🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>> 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.

Really?  Bar codes on what, the loyalty cards they don't have to
issue and don't need to admit exist?

Existing loyalty cards don't work very well because not all customers
can be convinced to get them, customers forget to bring them, sometimes
they trade them with other people, and they don't always present them
if they aren't going to save any money by doing so.  Also, it takes
money to issue the cards.

>>>> 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.

Not if what they are selling isn't sold retail.

A manufacturer that sells electronics boards for hard disks isn't
going to attach an RFID referenced to a UPC code for use by merchants.
That manufacturer won't necessarily even know what size hard disk
it's going to be, or even who the drive manufacturer going to be.
But they might well use RFID to track warranties.  They might also
use a single RFID on a whole pallet of boards when they ship to
disk drive manufacturers, and *that's* what they use for billing
and tracking their merchandise.

Retail computers might come with one (permanent) RFID for each hard
disk drive electronics board, one (permanent) RFID for the motherboard,
one (permanent) RFID for the power supply, and one (removable) RFID for a
"Foobar Model 1936 computer".  Only the last one should show up
on a receipt at checkout.

>> (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.

Checkouts will have to deal with RFIDs that are not merchandise,
do not have a UPC or other kind of product code (other than perhaps
"this is not merchandise" class), people will carry them into stores, and
people will not necessarily be willing to zap them to make checkout
work more efficiently.  (parking garage passes come to mind).  If
that can't be made to work well, using RFID for retail checkout
will never work.

There's also the problem where the same subassembly can either be
merchandise (spare/replacement parts) or part of merchandise, or the
same item either is or isn't merchandise during different parts of
its life cycle.  That's harder, but if the RFIDs that were never 
intended to be for checkout can't be handled, these can't either.

>> 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),

The purpose of specific RFIDs (probably including most of the
permanent ones) may have nothing whatever to do with checkout.  If
a different RFID is needed for checkout, someone (possibly from a
different company) will attach a tag with one.

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

Some RFIDs *DO NOT* need to be detected at checkouts because they
do not carry the information for the final product, just subassemblies.
THEY ARE NOT FOR CHECKOUT.  If the product goes through checkout,
it will have a different RFID tag for that.

>> it's cheaper to have them permanent,
>
>They still need some form of removable label

The removable label will not substitute for a permanent one to track
warranty returns.  These two labels may well be attached by two
different companies.

The manufacturer of electronics boards for disk drives does not
need a removable label on each board.  The manufacturer of disk
drives might need such a label for drives headed for retail sale.
The manufacturer of electronics boards does not want to depend on
*his customer* adding RFID tags to track *his* warranty information.

>for any retail operation so its just as cheap to
>have the RFID in that. Cheaper, actually.

Some RFIDs will be used for *NO* retail function whatever, even
though they are contained within retail products.  A different,
probably removable, one will likely be used for that if the assembled
product is being sold retail.

Isn't *MOST* of what Walmart is doing with RFID now is using them
to track shipments between supplier and retail store, and *NOT* for
checkout?  Non-checkout use of RFID isn't going to go away.

>> or their use requires them to be permanent.
>
>No such animal with stuff that the checkout needs to see.

What about the STUFF THAT CHECKOUT NEEDS TO IGNORE?
RFID has plenty of uses not involving checkout.  

>> 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.

Yes, but they can still route the package to the correct department
to handle that type of drive *before* opening it and having to deal
with losing things out of an opened package.

>> (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.

Just being able to reject packages without a valid RMA without
opening them would probably save a lot of time.

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

Some drive manufacturers actually claim to do failure analysis on
returned drives (or at least a sample of them).  Chances are one
of the platter assembly or the drive electronics is still good.  If
the drive is no longer being manufactured, some of them claim to
try to put together a good platter assembly with a good electronics
board, especially if the customer claims they need a replacement
for *that drive*, not a newer one (sometimes applicable to RAID
setups which want drives with identical geometry).  (I have heard
this in the context of "we ran out of old ones, so you're stuck
with a new one").  Do you think these claims are lies?

>> 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.

But in your world, other people will still carry these into the
store and screw up checkout, and I'll be in line behind them.

>Most are trackable using the card they use to pay for the
>purchases with anyway, 

Really?  Someone can walk by the register carrying their phone and
I can tell the credit card number they used to pay for their cell
phone?  (The cell phone company knows that, but who cares?  They
aren't the ones in the store.)  Are you assuming the only one
trying to track is the government or the cell phone company?

With a RFID in a cell phone, a store owner can tell with reasonable
certainty that this is the same person (or maybe family member)
who came by the register last week.

>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.

Who says the trackers are trying to "catch criminals"?  I'm worried
about the ones that ARE criminals (and even the ones that ARE
criminals excluding anyone in the US government).

>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.

A camera can identify me, personally?  I don't think face
recognition software is that good yet.  Sure, if they caught
me exiting the store with unpaid-for merchandise, they can match
my face against a tape, but they can't easily go through and
find all the people who were in the store more than 4 times last
week, or everyone in the store between 1PM and 3PM last Saturday.

>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.

Why?  The stores with the lower-priced groceries don't take
credit cards in my area.

>> 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.

Getting cash is convenient.  Waiting for some clerk fooling around
trying to deal with a credit card is not.  I don't know why, but
paying with cash is much faster, even if the clerk fumbles around
with change.  It shouldn't be, but in practice, it is.  Even with
grocery stores that do take credit cards, few people use them.
In NON-grocery stores where credit cards are the norm and cash
is rare, it still seems to be faster to pay with cash.

>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've never heard of a store applying a surcharge for cash.  I've
never heard of a stored value card that didn't charge something to
use it, unless you count a Kinko's copy card, which isn't good for
much besides copies.  Maybe they exist, but I'm not familiar with
any.

>>> 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.

Wow!  The police guarding the drugs in the evidence room could
take a lesson from you!  They have stuff go missing occasionally.

>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 don't use cash because I'm afraid of tracking.  I use cash for
most purchases because it's CHEAPER (sometimes, but at least not
more expensive) and REDUCES CHECKOUT TIME.  (I can't explain 
why cash is faster at checkout, but it is.)

>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.

There is a threat.  Ever heard of a thief?  The police catch
people breaking into homes and stealing out of cars every day.
Some of them have even been caught with info suggesting that
they are stealing specific merchandise to order.

>>>> 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.

I believe that the enforcement and investigation agencies (FBI,
CIA, NSA, TSA, Secret Service, etc.) will demand exactly that, even
if it puts their own people in danger, for example, by making it
easy to identify Americans, including undercover Feds, on a hijacked
international flight).  If they thought they could get away with
body cavity searches with the searchee not being aware of the search,
they'd ask for that too.  They already keep wanting more and more
ability to snoop without even telling a government court about it.

If they want something for passports that can't be snooped on,
what's wrong with bar codes?  UPS already uses a 2-D pattern that
holds a lot of data.  With digital signatures, it would be difficult
to alter data beyond copying off of a valid passport.  They don't
seem to be going in that direction, though.

>>>> 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.

Selling of customer purchase info is not a fantasy.  It seems to
be worth money to vendors even if one register tape isn't tied to
any others (no loyalty cards) but it's worth more if it is.  "gee,
a lot of people buy pizza with beer!"  Let's see, what brand pizza
with what brand beer?

>> 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 rarely see people buying groceries with credit cards even at
stores that accept them.  And it's mostly grocery stores (vs.
clothing stores or whatever) with the loyalty cards, isn't it?

>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.

I don't believe I ever mentioned junk mail.  I've had some mail
that might be related to a loyalty card but more likely it was a
mailing list of everyone in a 10 mile radius from the store.  So
I'll admit that loyalty cards don't seem to be a source of junk
mail.

>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 observe a much higher percentage of loyalty card use than credit
card use in grocery stores.

>> 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.

For cash customers?  I don't think so.  And due to laws about displaying
the price, they'd have to have the price label identify the customer
and display the correct price, in addition to having the right
price at the register.

>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.

I guess I can forget the travel industry then.  I can't rent a car or
make a hotel reservation with cash, and even if I could, the Feds
would seize it as being "drug money" if I tried buying an airplane
ticket with cash while carrying enough for a hotel stay and/or rental car.

>> 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. 

It's certainly not cost-effective now.  And I don't see how anyone
is currently going to track me if I walk into the store, walk around,
pick up some merchandise, pay cash, and leave, then do that again
next week, and have the store associate the two sets of purchases
with either each other or with anything that identifies me.  Face
recognition software just isn't that good now.  BUT if it can read
the RFID on my parking pass, it can.

						Gordon L. Burditt