6 Comments to 'More RFID Garbage'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'More RFID Garbage'.
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
More RFID Garbage
Posted By avi
No, literally.
Guardian Unlimited | UK Latest | ‘Bin brother’ fear over wheelie tag
So what happens when government or private businesses start slapping RFID tags on everything? Well, for one, they may start to charge people differently based on weight. No big deal, some might say. Pay what you deserve to pay.
But they did this secretly. Why? If the move is so good, why not open it up to public scrutiny?
And what happens when a garbage truck has an RFID scanner that picks up more than just your secret garbage can ID? Products with RFID labels will retain those labels long after you leave the store (which reminds me: what happens if you bring an already-purchased RFID-enabled item into a store and try to leave?). So perhaps the garbage trucks will also produce a nice inventory of your garbage–you know, because recycling violations are right up there with terrorism.
Once again, RFID-like technology only makes sense when it is entirely opt-in and controlled by the person who buys an item (including their own garbage can). Right now, companies are operating under the principle that they can do whatever they want, and what they really want is to build up a complete profile of your shopping, usage, and even disposal patterns.
Aug 27th, 2006
Avi, “pay by weight” RFID garbage sounds like another “great idea”. Since I recycle to the max (and assume you do too), why should I pay the same as my lazy neighbor who contributes twice as much to the landfill? Remember the last time you shared an airplane seat with a 300+ pounder who paid the same as you for her seat and part of yours? Wouldn’t you like to put an RFID tag on her “can”?
For your own mental health, you really need to get over your aversion to RFID. Sooner than later they will be on everything. To answer your question about bringing an already purchased RFID item back into the store: consumer product RFIDs may be unique for each can of soda and/or there will be an RFID tag deactivation device at the store exit.
Your recent posting about “key bumping” included some interesting links. Locks with physical keyholes are totally insecure. The thief doesn’t even need to “bump” them but can simply stick a screwdriver into the keyhole and turn it with a wrench, forcing the tumblers. What we all need are locks without physical keyholes, such as an RFID Digital Door Lock for $300 each.
The first part makes no sense technically. It would require store A to upload your purchases to some shared server so that by the time you tried to leave store B, that store would know your item was already paid for. That requires a vast real-time transaction system that monitors every single purchase. The only way it could work is to deactivate or at least modify the RFID tag after purchase. But deactivating the RFID is exactly what I think we must do. The consumer should be given the choice and be told clearly if he or she is walking out of the store with a beacon in their shopping bag.
As for RFID door locks, you might as well use keys or leave the door open. Once again, the code needs to be unique and random each time or it can be copied or spoofed. Making it operate via radio frequencies makes it that much easer to eavesdrop and clone (already been done). One time pads would work well for this application, even with a radio link, but contact pads are much better security.
Avi, I agree deactivation of the RFID at the store exit is the simplest solution. Some RFIDs are made with a fuse link that can be blown if the tag is held close to a low-cost unit.
However, you are mistaken when you assert that the first part of my answer, making use of a unique RFID tag number for every item, “makes no sense technically” because, you claim, there would be a need for a “vast real-time transaction system” with a “shared server” between all stores. If you walked out of Store A with an active RFID tag on an item purchased elsewhere, the computer system *of Store A* would know that that particular RFID tag number was never stocked by *Store A*. If you had purchased the item at Store A and came back and were exiting again, the Store A computer would know that that item had already been paid for.
Granted, but I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in a store. Yes, the store could record every item it sells so you could come back there without setting off alarms. But I doubt that many stores will assume that just because they don’t have the unique code for an item in their "not yet sold" database, they’ll agree you bought it elsewhere. Stuff gets missed all the time by underpaid, undertrained workers. Customers even swap labels to lower prices. Ultimately, you’ll need your recepit to prove you already paid for the item. I doubt too many stores will assume the mistake is theirs, at least until you prove it to them.
Home Depot is fully computerized, but yet I had to go to the aisle, take a digital picture of a price tag, and take it back to the counter to get the right price. And it took half an hour to convince them their computer was wrong. Good luck proving you bought items elsewhere without a paper receipt.
Avi, I’ve had a chance to think about the “vast real-time transaction system” you mentioned in Comment #2 above. Although we agree it is not necessary for an RFID tag system (assuming the tags are deactivated at the store exit) I think you are on to something.
We know that influential store chains such as WalMart now require manufacturers to have a unique RFID tag on every pallet of products to make it more efficient to track inventory. Also, federal legislation requires expensive medications to have a unique RFID tag on each bottle so it can be tracked from manufacturer to phamacy to prevent counterfeit drugs from being introduced in the distribution chain.
Take this a step further and assume each can of beer and pack of cigarettes and every other product has a unique ID tag. Assume the checkout process reports the tag number, the store number, and the date/time to the manufacturer’s computer (but *not* the ID of the customer), and then deactivates the tag. That meets your requirement that the purchaser not have to carry a “beacon” around that could be used to identify him or her.
Why spend the money to do all this? Well, the manufacturers would gain marketing information that could help them target sales better and also assure their products are fresh and restocked efficiently, etc. Also, if an empty can or box is found at a crime scene, the police forensic lab could read the tag number and contact the manufacturer’s computer to get the store location and date/time. The police could then view the store checkout video for that date and time and possibly get a photo of a suspect. This seems like a great way to identify suspects and possibly catch criminals without making any of us walking RFID beacons.
I like the “pay by weight” idea too.