Big Brother and now private companies

> 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.