🚀 go-pugleaf

Gordon Burditt <gordonb.xaz2i@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.

> Really?

Yep, really. Its always been just another of those hoary old
myths, they can get tracking info they need from the credit
and debit cards and checks used to pay for the purchases.

They dont actually bother.

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

The barcodes on the purchases you make.

> 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.

Which is precisely why its always been a mindless hoary old
myth about what loyalty cards have always been about. They
have never been about tracking customers, they have always
been about attempting to encourage customers to spend more
in YOUR store than they do in your competitor's stores.

Obviously that isnt perfect either, because most stores have them.

>>>>> 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.

Pity that is what is being discussed, the use of RFID at checkouts etc.

There has never been any suggestion that a national ID
will ever be required when making purchases at checkouts,
thats just another completely silly conspiracy theory.

> 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.

It is in their interest to use a system that works at checkouts.

> 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.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed. And you havent established
that the logic card will have a separate RFID to the drive itself anyway.

> But they might well use RFID to track warranties.

How odd that they dont bother to have separate barcodes on
the logic card and the rest of the hard drive currently for that.

There might just be a damned good reason for that. That the
warranty applys to the complete item, and that there is no
need to track warrantys on the individual components of that.

> 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.

Irrelevant to your silly claims about the purported use
of RFIDs for tracking customers purchase behaviour.

> 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".

How odd that they dont bother with the current barcode system.

> Only the last one should show up on a receipt at checkout.

Completely trivial to do that using the class code.

Have a separate one for what gets sold at retail.

>>> (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),

Yes, thats what class codes are about. No need to allow for 'overlaps'

> people will carry them into stores, and people will not necessarily
> be willing to zap them to make checkout  work more efficiently.

Duh.

> (parking garage passes come to mind).

Completely trivial to handle with class codes.

> If that can't be made to work well, using
> RFID for retail checkout will never work.

So that will be allowed for.

It wont be a matter of anyone not caring what happens at checkouts.

> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>>> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>>> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>>> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>>> 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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>>> (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.

Trivial to handly with a removable label with the RFID on that,
using a class code for RFIDs that apply to RFIDs on removable labels.

Not a shred of rocket science required what so ever.

>> 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*,

No they dont. They just supply what they
are currently manufacturing instead.

> not a newer one (sometimes applicable to RAID
> setups which want drives with identical geometry).

Thats just plain wrong too. The geometry doesnt need to be identical.

> (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?

Nope, that they dont bother to assemble replacements out of
the good bits of returned drives, they just give you what they are
currently manufacturing instead and tell you to like that or lump it.

Happens all the time with warranty claims.

>>> 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,

I never ever said anything about any screwing up.

I JUST said that those RFID WONT BE USED FOR TRACKING
PURCHASES MADE OVER TIME BY SNOOPING ON WHAT
IDs THE PURCHASER IS MAKING USING RFID.

They can do all the tracking they need right now just using
the barcodes on the items, and the details from whatever
is used to pay for the items whenever it isnt cash.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE ON THAT WITH RFID.

> and I'll be in line behind them.

Your problem.

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

> Really?

Yep.

> 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?

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

I JUST SAID THAT THEY CAN TRACK CUSTOMER'S PURCHASING
BEHAVIOUR USING THE WAY THEY PAY FOR THEIR PURCHASES
WHEN THAT ISNT DONE USING CASH.

AND THAT IF YOU DONT WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO WORK
OUT WHO YOU ARE, YOU CAN LEAVE WHATEVER ID YOU HAVE
IN THE CAR AND PAY FOR THE PURCHASES USING CASH.

NOTHING CHANGES ON THAT WITH RFID.

> (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?

Nope.

> 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.

And they can do that right now without
RFID too, AND THEY DONT BOTHER.

>> 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 just rubbed your nose in the fact that those are
the only ones that matter that might be that stupid.

> I'm worried about the ones that ARE criminals (and even the ones
> that ARE criminals excluding anyone in the US government).

You mindless paranoia is your problem.

Always has been, always will be.

If you dont like that minimal risk, you are welcome to
never take any ID or cellphone into any store,  pay
for all purchases using cash, and to zap any RFID
on anything you purchase once you leave the store.

The worst that can happen is that some people you know
might wet themselves laughing at your mindless paranioa
and you might get some of them telling the authoritys that
you are likely a terrorist trying to evade govt scruteny etc.

>> 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?

Well enough to keep track of a particular individual's purchases, yes.

> I don't think face recognition software is that good yet.

You're wrong.

> 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.

Because they dont care enough to bother doing that.

They clearly can do that with those that pay for their purchases using any
form of card or check RIGHT NOW, and they dont bother doing that either.

>> Again, you're mindlessly hyperventilating about trackability
>> thats perfectly possible 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.

Bet they do take something equally traceable.

More traceable in fact with checks.

>>> 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.

No its not.

> Waiting for some clerk fooling around
> trying to deal with a credit card is not.

No fooling around with any I use. The better ones allow you
to deal with the card yourself, while the checkout monkey is
still running the items past the scanner so its actually quicker
than cash because there is no cash to handle at all.

> I don't know why, but paying with cash is much faster,

No it isnt with a properly implemented system.

> even if the clerk fumbles around with change.
> It shouldn't be, but in practice, it is.

Wrong. And you have to include the
time you waste getting the cash anyway.

> Even with grocery stores that do take
> credit cards, few people use them.

Oh bullshit. Plenty use them for the rewards.

> In NON-grocery stores where credit cards are the norm
> and cash is rare, it still seems to be faster to pay with cash.

You're wrong, and you have to include the
time you waste getting the cash anyway.

>> 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 didnt say they did.

> I've never heard of a stored value card
> that didn't charge something to use it,

Plenty dont.

> 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.

Your problem.

>>>> 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.

Because some cops are thieves. No thieves in my house thanks.

>> 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

No it isnt when you use a decent card that has rewards.

> (sometimes, but at least not more expensive)
> and REDUCES CHECKOUT TIME.  (I can't
> explain why cash is faster at checkout, but it is.)

No it isnt with a properly implemented checkout system.

>> 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.

Not those that snoop on IDs at the checkout they dont.

> Some of them have even been caught with info suggesting
> that they are stealing specific merchandise to order.

Doesnt happen with stuff that goes thru checkouts.

And you can completely eliminate that risk by
being completely paranoid as above anyway.

I dont bother. You're free to be as paranoid as you like.

>>>>> 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,

More fool you. It wont happen, you watch.

> 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).

They aint that stupid.

> 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.

At checkouts ?  You really are completely
off with the fairys, as always.

> They already keep wanting more and more ability to
> snoop without even telling a government court about it.

Not a checkouts they dont.

> If they want something for passports that can't
> be snooped on, what's wrong with bar codes?

The electronic system is much more capable.

> 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.

Because the electronic system is much
more capable and much more secure.

>>>>> 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.

The previous line about loyalty cards is tho.

> 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?

In practice there is bugger all of that done and its completely trivial
to ensure that they cant track that if you're that mindlessly paranoid.

You wont be able to stop them using face recognition systems
to keep track of you tho. You could try a bag over your head,
but that will likely cause the checkout monkey to call the cops.

>>> 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.

You need to get out more. And most dont
use cash anyway, THATS what matters.

> And it's mostly grocery stores (vs. clothing
> stores or whatever) with the loyalty cards, isn't it?

Nope. Plenty use them for the rewards and the convenience.

>> 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.

You're completely irrelevant on that.

> 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.

So why do you care about what they
record about your purchasing behaviour ?

The most that might do is see the stores better organised so
that the pizza and beer is closer together in the store etc.

>> 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.

Irrelevant when both can obviously be used to track customers.

>>> 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.

Just as true of RFID, you're welcome to leave
any IDs you  have in the car etc or at home.

> 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.

Irrelevant to your mindless hyperventilation about
RFIDs, they clearly track that stuff right now.

>> 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,

Mindless paranoia always has its downsides.

> 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.

Pig ignorant lie.

AND ALL THAT APPLYS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM, NOT
RELEVANT TO YOUR MINDLESS HYPERVENTILATION ABOUT RFIDs.

>>> 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.

Wrong, it costs nothing with purchases
made using any form of card or check.

> 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.

And you'll still be able to do that with RFIDs by just leaving
the IDs in the car or at home and zapping any RFIDs on
stuff you purchase once you get it out of the store or home etc.

> Face recognition software just isn't that good now.

Wrong.

> BUT if it can read the RFID on my parking pass, it can.

Leave it in the car too.