> 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