> 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.