll up the sleeves, right around the members-only jacket phenomenon. I guess they are still popular in the EU?

      Well, shit, David Hasselhoff still has a career over there. A SINGING career. And those crazy bastards even think he was the best thing about Baywatch. Kinda makes me wonder about the REAL reason for the low birthrate over there...

    • I went to Europe to visit my family last summer, and I'd say yes.

      In Amsterdam, just about every other girl had a Sisley shirt on. I'd never heard of the brand in the US, so I was kinda amazed.

      In this little town in Italy (like 5-10,000 people), there were 5 United Colors of Benetton stores. 3 regular stores, one that sold only makeup, and one for lingerie. Every other store in the entire town was a little mom-and-pop operation. In Rome, there's even one right in front from that famous fountain.

      We didn't

  • Benetton: Clothing for Paranoiacs (Score:4, Funny)

    by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:02AM (#5685723)
    In response to customer requests, Benetton will be premiering their new "tin hat" range on the catwalks of New York, Paris and Milan.

  • A Threat to Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:08AM (#5685756)
    I thought that these RFID transmitters had
    a range of 10-15 ft. Barring society installing
    scanners every 15 feet, how is this a threat
    to privacy? You probably have a better chance
    of being tracked by using your debit card than
    RFID technology.

    • Re:A Threat to Privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tmack ( 593755 )
      You haven't seen Minority Report have you? Thats about how often the retinal scanners were placed around the city, with even more tightly spaced ones in the shopping areas. The RFId technology offers the possibility of something similar. Although it isn't specific enough to identify you as YOU, it would be able to identify what you were wearing, and any other object with a functional RFId tag. This would allow marketers to gather enough marketing data to fit you to a specific genre, and target ads near you
      • In response to this guy's loony rant, I just want to tell everyone else who is paranoid and loony (you probably don't realize you are):

        MOVIES ARE NOT REAL!

        And you people afraid of this ultra-shortwave RFID stuff are about as loony as the people in the 70's who were scared to death of barcodes. No matter how much you protest, this stuff will be ubiquitous soon. And it will not change any of our lives except to make things a little easier. And it will force that loony 0.0001% of the population who hang out
        • I just want to tell everyone else who is paranoid and loony (you probably don't realize you are):

          I'd rather be considered a little paranoid than completely naive.

          Who would have thought that borrowing a book from the library would be a privacy issue... Look at this BIG picture. Is there any doubt in your mind that if you CAN be tracked you WILL be tracked? Everyone has a different tolerance level of what tracking or monitoring is acceptable and what is not. Eventually it will bother you. I would gues
    • How often do you walk through a doorway? How often do you walk through one of those anti-theft scanners? Do you really want retailers to be able to track and store who bought everything from your socks to your underwear when you walk through the door?
    • If they have a range of 15 feet, you would only need a scanner every 30 feet, which is enough to cover a couple lanes of traffic. Also, this is the first generation of these devices. I'm sure that someday someone somewhere will be smart enough to figure out how to make the range larger.
    • Suppose you choose to buy a designer label, or you get it as a present. Now, some streetwise muggers hang around with a RFID detector, looking for "valuable items". Even if you're wearing a cheap jacket, you instantly become a target. If extended to clothing, there will be bound to be some correlation with particular brands of clothing and particular neighbourhoods. If RFID tags were embedded in Rolex watches, there would be an instant correlation between ID tags and wealth. There used to be stories about

  • What is "reserving a right"? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:09AM (#5685762)
    This language has always confused me. It sounds like false legaleese.

    Is there some capacity that they would not have, but for having stated a "reservation of right"?

    And if it's really a right, they wouldn't need to reserve it, would they?

    It sounds to me like a rhetorical device where the speaker tries to sucker the listener into believing that some course of action is a "right" (i.e., undeniable), no merely a planned course of action.

  • More accurately. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fritz Benwalla ( 539483 ) <randomregs@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:10AM (#5685774)

    Benetton has said no to the publicity surrounding RFID tags.

    So this particular implementation got onto the radar screens - do we think this will actually go away? Not in the slightest. All Phillips and everyone else has to do is make some quiet deals that don't directly impact consumers, maybe some business-to-business product, then find a way to make RFID tags "important to homeland security" and it's off to the races.

    I have an idea for Philips, how about saying that RFID tags should be required on all products coming over the border from Mexico and into ports in the U.S. so that the Department of Homeland Security can better track them for suspicious shipment patterns? It would be a delicious use of both your lobbying power and the government's ability to shove intrusive technologies down our throats as long as they're slathered in a thick gravy of anti-terrorism.

    Sorry to be Mr. Cynical on this, but we just watched Benetton take a principled stand on nothing excepting being an RFID guinea pig. I give them two years before they're back on board.

    -----

    • From the referenced article:
      " Benetton said in a release that it "is currently analyzing RFID .. and ... no feasibility studies have yet been undertaken"

      Where have they said no, as Cmdr Taco claims??

      and then...

      "Benetton ... embedded ags could be used to track the movements of people other than thieves."
      whereas Philips says:
      "Philips said...labels to track its garments throughout its supply chain."

      Something fishy here - how can Bentton track thieves, unless they have a database of tags and owners? Does it

      • Re:Dramatic??? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by eXtro ( 258933 )

        Something fishy here - how can Bentton track thieves, unless they have a database of tags and owners? Does it mean they tag the owner as well, so I can't lend clothing without informing Benetton? This theft-prevention stuff is silly.

        You don't need a database of tags and owners to track thieves. Suppose that these RFIDs are sold in ranges. Benetton purchase serial numbers 100000 through 20000. As items are sold the RFID is struck from the list and the RFID destroyed.

        Now if an RFID appears in range there

        • "Now if an RFID appears in range there are two checks to determine if the item was stolen. First, the RFID existing at all is an indicator since it was supposed to be destroyed. Second, if the RFID appears in the database then according to policy the item is in fact stolen."

          So, what you're talking about is theft from Bentton, the mfr of the garment,before sale, and not the buyer. Why should I, the customer have to bear the cost for the creation and destruction (and possible mischief as well) of an RFID tag
          • I already stated that I don't actually agree with it. All I'm saying is that in principle it is possible to anonymously track stolen (from the manufacturer) garments.

            As for why should the customer bear these costs, get over yourself. The customer always bears the costs. You bear the costs for ineffective advertisements, you bear the costs when somebody else shoplifts, you bear the costs if the CEO snorts the companies profits through his nose. This isn't some sudden Orwellian turn of events like your Micro
          • Why should I, the customer have to bear the cost for the creation and destruction (and possible mischief as well) of an RFID tag that serves no useful purpose for me after purchase??

            Why not? You bear the cost for advertising and packaging; neither serve any purpose to you after purchase. You also bear the cost for "shrink", a non-contentious euphemism for shoplifting and employee theft that occur before you buy. Are you bothered by that as well? Would you prefer that stores just pass these costs along rat
        • As items are sold the RFID is struck from the list and the RFID destroyed.

          Except this part isn't going to happen. Theft is in large part due to employees. If you give your employees an easy way to destroy the RFID, you aren't adressing employee theft. And if you aren't bothering to address employee theft, you may as well stick with existing theft deterrents (which are easily bypassed by employees)
    • I dunno. I used to work for the Industries of Satan, I was a marketroid, a research analyst, in a media company. We used to need data mining done for us from time to time.

      It was a pain in the ass. Even with computers doing all the work. Someone's got to model all the information in a GUIfied programme, but humans still have to interpret the data. Even when you have people doing the interpreting, it doesn't mean you'll follow their advice.

      I think you have valid points about the bogus nature of using RFIDs,

  • What's the paranoia about? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joeflies ( 529536 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:11AM (#5685779)
    I've seen the demonstrations of RFID and I think it's light years ahead of what's going on today. Who would have thought that with today's computer systems, we are still seeing manual labor produce laborious and erroneous inventory reports. And stores experimenting with self-checkout, like Home Depot and some grocery stores, are largely counting on the honor system instead of computers. Libraries are stil trying to work out the problems with self-checkout.

    Of course, I reserve the right to remove the tags after purchasing it (much like the alarm sensors put in CD/DVD cases nowadays), but while it's in the store, I wouldn't mind at all. The only groups I would have thought protesting this technology are the union workers doing inventory control now.

    • i wouldnt mind rfid tags if they were removed when you went out the store. ie some high power scanner next to the checkouts

    • It will always be based on the honor system (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      To a greater or lesser degree.
      It's not like one won't be able to disable or even remove such a chip, once it becomes known to your general shoplifter what they are, where they are and how they work.

    • Oh come on, you're ruining a good /. scare here - I'm sure that had /. been around twenty (or thirty?) years ago, they would have had the same rant about barcodes appearing on commercial products. RFID in the retail space will be a major step forward for both the buyer and seller. No more waiting for the clerk to maneuver a package trying to get the barcode scanner at just the right angle to read that UPC. I, for one, can't wait...

    • "Well, we know you looked at childrens underware, so we know you're a child molester because it fits our profile of child molesters"
      "what the hell are you talking about"
      "When you where in the store, you where tracked fondaling childrens underware, you're a white male in youi late 20's, single, no children. clearly you match the profile"
      "They were on the ground, I picked them up at put them on the shelf"

      "sure,sure thats what they all say. At least we got you before children started disappearing."

      now you've

  • It turns out... (Score:4, Funny)

    by egoff ( 636181 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:13AM (#5685791)
    They'll just be imbedding them in customers.

  • What's the worth of an RFID? to prevent theft? Last time I checked theft wasen't a major issue apart from the 14 year olds who will stash a pair of underwear in the pocket, seriously what is the point? (The cost of these things will probably outweigh the loss in revenue from theft)

    • Re:Purpose? (Score:3, Informative)

      by kinnell ( 607819 )
      seriously what is the point?

      Inventory tracking

    • It currently typically takes multiple people multiple days to inventory a retail store. Not only would these tags significantly reduce the costs of doing a full inventory, but could keep the inventory more up to date. Many stores only do a full inventory once every 6 months because it's so expensive, which makes something like these tags very desirable.
    • Apparently you don't work in retail.

      Shrinkage (which includes both internal theft and external theft, but also encompasses other losses such as accounting errors, shipping errors, etc.) presents two different faces here. First is the immediately visible loss of tangible goods, which was about 5% of sales many years ago. Modern tagging and security systems, better employee training and better computing and accounting systems have reduced this to under 2% of sales in most retail organizations.

      Now, prete

  • DRM (Dryer Rights Mangement) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <ben AT int DOT com> on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:17AM (#5685809) Homepage

    Couldn't you design the RFID tags to disable themselves when the clothes are washed? Maybe have some kind of heat sensitive material that would disable the tag (or just melt) when it got hot enough, or wet enough.

    I suppose "Dry Clean Only" presents a problem tho...

  • have to cancel my washing machine linux project (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:23AM (#5685847)
    Just installed the tag reader and the linux box, so my washing machine would finally know automatically what soap and which program to run on my clothes..

  • Are slashdotters luddites? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stevens ( 84346 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:25AM (#5685854) Homepage

    It's perfectly possible to make a type of RFID tag that doesn't affect privacy in any meaningful way. If the tag wasn't a unique identifier, but more like a product code (like the UPC code), then the only information it leaks it that it's a particlar inventiroy item, say, a red sweater.

    No one can trace it to you, since--like a UPC symbol--it's not unique to item, but to the kind of item. And they could msake a way to disable them after purchase (like they do the little magnetized thingies in bookstores).

    The privacy loss in unique-id RFID tags has a technological solution. I wish some slashdotter with access to capital would make a better, privacy-preserving widget instead of just hearing all of the bitching that you don't want the gov't to know you shop at LL Bean.

    • Are slashdotters luddites?

      No, but some of us are afraid that steps like this could allow the proverbial foot in the door and pave the way for other privacy-invasive technologies.

      It's perfectly possible to make a type of RFID tag that doesn't affect privacy in any meaningful way. If the tag wasn't a unique identifier, but more like a product code (like the UPC code), then the only information it leaks it that it's a particlar inventiroy item, say, a red sweater.

      Sure, but who's going to enforce that? Y

    • thats great, until they asociate that purchse with your credit card information. That would be used to build a profile of you for the retailer. which of course will be turned over to the authorities without so much as a warrant. Paraniod? no. we know the government already is trying to buy consumer informationm to skirt pricvacy issue. we also already no retailer try to gather as much information about you as possible.

      the cost to disable would probably be more then the cost of the id tag.

  • Tag technology (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ugen ( 93902 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:32AM (#5685885)
    I can't see what the hysterical whining is about.
    Here is the link: http://www.rf-id.com to general tags site. Read all about them.
    The tags are just that - tags, just like any other tag on your clothing. It is not as if unique id is "embedded" in the threads of your pants and cannot be removed. In fact, if you will continue wearning clothes with RFID tag still attached - you will look like an idiot. Much like keeping any other tags on clothes.

    Incidentally, what is the issue with privacy, even if the tag was somehow magically embedded into the thread of your pants? The tag identifies your pants as being a olive-green khakees size 48L, specifically made in Malaysia by a 12 year old? What part of that is not public knowledge or painfully obvious? What part of that is divulging information about the wearer of such clothes that he/she is not already giving up simply by wearing them?
    • Are you sure of all the assumptions you made when you posted?

      Here's a quote from a wired article [wired.com]

      Benetton, which makes casual clothes and sportswear for men, women and children, said it would weave the technology into the collar tags of clothes that cost at least $15 to keep track of them as they ship. ...

      ... The tagging system may also save the company money by reducing theft. The RFID tags can be programmed to set off an alarm if someone leaves a store without paying for an item.

      That article make

      • Of course, you could just cut off the colar tag (depending on the type of color tag that is).

        • Yes, true, for now. But it would be better theft prevention for manufacturers to hide the tag deeper in the clothing. Once thieves learn the RFID is in an easily removed appendage, they'll do the obvious thing.
          • Sure, of course thieves might be less interested in clothings that have the tag missing (depending on what the thieve is planning to do with the stolen good of course).

            I think if they limited the location of the rfids to the colar tag (maybe by law?) it would allow the privacy conscious people to feel better and still provide the stores with the benefits of the technology.

            Of course, a way to innoculate the tag at checkout (as suggested in several posts today) would still be better.
    • EPC tags have LOTS of spare identity bits, some of which are dedicated to serial #s.

      http://www.autoidcenter.org/aboutthetech_identifyi ng.asp

      Companies are working very hard to make it cheap to make EPC tags, where each tag has a unique serial #.

      BTW, is there much difference between having an absolutely unique ID, and wearing a set of tags that only matches 3 people in a million?

    • I think some people are more annoyed that people will know that:

      A) Susie doesn't wear a bra most days
      B) Janie wears tiger-striped thongs

      The hub-bub isn't so much about the RFID's you CAN see, but about the embedded ones that you can NOT see and are therefore hard to remove.
      • "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"

        *scans*

        Embedded ID tag #67176604192834-01

        *searches*

        Ah, yes. DuPont flamesulate flexible asbestos knickers, crotchless with pink lace trim and a flying windows logo on each buttcheek. Purchased from thinkGeek on December 19, 2001. Using visa card 1723-9911-0293-9935. Also on the order "Strawberry flavoured BSA audit lube, 55 gallon drum", "HelloKitty laptop conversion kit" and a "Windows 2000 for Dummies" book.

        Thats the nice thing about a serial number for each an

  • Convenience vs Privacy: False Dichotomy! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by elwinc ( 663074 ) on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @09:43AM (#5685932)
    Things like the Bennetton RFID tags are usually presented to the consumer with the argument that you have to give up a little privacy for the extra convenience of [whatever they're selling]. The company usually gets a benefit of additional marketing info, which is their real incentive.

    In the case of the Bennetton tags, there wasn't even any additional convenience for the customer; just a straightforward loss of privacy ("wow, she's back for the 3rd day, still wearing the same jeans!"). So I think that died because they couldn't come up with any "convenient" excuse for tagging your clothes.

    My claim is that even in other cases, like FastLane style auto toll collection, there's no technical or engineering reason you have to give up privacy for the convenience. Instead, the designers and/or operators of the systems want the information, so they provide a benefit in order to justify collecting the information. In the case of auto toll collection, as pointed out in here, [pacdat.net] your toll debit card could be purchased anonymously. This has all the convenience and none of the privacy intrusion of existing systems.

    But what's the big deal about privacy anyway? My claim is that when times are good, privacy doesn't matter. But when times are bad, it's too late! Innocent databases can be misused in terrible ways. When the Nazis conquered cities, they would use library borrowing records to find Jewish people. How long until the next J. Edgar Hoover or Joe McCarthy comes along and abuses his position of power? (Yeah, I know, some would say Ashcroft is already worse; I don't want to start that argument). My point is that it has happened here, and likely will again. The potential unforseen future misuse of databases is what makes me a privacy advocate.

    So, good riddance to Bennetton's RFID tags, and let's get rid of the false dichotomy that's used to insinuate similar privacy invasions!

  • I would be nice if everything was tagged though wouldn't it. I could have found out what the underwear gnomes were doing with my clothes (step 1 - steal underwear, step 2, step 3 - make money [South Park]). Ever since I was young I wanted to write a program to decide what I should wear and wash based upon the weather and prior wear patterns. I thought that if the manufactures were including tags it was only a matter of time before there were detectors available for home use. Oh well, defeated by conspiracy
  • Yay! Now I don't have to worry about privacy issues with clothes people only bought in the '80's!! Once Z.Cavaricci and I.O.U. hop on the bus, the '90's will be safe.

  • Just Like Cookies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) <waldo&jaquith,org> on Tuesday April 08, 2003 @10:56AM (#5686412) Homepage Journal
    The whole RFID debate seemed so familiar to me for a while, and I was pleased to finally put my finger on it recently. This is all so 1997.

    Some of you might remember the huge debate over "magic cookies" (as we called them then) in the mid to late 90s. Around 1997, IIRC, it really built to a fevered pitch -- any self-respecting advocate (myself included) maintained that cookies would be the downfall of civilization, that they did nothing good, only evil, websites' reputation were based on whether or not they provided a Dreaded Cookie, etc., etc. Of course, we learned the cookies are useful, we developed tools to manage them, it became passe to protest them, and life went on.

    Of course, RFID tags are just physical cookies. Much like with browsers, we will develop standards for how RFID tags should work, we will learn to manage them, and we will ultimately find that their benefits far outweigh their drawbacks.

    -Waldo Jaquith
    • don't forget
      we now have session cookies, while not perfect they minimize abuse

      persistent cookies can still be abused.
      There is a certian bank, that if you grab someone cookie, you can get into their account.

      And all you have to do to get that cookie is look for it whenever somebody comes to your site.
    • The differnece, of course, being that you can always easily block and disable cookies.
  • Why not just put the RFID in a sticker on the inside of the clothes that you can peel off, or put it in the tag?.. something you can just remove.. or a little "pop-off" thing like those dye-markers.. so they can just pop the thing off at the counter.

    You get your manufacture-to-counter-to-sale tracking, and your customers can be anonymous (assuming you don't actually log the RFID-to-CCinfo.
  • Just because RFIDs have the super-easy potential to be the root of numerous privacy violations this century, I still think they're a great idea. I mean, it's not like we all boycott the use of databases because of doubleclick.

    I think RFIDs have great potential. With a home RFID-finding wand, you'll never loose your car keys again (at least, the search wil go a lot faster). Everything becomes addressable by your personal systems (and others', herein lies the privacy-geek challenge). My fridge doesn't nee
  • "Sir! Benetton is pulling out of their plan to plant RFIDs on their clothes. Our plan to track the trustafarian Former Soviet Useful Idiot protesters is off!"

    "Curses! Foiled again!"
  • Customer advocacy groups are concerned that the tags won't be 'divorcable' from the clothing. They aren't telling Benetton not to use the tags for inventory purposes...

    So, why can't we all agree on the simplest solution? You already have a clothing label (size, care, etc.) attached to nearly every piece of clothing. Why not stitch the RFID tag into its own little label that says "Inventory Radio ID Device" and "Removal mandates purchase"? That way, it'd be opt-out. If you don't want RFID SPAM or tr

    • Heck, I say just embed them in those little plastic shoot-thru thingies (Red or Blue for emphasis) and label them "RFID". Then they'd be useful for inventory, and everyone would remove them after purchase. Why do they have to be part of the clothing?

      Where have you been? Surely you see how current fashion trends are to replay much of the 70's so why not expect a revival of wearing tags on your clothes? Minnie Pearl did it, then later all the homies did it! Perhaps the techno aspects of this will in itself

  • A down-filled vest I bought a couple of years ago from MEC seems to have one of these tags sewn into the wind flap at the base of the zipper.

    I haven't done surgery on my jacket, but the shape feels right.

    MJC

  • I would hope they deactivate those things before you leave the store, otherwise when you left (or the next time you came in) the alarms would go off. I suppose they could disable the ability to set off the alarms but still leave the tracking features enabled...
  • I thought it said they had 'concealed their plans' and I thought, 'Wow, they're sure blowing that strategy.'
  • Oh sure, this is just what they WANT us to think!

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close