Big Brother and now private companies
 

Hi:

In agreement with Michael about the additives in food, I have come across a site with info about a new threat with far reaching repercussions on privacy, freedom of movement, etc..

This site in the link below is attempting to fight the movement towards the common place use of RFID (radio frequency identification devices)...these tags will allow anyone to be tracked anywhere in the world - even through building walls...inserted into shoes, clothing, purses, wallets,and other parephenalia there will be no end to tracking and the total end to privacy.

The use of the bar code exploded when Walmart informed their suppliers to use it or else be dropped from their list of suppliers...once again Walmart is apparently at the forefront again (according to a radio broadcast on Coast to Coast AM) by telling their suppliers once again start incorporating RFID devices in their goods by 2004 or else.

A site has now evolved on the net to boycott one of the companies working in conjunction with the developers of the chips...it might surprise you to find that the company is a well known brand name, and I have now removed all their products from the household....a small one person move, but perhaps if enough people get infuriated this newest nightmare can be slowed or stopped...incidentally as of Jan 2004 Walmart will never see any more business from this household...the boycott site is : http://www.boycottgillette.com and http://www.BoycottGillette.com/aboutrfid.html

Dien you may want to remove this post if you feel it inappropriate or of danger to the forum...I brought the wrath of the Canadian Government down on B. Myers a few years ago with an errant posting...although it did get his board and site national TV coverage on the 6 and 11 news in this country.

Cornell


More info about RFID's

Thank you, Cornell (DNO) Re: Big Brother and now private companies (DNO)
 

Cornell, thanks for posting and alerting us to this! (DNO)
 

Hmmm. Opportunity here.
 

One of my local chain supermarkets has just installed those electric gates - the kind that beep if you walk through them with an item which has a "tag" attached to it. Normally seen in clothing stores.

These ones are on EVERY checkout as well as on the entrance and exits. It BEEPED at me the other day when I walked in! (Maybe my mobile phone set it off. It also beeped a couple of minutes later when another person walked in who was also carrying a mobile phone.)

When I saw them I thought... what good is that... stuff in the supermarket doesn't have those tags. It's just bar codes on cans and boxes and packets. NOW, however, your post about the RFID tags makes it all fall into place.

My supermarket is getting ready to use these tags - if they haven't begun doing so already.

NOW might be a good time to create a de-tagging device. Something that can scramble the tags and render them useless. Set up outside the supermarket and charge a few bucks to nuke each shopper's tags. Or sell the device to the shoppers. (Walk through the supermarket nuking all the tags :o))

Could also develop a tag detector. Something you can move over an object to determine if there is a tag in it.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting it, Cornell.

Michael Ross

Re: Hmmm. Opportunity here.
 

> NOW might be a good time to create a
> de-tagging device. Something that can
> scramble the tags and render them useless.
> Set up outside the supermarket and charge a
> few bucks to nuke each shopper's tags. Or
> sell the device to the shoppers. (Walk
> through the supermarket nuking all the tags
> :o))

Of course, I would imagine the main market that would be interested in such devices would be would-be thieves that want to steal shop merchandise.

While some might look at such devices as designed to monitor and invade personal privacies, I think they do have a beneficial purpose. I would imagine that these devices reduce the incidence of theft, which in turn reduces theft-related losses. With lower overall theft in a community, there are lower costs to doing business and competition can drive prices lower which ultimately benefits the end consumer.

So, indirectly, I would say these devices save you money. :)

- Thomas.

I agree with one thing you said... the rest... well...
 

> While some might look at such devices as
> designed to monitor and invade personal
> privacies, I think they do have a beneficial
> purpose. I would imagine that these devices
> reduce the incidence of theft, which in turn
> reduces theft-related losses. With lower
> overall theft in a community, there are
> lower costs to doing business and
> competition can drive prices lower which
> ultimately benefits the end consumer.

> So, indirectly, I would say these devices
> save you money. :)

Thomas, now you're spinning.

Since when does any retail GIANT reduce prices? Even ColesMyer is cutting out their shareholder discount. And speaking with an enployee recently, even the employee discount is heading to the chopping block.

IF the supermarket wants to stop theft, let them use a normal tag. Not an ID type tag.

As for stock control and keeping track of stock... the car accessory chain SuperCheap has a brilliant system in place and they do NOT use tags.

When you buy something at SuperCheap, the purchase is registered in a computer. Back at head office, that item is removed from the store in question's inventory and AUTOMATICALLY re-ordered from the warehouse and gotten ready for the restocking truck. This means, come the next morning when the restock truck arrives at the store, it is carrying replacements for all the goods that sold the previous day. No "smart tags" needed.

General electronic tags may stop theft. They don't need to be ID tags. And stock control is already handled well. The individual numbering of stock serves no other purpose than tracking the buyer. As stock is already kept track of electronically with bar codes.

Bit by bit we are losing our freedom and privacy. And people welcome it each time another bit is taken away under whatever guise is used. A person arriving in our time from the '50s would be horrified at how much freedom and privacy we have given away.

Michael Ross

Re: I agree with one thing you said... the rest... well...
 

> Thomas, now you're spinning.

I don't know about spinning, but I will grant that when I posted my previous post I was thinking more of the type of electronic tags you have in clothing stores rather than smart tags that can be tracked after you have left a store.

> Since when does any retail GIANT reduce
> prices? Even ColesMyer is cutting out their
> shareholder discount. And speaking with an
> enployee recently, even the employee
> discount is heading to the chopping block.

Wal*Mart in the US has reduced prices for quite a while to the benefit of consumers and the detriment of its competitors.

I think it's been able to do that from its lower cost base relative to other competitors, primarily due to scale (physical size of stores) and purchasing / negotiation power. Some of these savings have been passed on.

Where there's competition for a customer, things that save cost tend to be passed on to the customer where the cost saving is easy for competitors to replicate.

Using bar codes to scan in items instead of manually writing them down improves efficiency, reduces costs, and has the end effect of reducing prices.

> IF the supermarket wants to stop theft, let
> them use a normal tag. Not an ID type tag.

> As for stock control and keeping track of
> stock... the car accessory chain SuperCheap
> has a brilliant system in place and they do
> NOT use tags.

> When you buy something at SuperCheap, the
> purchase is registered in a computer. Back
> at head office, that item is removed from
> the store in question's inventory and
> AUTOMATICALLY re-ordered from the warehouse
> and gotten ready for the restocking truck.
> This means, come the next morning when the
> restock truck arrives at the store, it is
> carrying replacements for all the goods that
> sold the previous day. No "smart
> tags" needed.
>
> General electronic tags may stop theft. They
> don't need to be ID tags. And stock control
> is already handled well. The individual
> numbering of stock serves no other purpose
> than tracking the buyer. As stock is already
> kept track of electronically with bar codes.

> Bit by bit we are losing our freedom and
> privacy. And people welcome it each time
> another bit is taken away under whatever
> guise is used. A person arriving in our time
> from the '50s would be horrified at how much
> freedom and privacy we have given away.

While I don't disagree with this, I was just pointing out that reducing your privacy is usually not the end goal of a company by itself, and that usually new devices are designed to lower costs which eventually get passed on to consumers.

I would imagine smart tags would improve supply chain efficiencies and reduce bottlenecks, lowering overall consumer cost. You could also use them to create automatic check-outs at supermarkets where you can wander out without delay and without implicitly paying the salary of the person serving you. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's all bad.

Now, is this worth privacy concerns? Perhaps not, but it's not a one-sided issue. Plus, I don't see why you couldn't have smart tags and just retain your anonymity by paying with cash, but perhaps I don't see the full picture. :)

- Thomas.

Reality check
 

RFID is nothing new. Animals, shipping containers, valuable artwork etc have all been chipped for years. However, the type of chips used in product packaging have a range of under one foot. There are chips that will go twenty feet, but they are physically much larger and require larger power supplies.
Some even older technologies offer much greater means of invading personal privacy. Anyone who uses a credit or debit card is fairly easily tracked, both in general location and spending habits.
The latest generation cars, laptops, cellphones and other consumer goodies have features which allow you to be pinpointed to within a few feet, almost anywhere on the planet, from anywhere. When it is convenient for consumers, they really dont mind being tracked.
I suspect our childrens children will find it inconcievable that we put up with toothpaste that wasnt smart enough to restock itself, just as my own son finds the concept of a childhood without television inconcievable. Or looking at the night sky and not seeing a continuous stream of satellites flying by.

> I don't know about spinning, but I will
> grant that when I posted my previous post I
> was thinking more of the type of electronic
> tags you have in clothing stores rather than
> smart tags that can be tracked after you
> have left a store.

> Wal*Mart in the US has reduced prices for
> quite a while to the benefit of consumers
> and the detriment of its competitors.

> I think it's been able to do that from its
> lower cost base relative to other
> competitors, primarily due to scale
> (physical size of stores) and purchasing /
> negotiation power. Some of these savings
> have been passed on.

> Where there's competition for a customer,
> things that save cost tend to be passed on
> to the customer where the cost saving is
> easy for competitors to replicate.

> Using bar codes to scan in items instead of
> manually writing them down improves
> efficiency, reduces costs, and has the end
> effect of reducing prices.

> While I don't disagree with this, I was just
> pointing out that reducing your privacy is
> usually not the end goal of a company by
> itself, and that usually new devices are
> designed to lower costs which eventually get
> passed on to consumers.

> I would imagine smart tags would improve
> supply chain efficiencies and reduce
> bottlenecks, lowering overall consumer cost.
> You could also use them to create automatic
> check-outs at supermarkets where you can
> wander out without delay and without
> implicitly paying the salary of the person
> serving you. All I'm saying is that I don't
> think it's all bad.

> Now, is this worth privacy concerns? Perhaps
> not, but it's not a one-sided issue. Plus, I
> don't see why you couldn't have smart tags
> and just retain your anonymity by paying
> with cash, but perhaps I don't see the full
> picture. :)

> - Thomas.




RFID FAQ

The bigger picture
 

> Wal*Mart in the US has reduced prices for
> quite a while to the benefit of consumers
> and the detriment of its competitors.

That may be the case in certain lines and whatnot. However, before giving them the praise for giving us all a better deal, a look at their real motives should be in order.

IF price cutting hurts a competitor, they will do it.

IF price cutting increases sales and makes them more money in the end, they will do it.

Doing the right thing by the consumer is the last thing the retail giants care about.

> I think it's been able to do that from its
> lower cost base relative to other
> competitors, primarily due to scale
> (physical size of stores) and purchasing /
> negotiation power. Some of these savings
> have been passed on.

ONLY because it serves some other purpose first. Our benefit comes second.

> Using bar codes to scan in items instead of
> manually writing them down improves
> efficiency, reduces costs, and has the end
> effect of reducing prices.

It first increases profits - fewer people needed in the operation because much is handled electronically. Due to the increased efficiency more items can be sold... supply and demand... some prices come down.

> While I don't disagree with this, I was just
> pointing out that reducing your privacy is
> usually not the end goal of a company by
> itself, and that usually new devices are
> designed to lower costs which eventually get
> passed on to consumers.

New devices are first and foremost designed to make the company more money - by way of reduced expenses. Any price saving is a by-product and is not a given result.

> I would imagine smart tags would improve
> supply chain efficiencies and reduce
> bottlenecks, lowering overall consumer cost.
> You could also use them to create automatic
> check-outs at supermarkets where you can
> wander out without delay and without
> implicitly paying the salary of the person
> serving you. All I'm saying is that I don't
> think it's all bad.

A simple electronic tag - as used in clothes stores and other retail outlets like Harvey Norman - MIGHT be okay. But these tags are ID TAGS.

THAT is the difference.

Imagine... someone with a reader scans the boot of your car. They can then tell WHAT you bought and WHERE it was bought - probably even how much you bought it for. And they can do this WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION!

You would not let someone rummage through your stuff to see what you have. Yet you seem to be fine with them doing this electronically.

The thing is... no matter how good the intention... it WILL be ABUSED. EVERY good intention thing - whether govt created or not - has had the opposite effect it was intended for and has been abused.

We now have generations of welfare bludgers and single mothers who view welfare as a right... not something to tide you over in an emergency -= as intended. "Sit down money" the Aboriginies call it.

> Now, is this worth privacy concerns? Perhaps
> not, but it's not a one-sided issue. Plus, I
> don't see why you couldn't have smart tags
> and just retain your anonymity by paying
> with cash, but perhaps I don't see the full
> picture.

Because after paying cash someone - anyone - with a reader can still track your purchases.

Think of the greater implications...

I have previously mentioned how the police can look you up and see whether you have guns in your house before they visit you - and how I was tracked as a gun owner from state to state via my driver's license.

It won't be too hard to imagine a time when they can come in to your house - whoever "they" are... and scan your stuff to see WHERE you bought it, WHEN you bought.

Think the security issue nmight be pushed at some point... hey... register your stuff with this here database and break and enters will be a thing of the past, because as soon they try to pawn it, the pawn shop scan will show they are not the rightful owners of the items.

This is just the beginning. It's the "creep" that gets you. The only way to stop it is to stop it at the start.

Michael Ross

Future tense
 

> However, the type of
> chips used in product packaging have a range
> of under one foot.

Today.

Tommorrow. Who can tell.

Yesterday. It took a room full of computers to send a man to the moon.

Today. I have more computing power in my laptop.

Beware the creep.

Michael Ross

Ten minutes into the future
 

Chips in animals have proven to work.

Ten minutes into the future when products are chipped.

Small chip implanted in the wrist of a human. Linked to bank accounts and whatnot.

Fill shopping trolley. Push trolley through reader. Swipe wrist of point of sale reader. Transaction complete.

Pulled up for speeding. Police scan wrist - know who you are, where you live, how many points left on license, whether you own guns, etc.

Sounds silly now. Fact I imagined it means it is possible... and actually probably at some point in time... unless we stop it before it is too late.

Michael Ross

Re: The bigger picture
 

> New devices are first and foremost designed
> to make the company more money - by way of
> reduced expenses. Any price saving is a
> by-product and is not a given result.

Sure, I don't dispute this. In fact I would argue that the sole purpose a company exists -- or at the very least a listed company -- is to maximise its return to shareholders, and thus maximise its profits. As a direct and indirect shareholder in a number of listed companies, I'd be disappointed if their number one goal was any different.

But having said that, the motivation a company has -- increasing profits -- does not alter the end result of some technological advances, namely lower prices. At the end of the day if I, as a consumer, can pay lower prices then I benefit regardless of the initial intention or motivation of the company.

I am of course working on the assumption that competition eventually drives prices down when costs are taken out, but I think this is a fair assumption to make in most industries and areas where competition exists and the cost saving device can be replicated by others.

> A simple electronic tag - as used in clothes
> stores and other retail outlets like Harvey
> Norman - MIGHT be okay. But these tags are
> ID TAGS .

> THAT is the difference.

> Imagine... someone with a reader scans the
> boot of your car. They can then tell WHAT
> you bought and WHERE it was bought -
> probably even how much you bought it for.
> And they can do this WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE
> OR PERMISSION!

Sure, this is a cost. I'm not trying to push the point that these things are fantastic and everyone should support them. My sole point is that there may be some benefits to them, and that it's not a one-sided story.

My personal belief is that this is a problem, but I believe market forces (being consumers like you and I making decisions) will lead to a decent outcome.

Let's suppose smart tags *do* allow your privacy to be invaded, as you've provided examples of, but they also provide lower costs that the company passes on.

As a discerning consumer, you'd then have a choice between possible infringement of your privacy rights and lower costs. I think providing people with such a choice is not in and of itself a bad thing.

> The thing is... no matter how good the
> intention... it WILL be ABUSED. EVERY good
> intention thing - whether govt created or
> not - has had the opposite effect it was
> intended for and has been abused.

So does that mean we should stop any new technology, on the chance it is abused?

> Because after paying cash someone - anyone -
> with a reader can still track your
> purchases.

Ok, I'll agree this is a privacy concern.

But just to reiterate, my main point is that there can be some benefits from such technologies. From the most part I'm a supporter of widespread privacy rights, but I think slamming a new technology on privacy concerns without raising possible benefits presents only one side of the story.

> Think the security issue nmight be pushed at
> some point... hey... register your stuff
> with this here database and break and enters
> will be a thing of the past, because as soon
> they try to pawn it, the pawn shop scan will
> show they are not the rightful owners of the
> items.

Provided this is a choice and not a requirement, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Some people already go to the extent of labelling their more expensive items in case they are stolen.

Re: Future tense
 

Not arguing that there are privacy issues, however there are much greater things to be concerned about. Ubiquitous GPS, software that phones home (Microsoft XP etc.) preventing you using your property in the way you want. Some years ago I wrote an article about a rap on the knuckles Mattel got for providing software with toys that phoned home and requested details from the user, almost always children. Now as adults we can weigh these decisions as to how much privacy we choose to give up for convenience, but when they start targetting children I get offended.

At present the limit on RFID range is physics. The small passive device can only be activated by sending power from a reader. To read from a greater distance needs logarithmically more powerful readers, ie enough to fry your brain as they read whats in your handbag. Sure, new physics may change that picture, but at the moment these tags are mch less of a worry than other privacy issues.
> Today.

> Tommorrow. Who can tell.

> Yesterday. It took a room full of computers
> to send a man to the moon.

> Today. I have more computing power in my
> laptop.

> Beware the creep.

> Michael Ross

Three sides to every card
 

> As a discerning consumer, you'd then have a
> choice between possible infringement of your
> privacy rights and lower costs. I think
> providing people with such a choice is not
> in and of itself a bad thing.

But that's just it... if these tags are everywhere, there is NO CHOICE.

You can "spin" the good side of it all you want. Fact is.. stock control with tags can easily be done with tags on boxes of goods. The individual product items do NOT need a RFID Tag.

> So does that mean we should stop any new
> technology, on the chance it is abused?

Does that mean we should accept all things thrown at us because someone can spin some good out of it... even if there is a serious detrimental side?

> But just to reiterate, my main point is that
> there can be some benefits from such
> technologies. From the most part I'm a
> supporter of widespread privacy rights, but
> I think slamming a new technology on privacy
> concerns without raising possible benefits
> presents only one side of the story.

For the most part you are a supporter of privacy rights? For the most part?

What parts aren't you in support of?

> Provided this is a choice and not a
> requirement, I don't see why that would be a
> bad thing.

Again... with these types of tags there is no choice.

I can see a whole RFID-free products black market evolve if this becomes widespread.

Some people already go to the
> extent of labelling their more expensive
> items in case they are stolen.

So? Other people don't, do they? Just because some people do something is no reason to implement a widespread policy.

There are loads of people who decide it is in their best interest to borrow money like mad and go into vast amounts of personal debt... should we all do the same because they do it?

See the point? Just because others do something is no reason to do something. That arguement is the sort a small child puts forth.

And sacrificing privacy to MAYBE save a few bucks is a weak reason to sacrifice privacy.

Michael Ross

Re: Three sides to every card
 

> But that's just it... if these tags are
> everywhere, there is NO CHOICE.

If nobody cares, then there is no choice. If people care, then presumably you could start up a competing firm that doesn't use tags, provide that choice and people would buy from you.

> Does that mean we should accept all things
> thrown at us because someone can spin some
> good out of it... even if there is a serious
> detrimental side?

No, but I've never said you should accept it. I'm just saying both positives and negatives should be presented.

> For the most part you are a supporter of
> privacy rights? For the most part?

> What parts aren't you in support of?

Let's suppose privacy was always guaranteed. Presumably in this situation I would be free to travel without people knowing who I was. At the moment if I hop on a plane to travel overseas I need to identify myself, violating my privacy rights. You could argue that it's self-inflicted, but given that you need to do it for all travel overseas I'd say there's no choice. If this can be considered a violation of privacy -- which I think it is -- then it's a violation I support.

Some people released from jail need to check in as to where they are, which is an invasion of privacy. In most cases I support this too.

In the example of smart tags, the consumer decides to purchase it or not purchase it, and I see no problem with this. If enough people cared about this there would be a market to sell devices that did not include the stated technology.

> Again... with these types of tags there is
> no choice.

> I can see a whole RFID-free products black
> market evolve if this becomes widespread.

> Some people already go to the

> So? Other people don't, do they? Just
> because some people do something is no
> reason to implement a widespread policy.

> There are loads of people who decide it is
> in their best interest to borrow money like
> mad and go into vast amounts of personal
> debt... should we all do the same because
> they do it?

> See the point? Just because others do
> something is no reason to do something. That
> arguement is the sort a small child puts
> forth.

I was pointing out that some people would consider it beneficial. You are replying as if I said it should be forced on all people, which I'm pretty sure I didn't.

> And sacrificing privacy to MAYBE save a few
> bucks is a weak reason to sacrifice privacy.

What about for improved services and lifestyle?

People sacrifice their privacy all the time -- when they use their credit card or debit card to buy something, when they use their mobile phone, when they sign up for gas and electricity.

Now, is it worth it? That depends on the preferences of the individual consumer. For me, I don't mind using my mobile phone knowing that it can be used to track where I am on particular days. Does that statement mean I think everyone should be forced to use a mobile phone? Of course not. But there is a benefit, and I think it's fair to mention it in a discussion of privacy concerns.

- Thomas.

Tagging of the world
 

> If nobody cares, then there is no choice. If
> people care, then presumably you could start
> up a competing firm that doesn't use tags,
> provide that choice and people would buy
> from you.

"Presumably" being the key word here.

Presumably... we could start some company from scratch... ask all the suppliers and other vendors to make a whole range of products specifically for us WITHOUT the coding and whatnot that Walmart asks for... and those vendors would do it.

The reality is: The Network Effect will make sure we can't do that.

> No, but I've never said you should accept
> it. I'm just saying both positives and
> negatives should be presented.

I have no problem with seeing both "sides" as it were. As long as the realities of both sides are presented equally in a realistic way.

Reduced costs to the consumer is only a guess. Not a guaranteed result. Something that may happen. And even then, only on some lines.

The ability to track YOU by what you buy is a reality. And once brought into "play" there is no turning back - due to the network effect.

The only products which will be free of chips will be fruit and veg.

Shop at stores without readers? Fine... problem is... it's not the store that is the problem... it's the product. The store might not have the technology to read the chip - just like some right now cannot read a bar code - but the product will still have the chip in it.

> In the example of smart tags, the consumer
> decides to purchase it or not purchase it,

When every product contains a smart tag there is no choice. You cannot buy one without a smart tag.

> and I see no problem with this. If enough
> people cared about this there would be a
> market to sell devices that did not include
> the stated technology.

Every vendor/supplier would need to produce two lots of everything - one for the giants with smart tag technology and one for those without. That ain't gonna happen. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. And would blow out your claimed reduced prices.

> What about for improved services and
> lifestyle?

Now your spinning again. These cost savings and improved services and lifestyle are not part and parcel of it. It's a stretched imagination that deduces cheaper prices and improved service because of these things.

I prefer to deal in realities... not maybes.

> People sacrifice their privacy all the time
> -- when they use their credit card or debit
> card to buy something, when they use their
> mobile phone, when they sign up for gas and
> electricity.

> Now, is it worth it? That depends on the
> preferences of the individual consumer. For
> me, I don't mind using my mobile phone
> knowing that it can be used to track where I
> am on particular days. Does that statement
> mean I think everyone should be forced to
> use a mobile phone? Of course not. But there
> is a benefit, and I think it's fair to
> mention it in a discussion of privacy
> concerns.

That's fine. I don't mind mentioning real existing benefits. But the benefits you mentioned are more guesswork benefits than guaranteed benefits. And even then... they are minor compared to what is being asked of us... let us track you and everything you buy and we might, maybe, possibly, under certain conditions and only if it is feasable... reduce our prices by a few pennies.

Interesting discussion.

Michael Ross

Let's take this a step further
 

As technology advances with iris scanning a possibility, but already in place is facial scanning in such places as airports for security...another whole security topic but let's not get side tracked on it...

Example of security tags....my daughter bought a pair of shoes...imbedded right in the shoe was the security tag....the cashier passed them over the pad to nulligy the tag. We then proceeded out of the store and the alarm went off...re-did the one shoe that was the offender 3 times before it stopped triggering the alarm.

Three days later we walk into the store, my daughter wearing the new shoes, and upon leaving the store the danged alarm goes off...culprit was that same right shoe....now my daughter is being acused of trying to shoplift a pair of shoes. We are detained while they view tapes of the shoe area...we aren't on the tapes but still they don't buy the explanation and are detained for further investigation. Finally I am allowed to leave to go home and get the receipt (round trip took 45 minutes plus gas cost)...they check the receipt but as shoes aren't serialized they are arguing that this doesn't represent the shoes in question...finally after successive arguing and my temper rising they find out who was on the chech out register at the time of purchase and proceed to call her at home...she verifies the problem and we are free to go with no apologies from the store. The price: Time involved 3½ hours, cost in fuel for round trip, and totally bad taste in my mouth for the business.

A further step...lets look at Gillette's set up of snapping pictures as customers pick up RFID tagged products off the shelf. Once the picture is taken anf the RFID recorded then the customer is tracked to the checkout...if the customer doesn't pay for the product they will be tagged as they leave the store for a possible theft suspect...even though they may have changed their mind and set the product down again somewhere else in the store, or even took it back to the display...suppose they changed their mind and bought a competitive brand that had a better price....still they will be tagged as not paying for it and possibly stopped for questioning...

BUT..

....that is only the beginning. As more and more invasion of privacy comes along it will worsen. Already the picture laden id's (driver's licenses, health cards, etc) are in a database, and Gillette just took your picture...tied into a database they can now use your picture to get your total info (including medical data) just by accessing the databases that are related to photo id's. These databases for security and supposedly marketing purposes are often sold to third parties....Now you walk into another store and as you enter a reader picks up the RFID and it is auto entered into this store's database, searched, and your whole info file is now on record in this stores database(including priveledged info in medical records, etc)

And the nightmare will just blossom....

....for instance....unknown to the store it has an employee who likes children....this employee sees a little one that he/she fancies and who were scanned by the RFID reader ...this offender now has access to home addresses, phone numbers, etc...then just how safe is the child?

And the nightmare will continue.

Cornell

Re: Let's take this a step further
 

> Example of security tags....my daughter
> bought a pair of shoes...imbedded right in
> the shoe was the security tag....the cashier
> passed them over the pad to nulligy the tag.
> We then proceeded out of the store and the
> alarm went off...re-did the one shoe that
> was the offender 3 times before it stopped
> triggering the alarm.

> Three days later we walk into the store, my
> daughter wearing the new shoes, and upon
> leaving the store the danged alarm goes
> off...culprit was that same right
> shoe....now my daughter is being acused of
> trying to shoplift a pair of shoes. We are
> detained while they view tapes of the shoe
> area...we aren't on the tapes but still they
> don't buy the explanation and are detained
> for further investigation. Finally I am
> allowed to leave to go home and get the
> receipt (round trip took 45 minutes plus gas
> cost)...they check the receipt but as shoes
> aren't serialized they are arguing that this
> doesn't represent the shoes in
> question...finally after successive arguing
> and my temper rising they find out who was
> on the chech out register at the time of
> purchase and proceed to call her at
> home...she verifies the problem and we are
> free to go with no apologies from the store.
> The price: Time involved 3½ hours, cost in
> fuel for round trip, and totally bad taste
> in my mouth for the business.

This is an example of badly designed technology. While it is a hassle for you -- and would certainly annoy me quite a lot! -- my guess is that you'll be more reluctant to go back to that store and that store will lose your business as a result.

Obviously in your case there is no direct benefit to having the tags there, as presumably you do not steal shoes. :) However the existence of tags probably does reduce theft and thus reduces store costs allowing price declines.

I know some would say that these cost savings are all theoretical and not reality. I'd say this is very unlikely given that companies are there to maximise profits, and including tags and tag scanning devices is not a costless exercise.

Let's suppose you have two shoe stores who both experience theft. If both install tag reading devices and reduce theft, chances are the increased profit (from reduced cost) will be competed away by price reductions.

I'd say this would be the case in most cases where there's (1) a competitive environment, (2) fairly similar products, as is the case with most retailers, and (3) some technology or cost saving that can be easily duplicated or bought by competitors.

> A further step...lets look at Gillette's set
> up of snapping pictures as customers pick up
> RFID tagged products off the shelf. Once the
> picture is taken anf the RFID recorded then
> the customer is tracked to the checkout...if
> the customer doesn't pay for the product
> they will be tagged as they leave the store
> for a possible theft suspect...even though
> they may have changed their mind and set the
> product down again somewhere else in the
> store, or even took it back to the
> display...suppose they changed their mind
> and bought a competitive brand that had a
> better price....still they will be tagged as
> not paying for it and possibly stopped for
> questioning...

I think the likelihood of being stopped for questioning on that alone would be fairly slim, especially if they bought a different product.

Sure it may be that they may be watched, but where is the harm in that? Or more to the point, how is that a great leap from today, where cameras look at you in shopping centres, banks, casinos, and many public places.

> BUT..

> ....that is only the beginning. As more and
> more invasion of privacy comes along it will
> worsen. Already the picture laden id's
> (driver's licenses, health cards, etc) are
> in a database, and Gillette just took your
> picture...tied into a database they can now
> use your picture to get your total info
> (including medical data) just by accessing
> the databases that are related to photo
> id's. These databases for security and
> supposedly marketing purposes are often sold
> to third parties....Now you walk into
> another store and as you enter a reader
> picks up the RFID and it is auto entered
> into this store's database, searched, and
> your whole info file is now on record in
> this stores database(including priveledged
> info in medical records, etc)

Where do they get this information from? I find the idea that your priveledged medical records would be available to a store clerk as you walk into a store a bit far fetched.

> And the nightmare will just blossom....

> ....for instance....unknown to the store it
> has an employee who likes children....this
> employee sees a little one that he/she
> fancies and who were scanned by the RFID
> reader ...this offender now has access to
> home addresses, phone numbers, etc...then
> just how safe is the child?

> And the nightmare will continue.

Of course, this scenario can happen today. There are many organisations you give your personal details to -- driving authorities, banks, doctors, schools, your electricity company, and so forth.

It is quite possible that such people may work at any of these organisations, see your child and look up your details.

Does that stop you from using banks, schools, electricity, and any other service that requires your address? If not, why doesn't it?

I imagine it doesn't because while it's possible for the situation described above to occur, it's fairly unlikely. Just like it's possible for a drunk driver to crash into me while driving, I still drive a car because the chances of that happening are fairly slim.

What I'm trying to say is that it's fairly easy to imagine horror scenarios, but I'd say the majority of them are fairly unlikely.

If companies are there to maximise profits, why do you think they spend money on this technology? Surely it's not for the sake of invading privacy on its own -- that wouldn't be in line with maximising profits. With that assumption, I'd say it's done to either increase efficiencies or reduce costs, which increase profits. These profits can be passed on to the consumer through competition.

Just think what would happen if they weren't passed on. Let's suppose you have 2 shoe stores again, with the same cost structure. One then installs privacy-invading tags, reduces theft, but keeps prices the same to increase profit.

As a consumer, which would you shop at, given both are the same price but one gives up your privacy? Probably the one where your privacy is intact. Which in turn puts pressure on the other one to reduce prices.

- Thomas.

Enough with the cost cutting already...
 

IF costs come down it has nothing to do with competition created by use of electronic tags. It comes down because of supply and demand.

I walk through my local shopping mall and I don't see shoe stores cutting costs NOW - with just bar codes and the like. Why will they do it later when everything is tagged electronically? Answer... they won't.

It is nice to think they will cut costs and pass savings on - in theory. But then the whole exercise was for nought as they passed it all on and are no better off than before it all began (bar the few bucks they save by getting rid of a couple of staff).

This arguement also assumes people buy based on price and price alone.

Not the case. Can't recall who said it, at this point in time, but it goes something along the lines of, "people WANT to pay more, if only you will give them a reason to." My experience proves this statement is true. (Rolex, Mercs, Rangies, etc.)

Look at the stockmarket... supply and demand.

Price of CD Players when they first came out. Supply and demand brought the prices down... not some mythical competition between Walmart and KMart.

Go into J&B HiFi and have a look at their bargain basement bin... CHEAP DVDs... they have too many of one kind and no-one wants to buy them (over supply with little demand) so the price comes down. Electronic tags or not.

Lets also remember... your examples are based on some people having tags and some not having tags.

Whereas in reality... everything will have tags because of The Network Effect. The same effect which forces almost all companies to upgrade their OS and applicable software - Word, Excel, etc. Because if they don't, then new price lists and manifests created on the new software can't be read.

I don't stop shopping at a certain clothes store because they have electronic tags which prevent me from walking out the door and stealing the item. Then again... those tags are basic tags... not ID TAGS and they are physically removed at the point of sale.

As for the clerk finding out info if they are a peadophile... the difference between what Cornell mentioned and your example is one of choice...

In your case... you have willingly given those details - for whatever reason. In Cornell's example... walking into the store saw your details taken WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

We may give up some of our privacy in exchange for certain rights... to drive, to fly to another country, etc. But this new technology TAKES our privacy away WITHOUT permission... and all we get is nothing extra - we still shop as normal.

BTW... The price of Gilette shavers in my supermarket has not come down. They are just as high as ever - if not higher.

Which raises another element... don't mistake the brief price rises followed by discounts, designed to make you think you are getting a discount.

And lets takes this another step forward... someone walks past your wheelie bin with a reader and scans all the packaging while they do it. They will know WHAT you bought, when you bought it, where you bought it, etc.

There is a big to-do about software which tracks your online movements without permission. But you don't seem too concerned about this. And this is far worse!

I think, however, that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

By the way... there are places online where for something like $50 per month you can access all kinds of govt databases and find out all kinds of stuff. This is REAL and it is NOW. So the sicko could in reality find out your details very fast because of the availability of these databases.

Jeez, a few years ago we were all priveleged to see just how much info was available based soley on a number plate. That was on another board.

Anyone with the spare money can access all that info too. So it is not far fetched.

Michael Ross

Re: Enough with the cost cutting already...
 

> IF costs come down it has nothing to do with
> competition created by use of electronic
> tags. It comes down because of supply and
> demand .

I disagree with this point. I know you all know I disagree with it, but I thought I'd try to illustrate why I think competition has a big impact on pricing.

Let's suppose I'm in the business of selling CD players. And so are 14,000 other people. There is heavy competition. The product I sell does not differ from any one of my competitors.

I buy the product for $1,000, and try to sell it for $2,000. Let's just assume there's no other cost other than the $1,000. A competitor selling the same product might see that, and lower his prices to $1,900. Who would buy from me when they can buy the same product from someone else for $1,900?

Chances are some people will -- those who don't know or can't be bothered -- but chances are the demand for my product will decline due to the price decline.

Unless all competitors collude to keep prices up, which is unlikely in a competitive environment, prices should decline to a point where a more 'normal' return on capital is enjoyed.

Now let's suppose instead of the above situation, I sell CD players, but this time I'm the only one in the world that does, and nobody else can. I'm a monopoly retailer, in other words.

How am I going to set my pricing? Well, chances are I'll set them above the normal market clearing rate because, hey, as a consumer you've got no choice and have to accept it.

It's one of the reasons selling MS Windows has a higher profit margin than selling fruit and vegetables -- Windows enjoys monopoly pricing whereas a fruit and vegetables retailer has stiff competition.

Thus, I think competition does affect prices, and it's not some magical thing that has no effect.

> This arguement also assumes people buy based
> on price and price alone.

> Not the case. Can't recall who said it, at
> this point in time, but it goes something
> along the lines of, "people WANT to pay
> more, if only you will give them a reason
> to." My experience proves this
> statement is true. (Rolex, Mercs, Rangies,
> etc.)

While your experience may suggest that statement is true, I'd be surprised if it's true in all cases. I would say in most cases people prefer to pay less for the same thing than more. Anyone who has been around compulsive discount shoppers will be aware of this.

Sure, there are examples where price may increase demand -- luxury goods specifically, or goods where the value might not be apparent or obvious to the buyer -- but I'd say for most goods this isn't the case.

> Look at the stockmarket... supply and
> demand.

Prices in the stockmarket are set primarily by competition amongst stock analysts and fund managers trying to buy good companies. It's very difficult to beat the market because it is efficient. It's efficient because of that competition.

> Price of CD Players when they first came
> out. Supply and demand brought the prices
> down... not some mythical competition
> between Walmart and KMart.

Another way to look at it is to say that competition increases supply which pushes down prices. If there was no competition, and a monopoly retailer you could artificially constrain supply, or in other words increase prices.

> Lets also remember... your examples are
> based on some people having tags and some
> not having tags.

> Whereas in reality... everything will have
> tags because of The Network Effect . The
> same effect which forces almost all
> companies to upgrade their OS and applicable
> software - Word, Excel, etc. Because if they
> don't, then new price lists and manifests
> created on the new software can't be read.

The reason I keep mention cost reductions is because I think it's integral to the reality of the situation.

Let's suppose that there are *no* cost saving measures and no efficiency gains from new technologies, since obviously assuming these is just fantasy. In that scenario, why would it matter if price lists can't be read and so forth? If there's no efficiency gains then you can just get someone to manually read it without additional cost, right?

I mean, if you assume that there are no efficiency gains or cost savings then you might as well assume you can operate a retailer or other business without use of these tags and you'd get business from people like yourself with no impact on cost.

If you assume there are efficiency gains -- and this is a likely outcome given that companies are profit-maximising organisations -- then these gains should be competed away.

You mentioned that prices don't instantly fall. This is probably true. But over time prices are probably lower than they otherwise would have been. Try to set up a grocery store that computes bills manually, without a calculator, when customers walk out. If you did this, you'd be ignoring new technology and your costs would increase, and to compensate you'd either need to increase your prices or run at a loss. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that the technology at the counter does, over time, reduce the end cost to the consumer.

> As for the clerk finding out info if they
> are a peadophile... the difference between
> what Cornell mentioned and your example is
> one of choice...

> In your case... you have willingly given
> those details - for whatever reason. In
> Cornell's example... walking into the store
> saw your details taken WITHOUT YOUR
> PERMISSION.

In my example I wouldn't give permission to someone that happens to be working in that bank or school either. I don't see a big difference.

> There is a big to-do about software which
> tracks your online movements without
> permission. But you don't seem too concerned
> about this. And this is far worse!

I agree -- it is far worse. :)

I'll say it again -- my main point is that giving up privacy rights is not a one sided issue.

It's easy to say "I support privacy" when it's a costless proposition. If there's no net benefit from invading someone's privacy rights, I'll support it every time. Who wouldn't?

I'm not trying to say people should support these chips. All I'm saying is that there might be some benefit to them that instantly dismissing them will overlook.

Also, I'm not really sure why my talk of potential cost cutting is dismissed as fantasy whereas mythical scanners that look at your boot or bin and instantly tell you what's there is closer to reality. :)

- Thomas.

Supply, Demand, Chips
 

> I disagree with this point. I know you all
> know I disagree with it, but I thought I'd
> try to illustrate why I think competition
> has a big impact on pricing.

> Let's suppose I'm in the business of selling
> CD players. And so are 14,000 other people.
> There is heavy competition. The product I
> sell does not differ from any one of my
> competitors.

You are thus selling a commodity. Commodities only selling point is price. Because... much supply (supply and demand again).

> While your experience may suggest that
> statement is true, I'd be surprised if it's
> true in all cases. I would say in most cases
> people prefer to pay less for the same thing
> than more. Anyone who has been around
> compulsive discount shoppers will be aware
> of this.

And likewise... anyone who has been around "label" shoppers will also tell you otherwise - as these people LOVE spending money on designer label stuff and the more pricey the better.

Fun this picking singling out, isn't it?

> Sure, there are examples where price may
> increase demand -- luxury goods
> specifically, or goods where the value might
> not be apparent or obvious to the buyer --
> but I'd say for most goods this isn't the
> case.

> Prices in the stockmarket are set primarily
> by competition amongst stock analysts and
> fund managers trying to buy good companies.
> It's very difficult to beat the market
> because it is efficient. It's efficient
> because of that competition.

What you are calling competition to buy is DEMAND.

> Another way to look at it is to say that
> competition increases supply which pushes
> down prices. If there was no competition,
> and a monopoly retailer you could
> artificially constrain supply, or in other
> words increase prices.

So there. You have argued yourself back to the point of supply and demand.

> The reason I keep mention cost reductions is
> because I think it's integral to the reality
> of the situation.

No-one is disagreeing with cost reductions. The disagreement is in the passing on of those reductions.

> You mentioned that prices don't instantly
> fall. This is probably true. But over time
> prices are probably lower than they
> otherwise would have been.

Okay. Quick survey.... everyone who has a family to support... please raise your hand IF you have found that prices have been coming down?

Sorry... if you think prices are PROBABLY lower than they otherwise would have been due to technology changes which have enabled the selling business to reduce cost.

> Having said that, I think it's fair to say
> that the technology at the counter does,
> over time, reduce the end cost to the
> consumer.

Again. Please raise your hand if you have seen prices come down over time.

> In my example I wouldn't give permission to
> someone that happens to be working in that
> bank or school either. I don't see a big
> difference.

The difference is... when you give your details to a bank you do so willingly. When your details are taken from a chip or whatnot, it is done without your permission. See the difference now? One is WITH your permission and the other is WITHOUT your permission.

> I'm not trying to say people should support
> these chips. All I'm saying is that there
> might be some benefit to them that instantly
> dismissing them will overlook.

The benefits you have mentioned can all be had without ID Tags.

> Also, I'm not really sure why my talk of
> potential cost cutting is dismissed as
> fantasy whereas mythical scanners that look
> at your boot or bin and instantly tell you
> what's there is closer to reality. :)

Again, no-one is disagreeing that these tags will not cut costs. The disagreement is that items will be cheaper for the consumer.

Let me give you just one example of tremendous use of technology to improve efficiency and cut costs and how it has resulted for the consumer...

BANKS!

Every year there are more and more technologies put in place to remove person to person interaction and speed everything up. Every year bank fees go up and banks make NEW RECORD PROFITS - and then complain they need to raise rates again to stay profitable.

My bank recently raised their merchant participation fee from $8 per month to $22 per month. Why? And I quote what was told to me... "To bring the prices more in line with what other banks charge."

As for the chip reader you claim is fantasy... the chips are designed to be read. That is their purpose. Thus a reader able to read these chips is not fanatasy.

Michael Ross