Original RFID protester post: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/11/09/jim-harper-on/ Jim Harper's reply: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/11/09/rfid-protesters-target/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] RFID protesters target Wal-Mart, demand new laws and regulations [priv] Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:30:31 -0500 From: Katherine Albrecht <kma@private> To: Jim Harper <jharper@private> CC: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <0A1602CE917AD6499B8C85E3C68F5564019F3202@private> Jim: We are not protesting the use of RFID on "pallets and cartons" as you suggest, but the use of _item-level tagging_ in Wal-Mart stores. There's a world of difference. -Katherine Albrecht -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] RFID protesters target Wal-Mart, demand new lawsand regulations [priv] Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:36:10 -0500 From: Jim Harper <jharper@private> To: Katherine Albrecht <kma@private> CC: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> "In New Hampshire we live free. We don't want R-F-I-D!" doesn't really get that across. Jim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Jim Harper on how anti-RFID'ers harm immigrants, the poor (and public libraries) [priv] Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:00:54 -0500 From: Richard M. Smith <rms@private> To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private>, <jharper@private> Library books that are bugged with RFID chips never seemed like that much of problem to me. After all, most of the time library books are taken home and there aren't too many places that they can be scanned. However, much more interesting is library cards that are bugged. Are any libraries planning to use RFID chips in library cards? Richard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Library/bookstore uses of RFID Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:37:04 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Fingerman <fingerman@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <43723425.90404@private> On Wed, November 9, 2005 9:38 am, Declan McCullagh said: > > I also received a message from a library director at a public > library that I've been asked not to post verbatim. To summarize > it, they're planning to replace bar code and security tags with > RFID tags within the next three years. That will let librarians > check out a pile of books without opening each one -- and also > put a scanner in the book return slot too. > One huge benefit is to staff ergonomics (that's a lot of book > handling eliminated). [...] There is a privacy and First Amendment benefit associated with this kind of RFID application that I do not recall being discussed here. When a library or bookstore must scan a bar code on each item checked out or sold, the checker must physically handle the item -- meaning that he can see what books that customer is reading. With RFID tags, if many items can be scanned together (without the need for physical handling of each individual item), the checker does not see that person's reading habits. Items could be scanned together in a stack or enclosed in a shopping bag. The computer at the checkout station could be programed to display only the unique number associated with each item -- but not such information as title or author. This kind of application has obvious privacy implications, and it can also help people exercise their First Amendment rights to read what they please -- where they might otherwise be embarrassed to check out certain books that are politically or socially disfavored. Similar reasoning applies to other retail scenarios, where certain types of products are politically or socially disfavored (e.g., alcohol and cigarettes). -- DTM :<| www.danfingerman.com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Jim Harper on how anti-RFID'ers harm immigrants, the poor (and public libraries) [priv] Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:13:29 -0800 From: Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross@stapleton-gray.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>, politech@private CC: Jim Harper <jharper@private>, <kma@private> References: <43723425.90404@private> At some point before 09:38 AM 11/9/2005, Jim Harper wrote: >I don't think picketing in front of a store that uses RFID on pallets and >cartons helps the process very much. It probably does chill the supply >chain efforts that would make immigrants and the poor just a little bit >better off. This is a complete nonsequitur. There is no evidence that squeezing down costs in supply chain will have any consequence to the lot of immigrants and the poor; there's some cause to believe it might make their lives worse, frankly, through further lowering required worker expertise (not in and of itself a problem, "making things simpler" might be good), with no guarantee that the savings accrue to anyone but parties like big-box retailers, who're driving both consumer costs *and* wages paid in a downward spiral. Perhaps Jim has seen the agreement where retailers have pledged to dedicate much of the savings to pay for increased employee health benefits; I have not. >Just yesterday, I read about another of dozens of such innovations, an >antenna that can be shortened by the consumer to correspondingly shorten >the read range. >http://www1.rfidjournal.com/article/view/1972/ > >Each such alternative has its benefits and drawbacks and I won't predict >the appropriate design for each potential use of RFID. A variety of >factors will influence it. If end consumers can shorten antennas, then presumably so can shoplifters and sticky-fingered employees; RFID as anti-theft technology becomes a rather shaky premise. I think there are a lot of readily visible benefits to deploying RFID in *parts* of supply chain, in particular to the fairly trusted exchange between established trading partners, and in intracorporate tracking and inventory, but I become increasingly skeptical when it hits the "real world" of the store floor, and after, where there are 3rd parties with other interests (if only to shuffle store aisles around to "look nice," notwithstanding where the engineers placed readers... "Hey, let's stack the tin foil over here..."), including competitors, and collectors of information for everything from direct marketing to litigation. We've just put out a white paper on some models for how RFID might evolve as a tool for surveillance (in the broadest sense of that word, not just "spying on people for no good"), given the promiscuous nature of readers/writers, and anticipating tipping points when enough of both get deployed: http://www.stapleton-gray.com/papers/scenarios.pdf Ross -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Jim Harper on how anti-RFID'ers harm immigrants, the poor (and public libraries) [priv] Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:27:02 -0500 From: Jim Harper <jharper@private> To: Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross@stapleton-gray.com>, Declan McCullagh <declan@private> CC: <kma@private> If I was unclear, I was talking about consumers as purchasers of products. I think it's pretty widely accepted that supply chain efficiencies in our competitive retail sector will lower prices charged to consumers. If you disagree with this premise, I hope you can explain why the insert in the Sunday paper features the prices of goods so prominently. That's strong inductive evidence that there is price competition. And, alas, today is not the day for me to entertain an all-things-RFID debate. Thanks, though, Ross. Jim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Jim Harper on how anti-RFID'ers harm immigrants, the poor (and public libraries) [priv] Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:00:40 -0500 From: ross@stapleton-gray.com <ross@stapleton-gray.com> Reply-To: ross@stapleton-gray.com To: jharper@private, declan@private, kma@private Jim Harper jharper@private said: > If I was unclear, I was talking about consumers as purchasers of products. I think > it's pretty widely accepted that supply chain efficiencies in our competitive retail > sector will lower prices charged to consumers. though your original comment was that: > It probably does chill the supply chain efforts that would make immigrants and the > poor just a little bit better off. So perhaps it's just "immigrants" that's the non sequitur... presumably poor immigrants cheered by low prices could be more simply classified as "the poor;" while richer immigrants might enjoy being "just a little bit better off," wouldn't we all? But "lower prices means we're all better off" just doesn't fly, given that a component of these price reductions is wage/employment reduction, etc., meaning that some folks are paying less for (some) cheaper goods (health care costs not sinking anywhere I've looked), on smaller salaries. But why "immigrants," specifically? That's an interesting inclusion. Ross -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [IP] Jim Harper on how anti-RFID'ers harm immigrants, the poor (and public libraries) [priv] Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:50:18 -0800 From: Bradley Roberts <br2@private> To: David Farber <dave@private>, Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <43723425.90404@private> <32F4ADEF-D848-4B2B-867A-5AE47F771DF9@private> Seattle Public Library system implemented RFID for all books and media over the new year this year, after several months of attaching the chips to each book. Ultimately they closed down for a few days to complete the transition and started back up with no noticeable problems (as a patron). Now many branches allow you to check books out yourself which is turning into a huge time saver. The rfid chip contains a number and that's about it - no concerns of privacy because if you can't see it visually you don't know what the number is for, and if you can see it then you know what the book is already. The closest thing to a privacy concern has to do with the self-checkout screens being visible to all people standing around and looking at what you're checking out. Overall, a great system and implementation. -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Jim Harper on how anti-RFID'ers harm immigrants, the poor (and public libraries) [priv] Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:49:54 -0500 From: Ben <bmw@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <43723425.90404@private> My feeling, regardless of the debate over support or regulation, is that you can't stop technological innovation. RFID's, or another form of convenient remote tracking and identification, will sooner or later become ubiquitous. The benefits are too large and enticing. Even parents who want to track their children 24/7 are going to get what they want, because they're a large market. Where I wish the debate and activism were directed is towards creating the certainty that we'll always know the code used for the technology inside-out, and that no one is going to use RFID tech domestically and be protected from any insights and oversights. Let me give an example. As this techology spreads and becomes even cheaper to use, it's absolutely inevitable that one day every sensitive document created in the private sectory and the Government will be tracked, uniquely ID'ed, and *unleakable*. Can you imagine that? Just try. Try to imagine.......no evidence, no proof from any whistleblower, no story for any reporter. That's where we're going, and let's get real; the Government knows that.......aspiring CEO's at your various Monsantos and Enrons know that. So, that too is really another reason why it can't be stopped. What can be changed though is the nature of the thing. If it can be made common knowledge -- completely transparent -- then when it suits the public interest your Deep Throats and your muckrakers know how to make a few pages disappear. -Ben --------- From: anonymous Declan McCullagh wrote: > I wrote in a column two years ago that there can be some privacy > concerns with RFID tags on the packaging of products that customers > take home with them: > http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html > > But do we really need more laws and regulations? Sure, they'll start > at labeling. But over time politicians and bureaucrats will have an > incentive to set standards, hold hearings, complain about business > practices, and perhaps even set up some FCC-like agency that will > discourage investment in the many _good_ uses of RFID. > > The anti-RFID'ers are also prone to anti-technology hysteria: > http://spychips.com/protest/walmart/spychip-slideshow/pages/rfid-reader-vortex.html > > > It seems to me that Wal-Mart shoppers aren't idiots. They rationally > shop there because the prices are low. If they don't like RFID tags on > the boxes of an HP printer, well, they'll throw the box away. Or take > their business to Costco instead. 1) Have you ever been in a Wal-Mart? They are idiots. 2) In many markets the Wal-Mart is the only accessable option. This is, to some degree, a result of item 1. People only think about five minutes into the future and the decision to purchase a shovel at Wal-Mart instead of at the 50 year old family run hardware store in the same town for a couple dollars more looks appealing in the short term. However, once that hardware store shuts down and they have to drive an hour or more (as is the case in the area my families farm is located) to get an item that Wal-Mart doesn't carry it is less clear that couple dollars saved on the shovel was well earned. And, of course the family owned shop was paying a living wage to the family that owned it. In the areas that there really is competition among equals things are a little better. While in the city I not only shop at Costco, but am also a shareholder for exactly these kinds of reasons. But let's not confuse the libertarian fantasy that the customer is educated and doing business to his or her own best benefit with the pragmatic reality that no one, no matter their smarts, has the ability to make educated purchasing decisions in most instances. Wal-Mart makes billions of dollars because of this. Please feel free to publish this missive if you like, but without attribution. _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Nov 09 2005 - 15:09:36 PST