> 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