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

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

> 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.

> 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

> 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.

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

> 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

> 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