http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/09/beamed.barcodes.ap/index.html
Is it just me or is this really creepy. We get closer and closer to 1984 every day.
Doubtlessly this will all be part of Patriot Act III.
:rolleyes:
So if you see a pack of razor blades with an external battery and a long antenna, you can start to be worried that someone could possibly discover that, shock horror, you bought some razor blades. Until then, don’t worry about it.
The chips do NOT contain any information about who buys the product. How can they? They are installed before the product is bought. Yes, a retailer can tie that purchase to your identity, if you give them some means of identifying you (you do know that that is what loyalty cards are for, don’t you?). But they can already do that by matching a the UPCs of the items you buy to the loyalty cards. The only difference with RFID tags is that the retailer will know exactly which can of beans you bought, not just that you bought a can of beans.
Gee. Something I can think of doing is opening the packages in the parking lot and tossing them out the window on the way home. Doesn’t work with beans, I guess.
::deep in a government facility::
“Sir! All the SPAM containers seem to be congregating in the city dump!”
“It’s a conspiracy! Ready the assault teams!”
Ah, but with RFID tags, they (the infamous “they”) can identify that it was you that bought that packaging and haul you in for littering.
Some products will place the tags in the product itself, not the packaging. For example, tags can be in the spine of a book. There is also controversy about sewing the tags into clothing. A likely result of privacy concerns is that there will be the ability to deactivate the tags when the item is purchased.
Well, here’s what snopes has to say about it.
If all it’s used for is helping retailers manage their inventory, then I don’t see a problem with it. However, this:
makes me skittish. It’s nobody’s damn business if I eat an entire box of Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies for dinner.
This was discussed in GD. It is a great invention and fears are unfounded.
In the grand scheme of things, this is not a great invention.
It will, however, lead to job cuts at retailers wherever it’s implemented, thus further depressing the north american economy.
Then don’t buy one of the at-home devices!! Nobody is going to force you to take a device that will detect what you eat and force you to hook it up to the Internet.
Good grief. See Luddite. Can I assume that you disapprove of UPC codes and scanners because of all the retail workers they must have put out of business? And computers? Terrible things - they must have depressed the North American economy horribly,
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. I’m not so much paranoid about the Eye in the Sky watching me eat cookies. What disturbs me is the possibility that there are people out there who may think having consumer’s houses hard-wired into the internet so they can be more easily targeted for custom tailored advertising is a peachy keen idea. I am perfectly aware that these devices are not intended for that. But the fact that such an idea has, apparently, occurred to others as a viable course of action is just plain creepy.
I’m not scared of these, but the straightforward UPC comparison is disingenuous. A substantial difference between these and traditional UPCs is that these can be read at any time. You don’t need to swipe them across a conspicuous laser reader. You just need to walk by the receiver. You won’t have to be aware that the product is being scanned, so you won’t necessarily have a choice, short of buying shielded clothing and bags, or frying the tags with some sort of household EMP generator (don’t try it on your MP3 player, though!!).
Buying with cash works to a certain point, but if you’ve already got just one tag on you that was linked to you, and the owner of the scanner at your cash purchase has access to the database that contains your earlier purchase, they can now associate your current purchase with you, even if you pay in cash. Now there are at least two tags in circulation which can identify you for future purchases.
And as for the argument that the infrastructure necessary to track these things is not practical right now – so what? It’s getting more practical every day.
So it’s not like the moment RFID tags start going out with products, we immediately start living Minority Report. But we certainly could be, given time.
The advertising part it, that is, not the getting-arrested-before-you-commit-a-crime part of it.
Maybe it’s just because I’m reading this pre-coffee, but I’m not getting this. Can you explain this a little more?
The way I’m reading it now, if I pay for my current (tagged) beans with cash, and don’t scan in a “customer discount” card or anything like that, and the cashier doesn’t recognize me, how will this asociate me with any earlier purchases I made?
All that tells them is that some unidentified person came in at a certain time and bought a particular can of beans. It’s not like I’m taking that can back to the store later to say, “Hey, I’m the one who bought this can, and I’m buying more this time.”
Not trying to be sarcastic here, just trying to figure out how you mean this.
Say you’ve previously bought a wristwatch with a tag, and paid for it with some identifiable means. If you have that watch with you when you buy the beans, and the tag is still active, and the store has a business relationship with the previous store that gives them access to that database (hell, it could be the same store), then they could read the watch, and realize it was probably you.
Actually, with the current state of technology, the comparison with UPC is very relevant. (Yes, I know we have to consider where the technology might lead). The RFID tags are passive i.e. they have no source of power. The range within which they can be read is approximately the size of the antenna. Hence you would have to get very close to an RFID reader for the tag to be read - of the order of an inch or two. In fact, currently bar code scanners have a greater range than RFID when using passive tags.
Active tags are different as they transmit. However, you are not going to see these for a long time in anything but more expensive goods as they cost several dollars each. The passive tags cost about 10 cents each, but retailers reckon they need to come down to less than one cent to be viable as a UPC replacement. For quite some time all we are likely to see RFID used for with everyday goods is for the supply chain - tracking whole packages of goods.
I agree these things are completely innocuous. Therefore I think that each gun sold in the US have one imbedded in the grip. Then we can set up scanners in all doorways. That will let us trace every firearm (and it’s owner) as it moves around the country.
Ah, i see what you’re getting at JRoot, thanks for the clarification.