🚀 go-pugleaf

Gary Heston <gheston@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> In article <126cl99sc8rsl62@corp.supernews.com>,
> Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> wrote:
>> In article <ethc62h0qjf4aph9ch46bnu4f37kciiuso@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Ward  <bobward@email.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:51:05 -0000, gordonb.n43x0@burditt.org
>>> (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>  [ ... ]
>>>> If they even once accept payment in the form of a check or credit
>>>> card, they've got your name, account number, and maybe an address
>>>> or phone number.  Now consider what happens when half of the
>>>> stores in a given city share this info with each other.
>
>>> What?  They find out that you've been buying aluminum foil from all
>>> of them?
>
>> They have enough info to steal your identity and charge up a storm on
>> your credit cards, even if you never used your credit cards in any
>> of those stores.  And don't say identity theft is a "mindless
>> paranoid conspiracy".  It's real.

> Bear in mind also that these databases can be targeted by subpoenas.

Nice paranoia. Pity that thats just as true of the
current system without RFID and isnt in fact a problem.

> Do you want a detailed accounting of your spending habits
> available to any lawyer or government agency at their whim?

It isnt now, and RFID changes nothing on that.

> How valuable would that be in a divorce case?
> IRS audit? Child custody fight?

More utterly mindless paranoia.

Have fun explaining why it doesnt happen without RFID.