Walmart RFID tagging clothing

[Kat Kanning]

URGENT ALERT: WAL-MART TO BEGIN ITEM-LEVEL TAGGING CLOTHING WITH RFID
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED! PLEASE JOIN US IN OPPOSING WAL-MART'S RFID PLANS

Dear CASPIAN Members and Supporters,

Today the Wall Street Journal broke an enormous story: Wal-Mart, the
nation's largest retailer, has declared war on our privacy. The giant
retailer has announced it will begin placing item-level RFID (Radio
Frequency IDentification) tracking tags on clothing sold in its stores.

THIS IS HUGE NEWS. It is the first step to the planned roll-out of the
Internet of Things, where global corporations like IBM, Procter &
Gamble, and Wal-Mart's technology partner NCR plan to equip every
product with a tracking device and use a network of RFID readers to
monitor and observe YOU everywhere you go. It is the frightening world
detailed in our book "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government
Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID," and it is finally coming to
pass.

Unless we stop it, Wal-Mart's roll-out is scheduled to begin next month.

Here is the Wall Street Journal article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421304575383213061198090.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

And here is a WSJ poll where you can make your views known (today only):
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/do-you-have-privacy-concerns

As you know, RFID is a powerful tracking technology that raises
unprecedented privacy concerns. Wal-Mart's plan does more than just
threaten our privacy -- it is poised to become a direct threat to our
freedom and civil liberties, as I will describe in future emails.

It is imperative that we immediately act to oppose Wal-Mart's RFID
rollout. I have placed calls and given Wal-Mart an opportunity to
respond, but as of this afternoon, Wal-Mart corporate executives and
media representatives have not returned my calls.

In the meantime, we are formulating a response to Wal-Mart's plans that
will protect consumers. I will keep you posted on this breaking story.

In freedom,

Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D.
Founder and Director of CASPIAN Consumer Privacy
Co-Author of Spychips
www.KatherineAlbrecht.com // www.spychips.com // www.antichips.com

=====================================================================
ABOUT CASPIAN

CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) is a grass-roots consumer group fighting retail surveillance schemes since 1999 and irresponsible RFID use since 2002. With thousands of members in all 50 U.S. states and over 30 countries worldwide, CASPIAN seeks to educate consumers about marketing strategies that invade their
privacy and encourage privacy-conscious shopping habits across the retail spectrum.

http://www.spychips.com/
http://www.antichips.com/
http://www.nocards.org/

You're welcome to duplicate and distribute this message to others who
may find it of interest.

[AntonLee]

I thought I read that these things were like those security stickers inside of all electronics/wallets etc that they have to 'de-bong' at the store or you set off the alarm.  Last I checked I could easily (and in some cases required to) rip them off when you get home. 

If that's all it is, just rip them off right?

[Ron Helwig]

I thought I read that these things were like those security stickers inside of all electronics/wallets etc that they have to 'de-bong' at the store or you set off the alarm.  Last I checked I could easily (and in some cases required to) rip them off when you get home. 

If that's all it is, just rip them off right?

Pretty much, if what we read is correct.

It is, however, the next step up in the boiling of the frogs. First get people used to RFID in cases, then in tear-off labels in individual products, then embedded in the products...

As far as alarms go, I can see new alarm equipment being hooked up to the store database. When you properly buy something at the checkout, it gets marked in the database. When you pass through the alarm system while leaving, it scans everything and checks it against the database. If you have anything that is marked as being in active inventory (was in the store and has not yet been purchased) then the alarm goes off.

[MaineShark]

As far as alarms go, I can see new alarm equipment being hooked up to the store database. When you properly buy something at the checkout, it gets marked in the database. When you pass through the alarm system while leaving, it scans everything and checks it against the database. If you have anything that is marked as being in active inventory (was in the store and has not yet been purchased) then the alarm goes off.

Yup, that seems like what they're planning.

Which means the chips may not be removable (the goal, after all, is to make them non-removable, so that shoplifters can't simply remove them).

Joe

[AntonLee]

isn't that the idea currently with the security tags.  They don't try to put them (at least in manufacturing settings) where you can easily get to them.  I could see them imbedded in the pricetags etc.  The thief could rip the tag off and leave it in the store and the store would have to find it when it did inventory. 

I don't want to see them in the back of my neck or in my passports and stuff right. . . . but if I owned a store this is a technology I would covet for my shrink control. 

[MaineShark]

isn't that the idea currently with the security tags.

Yeah.  The RFID chip is just smaller and harder to tamper with. 

I don't want to see them in the back of my neck or in my passports and stuff right. . . . but if I owned a store this is a technology I would covet for my shrink control.

Yup.  Like so many technologies, the issue isn't the technology itself, but what "mission creep" we may see, in the future.

I won't give my fingerprint to cash a check (but, of course, you have the right to demand it, and I have the right to refuse to take your checks), but I think biometric house locks are a great idea, since I have kids.  No need to re-key the house because a child lost his/her key, and no worry about being locked out.  With the better systems, you can even enroll users and disable them, so you can enroll your annoying cousin, but only enable his access during times that he's visiting, rather than seeing him wandering through your living room unexpectedly.

It's a great technology.  It just has a high abuse potential, so we need to be careful.

RFID is great, too.  I'd love to RFID remote controls and cell phones, so I could find them if they were lost somewhere in the house.  Ford has a system where you can RFID tools, and a display on the dash of your work truck will tell you if you have all your tools on board; no more getting to a job site and realizing that you left a necessary tool back at the shop, or getting back to the shop and realizing that you left a tool at a job site.  Some drug companies are looking at RFID-enabled pills, designed to help elderly folks remember their medications (when the special watch gives a medication alarm, only swiping the correct pill past it will turn the alarm off, so you take the right pills at the right times).

There are many beneficial uses for RFID.  The problem is simply how easy the technology is to abuse.  I don't have a problem with Wal-Mart using RFID for inventory control.  The only issue is what else they (or others) may use it for.

Joe

[Pat McCotter]

Read Katherine's book Spychips.

RFID tags are not security tags. Security tags can be disabled. RFID can only "flagged" as off. It could theoretically be turned back on. There are so many different types of RF?ID that you must be aware of each to be sure you are safe.

[MaineShark]

RFID tags are not security tags. Security tags can be disabled. RFID can only "flagged" as off. It could theoretically be turned back on.

Yup.  That's why the risk of abuse exists.

Still good technology, for certain uses.  But prone to abuse if we are not vigilant.

Joe

[AntonLee]

wow thanks for clearing that up for me, totally hear ya now.

[41mag]

I thought I read that these things were like those security stickers inside of all electronics/wallets etc that they have to 'de-bong' at the store or you set off the alarm.  Last I checked I could easily (and in some cases required to) rip them off when you get home. 

If that's all it is, just rip them off right?

The problem is that RFID is small enough that they can be hard to find.  If they actually go to the trouble of hiding them (ie embedded in a seam), there is no way you will be able to remove them.

[MaineShark]

Microwave your clothing

Joe

[smiley]

I think biometric house locks are a great idea, since I have kids.

So, if someone wants unauthorized access to your house, they have to kidnap one of your children?

No need to re-key the house because a child lost his/her key, and no worry about being locked out.  With the better systems, you can even enroll users and disable them

Some of the lower-end fingerprint scanners can be fooled if you can get a copy of the individual's fingerprint, and your kid's fingerprints can't be "re-keyed."

The safest system, if you have kids, is probably an electronic combination lock.  You can change or put expiration dates on combinations.  You can also give your child a "safe code" and a "danger code" (a duress code) for entry.  Both codes will allow your kid into the house, but using the duress code also places a call to local law enforcement (assuming they're not in on the heist ).

[MaineShark]

I think biometric house locks are a great idea, since I have kids.

So, if someone wants unauthorized access to your house, they have to kidnap one of your children?

If someone can manage to kidnap one of my children, then he could take a key that child was carrying, obviously.

However, many more folks would be willing to swipe a key, while few would risk a kidnapping rap.

No need to re-key the house because a child lost his/her key, and no worry about being locked out.  With the better systems, you can even enroll users and disable them

Some of the lower-end fingerprint scanners can be fooled if you can get a copy of the individual's fingerprint, and your kid's fingerprints can't be "re-keyed."

Locks keep the honest people honest.  Anyone who really wants in will get in.  There are easier ways to get into a house than trying to duplicate a fingerprint.

Joe

[KBCraig]

Locks keep the honest people honest.  Anyone who really wants in will get in.  There are easier ways to get into a house than trying to duplicate a fingerprint.

Yep, I always laugh at what seems to be standard practice around here: when a door is all or mostly glass, the install deadbolt locks that require keys from both sides, instead of having the traditional thumbolt on the inside.

When I've asked why, everyone has the same answer: "If it has a thumbolt, someone could just smash the glass and reach in and turn the lock."

I never get more than a blinking stare when I point out that a burglar could smash the glass and walk right in without touching the lock at all.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I think biometric house locks are a great idea, since I have kids.

So, if someone wants unauthorized access to your house, they have to kidnap one of your children?

If someone can manage to kidnap one of my children, then he could take a key that child was carrying, obviously.

However, many more folks would be willing to swipe a key, while few would risk a kidnapping rap.

No need to re-key the house because a child lost his/her key, and no worry about being locked out.  With the better systems, you can even enroll users and disable them

Some of the lower-end fingerprint scanners can be fooled if you can get a copy of the individual's fingerprint, and your kid's fingerprints can't be "re-keyed."

Locks keep the honest people honest.  Anyone who really wants in will get in.  There are easier ways to get into a house than trying to duplicate a fingerprint.

Joe

Chainsaw