🚀 go-pugleaf

Gordon Burditt <gordonb.euerw@burditt.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Gordon Burditt <gordonb.euerw@burditt.org> wrote

>>> With ubiquitous RFID, a supermarket could create "loyalty cards"
>>> without even having to issue them or admit having them.

They dont need RFID to do that, they can do that now with barcodes.

>>> When you buy something, they record the ID numbers of RFID
>>> items you have on you other than their merchandise.  These might
>>> be in your driver's license, credit cards, pants, shoes, wallet, etc.

>> That assumes permanent RFIDs on stuff like that, very unlikely,
>> if only because they can then be a problem at the checkout.

> The people who put the permanent RFIDs on probably couldn't
> care less what the people running a checkout counter think.

Corse they care, they need to have them selling their products.

> (Probably they'll at least try to use codes that don't overlap
> with merchandise, if there is such a standard, but not much else).

Its obviously in their interest to use a system that works well at checkouts.

> They just know that for the purpose of what THEY want to do with
> the RFID (which may have nothing to do with selling merchandise),

Corse it has everything to do with selling merchandise
with stuff that needs to be detected at checkouts.

> it's cheaper to have them permanent,

They still need some form of removable label
for any retail operation so its just as cheap to
have the RFID in that. Cheaper, actually.

> or their use requires them to be permanent.

No such animal with stuff that the checkout needs to see.

> Example:  hard disk drives and subassemblies for them
> currently have bar codes containing the serial numbers
> for tracking warranty information (at least most of them
> do).  My bet is that these manufacturers would like to
> use RFID instead, if it's cost effective, so they can identify
> returned merchandise without having to open the package

They still need to open the package to check for damage
by user stupidity etc and to check if the purchaser has
deliberately attempted to kill the device etc.

> (and reject those without a RMA set up, and route the
> package to the appropriate group based on product type).
> RFID is probably easier to scan than bar codes as the
> drive makes its way through the repair process.

There is no repair process. They just decide if its a
valid warranty claim or not and make a new one if it is.

> Now, granted, most people don't carry hard drives with
> them into a store, and there is little interest in tracking
> people trying to smuggle hard drives through customs.
> The interest is in tracking them at the factory.

Pity none of that applys to clothes, shoes, wallets etc.

> Now consider that other electronics manufacturers might get the
> same idea for other stuff:  cell phones, iPods, PDAs, and similar
> stuff that *is* often carried around.  Result:  a lot of permanent
> RFIDs being carried around by people, even though the people
> putting them there have no interest in tracking people.

If you're mindlessly paranoid about being tracked using those,
leave them in the car and dont take them into the store.

Most are trackable using the card they use to pay for the
purchases with anyway, no need to fart around and track
the RFID on that other stuff like their cellphone etc too.

Those who dont want to be trackable will be using
cash and they will find out that cellphones are
trackable too and will leave them in their car etc.

The most you might catch is a few stupid criminals
too stupid to realise that their cellphone is trackable.
It is now anyway, even without RFID.

Any store can use cameras to track individuals too, and
there are bugger all stores that dont have cameras now.

Again, you're mindlessly hyperventilating about trackability
thats perfectly possibly right now without any RFID being used.

>>> and the store doesn't really have to care WHAT they are on.

>> You can obviously avoid that if you're mindlessly
>> paranoid by not taking your cards into the store.

>> And they can keep track of what is purchased using particular
>> credit cards etc without bothering with RFID right now anyway.

> True.  I don't usually bother paying for stuff with a credit
> card in person anyway, unless it's a large purchase
> where I feel uncomfortable carrying that much cash.

More fool you.

> Credit cards are mostly good for mailorder.

Wrong, you dont have to fart around getting
cash if you use a card for almost all purchases.

The only time I use cash now is with very small purchases
like a single lettuce etc at the small store around the corner.

I'd much rather use a stored value card instead
and dont use the credit card because they impose
a surcharge with small purchases like that there.

>> I couldnt care less if they keep track of what I have bought.

> Really?

Yep, really.

> You couldn't care less if they STEAL it from you?

Steal what ?  I have adequate provisions in place to ensure
that they wont be stealing anything I have bought using the card.

And I'm not paranoid enough to only buy stuff in person so
no one has any record of what I have bought so they can
decide what to steal from me after inspecting the list.

I dont bother to take a circuitious route home to ensure
that no one can see what I have bought at the checkout
and deliberately follow me home and put me on the list
to be looted at night in the next few days either.

> The government is not the biggest threat here.

There is no threat. You're just being mindlessly paranoid.

>>> To avoid thinking you are a different person every time you change
>>> pants, items seen together often are linked together as being the
>>> same person.  The first time they see your driver's license and
>>> credit card.  The next time they see the credit card and your new
>>> wallet.  The next time they see your new wallet and your running
>>> shoes.  Now all of these are grouped together in one record.

>> See above on permanent RFIDs on the stuff you wear.

>> And if you dont like that, its completely trivial to zap those RFIDs anyway.

> It may well be made illegal to zap the RFID on my driver's
> license, passport, or other government-issued ID, or if it's
> not, it causes you to be held overnight in jail while they
> identify you.  Or perhaps you just can't pay by check
> anywhere until your driver's license responds properly.

I was obviously referring to your silly line about the wallet and shoes there.

If you dont like the risk with RFID on your
license or ID, dont take it into the store.

I dont believe any govt will be stupid enough to have
an RFID that can be snooped on without the holder
of the ID being aware that its being scanned anyway.

>>> Pretty soon they've got a pretty good inventory list
>>> of the RFID items you sometimes carry with you.

>> Fat lot of use that is to anyone.

> Stores put a lot of effort into tracking customer purchases
> with loyalty cards, and they make money selling the info.

Mindless conspiracy theory. They use them because
they tend to encourage repeat purchases at that store.

> Don't you think they would jump at a way of identifying customers
> (even if they don't have a name, etc. yet) that can't easily be traded
> around, doesn't require the customer to remember the card, and
> doesn't require the customer to present the card at the register?

They have had that for many years now with credit cards.

I've been using cards to pay for almost all purchases for decades
now and have never ever had a single piece of junk mail thats ever
showed up due to the use of the data from the card. Not once, ever.

And thats illegal in my country now anyway.

> Even if it's not 100% accurate, it's probably
> more accurate than the existing system.

Just another fantasy. The current credit
card system is even more accurate.

> I'm sure the stores would love to set prices individually
> for individual people or groups (although some laws
> may prevent that currently).  This kind of RFID tracking
> might be reliable enough to make it possible, most of the time.

Just another silly little paranoid fantasy. The CURRENT
system has all they need to be able to do that.

RFID doesnt add a damned thing to that.

>>> Some adjustment might be used to account for shared clothing
>>> or gifts (which means they can track who you share stuff with).

>> Completely off with the fairys, as usual.

> You're saying that's not possible?

Nope, that they wont be silly enough to bother with that approach.

> Isn't that what the NSA is trying to do with domestic
> phone records, find out who associates with who?

I doubt too many terrorists share much clothing or bother much with gifts.

And they'd soon work out how to zap the RFIDs even if they did.

>>> 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.

>> If you dont like that, pay cash.

> Some merchants do not accept cash.

Then dont bother with those merchants if you're that mindlessly paranoid.

> Just because I trust some merchants with credit card info
> does not mean I trust all merchants with credit card info.

Like I said, if you dont like that, pay cash.

>> And they dont bother with the current
>> system which doesnt use RFID anyway.

>> Its just another of your silly little luddite fantasys.

> You're calling me a luddite?

Nope, I am saying that you are a mindless paranoid luddite.

> The guy who enjoys spending most of his time with tech?

But doesnt have enough of a clue to realise that
ALL that tracking you so mindlessly hyperventilate
about is possible NOW without using any RFID at all.