Big Brother and now private companies

> 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

> 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

Chips in animals have proven to work.

Ten minutes into the future when products are chipped.

Small chip implanted in the wrist of a human. Linked to bank accounts and whatnot.

Fill shopping trolley. Push trolley through reader. Swipe wrist of point of sale reader. Transaction complete.

Pulled up for speeding. Police scan wrist - know who you are, where you live, how many points left on license, whether you own guns, etc.

Sounds silly now. Fact I imagined it means it is possible... and actually probably at some point in time... unless we stop it before it is too late.

Michael Ross

Not arguing that there are privacy issues, however there are much greater things to be concerned about. Ubiquitous GPS, software that phones home (Microsoft XP etc.) preventing you using your property in the way you want. Some years ago I wrote an article about a rap on the knuckles Mattel got for providing software with toys that phoned home and requested details from the user, almost always children. Now as adults we can weigh these decisions as to how much privacy we choose to give up for convenience, but when they start targetting children I get offended.

At present the limit on RFID range is physics. The small passive device can only be activated by sending power from a reader. To read from a greater distance needs logarithmically more powerful readers, ie enough to fry your brain as they read whats in your handbag. Sure, new physics may change that picture, but at the moment these tags are mch less of a worry than other privacy issues.
> 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

> 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

> 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.

> 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.

But that's just it... if these tags are everywhere, there is NO CHOICE.

You can "spin" the good side of it all you want. Fact is.. stock control with tags can easily be done with tags on boxes of goods. The individual product items do NOT need a RFID Tag.

> So does that mean we should stop any new
> technology, on the chance it is abused?

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?

> 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.

For the most part you are a supporter of privacy rights? For the most part?

What parts aren't you in support of?

> Provided this is a choice and not a
> requirement, I don't see why that would be a
> bad thing.

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
> extent of labelling their more expensive
> items in case they are stolen.

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.

And sacrificing privacy to MAYBE save a few bucks is a weak reason to sacrifice privacy.

Michael Ross

> 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.

> 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