I'm glad you people are protesting this and meeting with sucess. So much of the protesting these days go unnoticed. This is just a start where they want everything linked to this one chip. I findy it horrifying and against the fourth ammendment in the US.

Another case of people copmplaining before they understand the technology.

1) RFID only hold a number, this needs to be used as a key to something in a database; the only data is 96 bits or at most 256 bits.

2) RFIDs can only be read at very short range typically 40cm or less. Anything that interferes with radio reception will shorten this distance further or stop it completely. I know this as I have a system running on my desk.

3) Does anyone worry about the fact that most things have a barcode on them? Do people go home and scratch off all the barcodes because of the possible privacy issue? No. Auto-ID privacy is the same thing.

I think the potential benefits of Auto-ID far out-weigh the misguided privacy concerns some people have.

I am interested in what Simon has to say. Although at present the idea of a global RFID surveillance net might seem a little far-fetched, I wonder what he makes of the AutoID Centre’s mission statement.

It is:
‘The vision of the Auto-ID Centre is to create a universal environment in which computers understand the world without help from human beings. This will revolutionize the way in which products are made, bought and sold by merging the movement of bits (electronic information) and atoms (physical goods) together. Everything will be connected in a dynamic, automated supply chain that joins businesses and consumers together to benefit global commerce and the environment.‘

The bit we at notags.co.uk have a problem with is when the technology directly interfaces with the consumer. The aim of the AutoID Centre is to use RFID technology to eventually number every single item sold on the plant. That will generate a massive amount of data about who bought what and where. A RFID reader built into a doorframe would then be able to scan every tag that passes through it, building up another huge amount of data. What will happen to this information and who will have control over it?

These are questions the RFID community believe are irrelevant because the precise technology hasn’t yet arrived to make the above situation happen. But it will and it is up to all of us to ensure that we understand the threats it will bring to our privacy.

As for being a Luddite, well I believe that all new technology shouldn’t be embraced just because it’s new. Sometimes you have to say no to some of this stuff.

Please don't let the American government's complete disregard for consumer rights and privacy become the standard in the UK/EU. I live in California right now and my wife and I are actively considering moving to the Netherlands (she's Dutch); this kind of nonsense is a good part of my choice to leave.

So basically I'm begging you out of self-interest. If you folks across the pond let corporations buy your governments the way they have bought ours...my wife and I will have nowhere to run.

If you're concerned about this kind of stuff, check out  http://www.knowifi.com/ before accepting any promotional merchandise at trade shows or conferences. You might want to line your backpack with wire mesh beforehand to store such.

Mike

If what you are sayingis true, then why are they able to find hikers in the middle of no by connecting through the Global Positioning Satellite through to the microchip in the cell phone. By the way cell phone radation causes cancer. Also, why would they be selling watches to parents with chilren to they can keep track of them in case they are kidnapped. In England they have a tracker chip placed in a travel fare card where you just walk through the line withoust even having to get the thing out of your purse. Wake up and smell the police state. Not to mention it will bring more unemployment, where the computers will do all the work, and thus this is why they need less population. The Corporations have become beasts, where we have complained about them since I was a childen, but the elected Corporate officials ignore the people. They are planning to use these type chips to put all your information onto one card, or even implant it inside you. In Iraq the soldiers have been chipping the seized, by giving them wristbands with the chip in it. USA was a freedom loving country, and I repeat was!!!! We lost the Republic, and now we have a corporate democracy which has paved the way for all this.

This technology is only designed to replace barcodes. The idea is istead of using a laser scanner on bar codes we us an antenna on these chips at short range.

There is no inherent evil purpose for these chips (unlike a bomb), it could make many day to day commercial tasks much more efficient.

The technology could be implemented in a way that invades privacy. We should be vigilant about how it is implemented NOT protesting on if it is implemented at all.

Simon says that RFID tags are equivalent to barcodes. That's not true, because each tag has a unique number, whereas barcode numbers are the same for all items of a particular product. He also makes the one-word accusation of `Luddism', without any accompanying justification, against those protesting RFID tags. I would like to briefly defend the Luddites.

In the early 19th century, the factory owners developed machinery, in this case automatic looms, in order to increase their control over the production process. They did not want to be `held hostage' by having to employ and depend on a large work force, which could in the future become more militant and demand better pay, better working conditions, more control over production, etc.

The automatic looms let the factory owners employ fewer people, on lower wages, because the work involved less skill. (As it happened, the cloth produced was of inferior quality to the hand-woven cloth.) As a consequence of automation, many people lost their livelihoods and became unemployed. Those who got jobs at factories had to do work that was less satisfying and rewarding, and for less pay.

This prompted a large resistance movement, whose main strategy was machine-breaking. The Luddites were not against machines per se. They were against machines being developed to increase the power of the already-powerful. They were against the social structure and the technology which reinforced it. They were certainly not crazy. As one radical put it in 1835:

``The real grievance is neither more nor less than the subjection of the labouring to the monied classes, in consequence of the latter having usurped the exclusive making of the laws. Rents, tithes, taxes, tolls, but above all profits. Here is our distress explained in five words, or to comprise all in one, it lies in the word Robbery... Machines indeed.''
(quoted, `Progress without People', David Noble, p17 and p66)

The pattern of technology being developed to increase management control over production continued through the first industrial revolution and through the 20th century. The technology is usually state-funded. Often it does not actually increase productivity -- sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, but studies are rarely done to test whether introducing automation increased productivity. (For an example, see David Noble's book `Forces of Production' for a history of numerical control (N/C) of machine tools. It talks about the technologies that didn't make it because they empowered shop floor workers and didn't satisfy management's desire for increasing its own control.)

One of the consequences of this is that the level of unemployment has gradually been rising this century (along with the level of unemployment that economists consider `acceptable'), while corporations have been able to concentrate more control over production in their hands and break unions, cut pay, etc.

RFID tags fit into this pattern. As well as the privacy issues, it will probably be used to axe a lot of jobs, such as working at supermarket checkouts or at other parts of the supply chain. At the same time, the technology will probably have lots of practical problems and won't be as cost-effective as the tech enthusiasts who developed it thought it would. It might even end up increasing prices in the shops (5 cents per tag adds up). On top of that, substituting capital for labour is unlikely to be good environmentally: if shops use RFID tags instead of workers, that's extra resources consumed to make those tags, whereas people need to consume whether they're employed or not.

Since the 19th century, apologists for capitalism (and some on the left too) have been propagating the ideology that all technological change is progress and `you can't stop progress', and that those that think you can are crazy. They set the boundaries of the debate so that they just need to accuse someone of being a Luddite to make them back down. It's rubbish, of course. We have laws protecting the environment -- why not laws protecting people's livelihoods and their control over their work? We need to ask questions like, progress for what? Progress for whom?

If the tags can only be "read" within a limited range, i.e. in & wery close to the store, then what causes any problem? Unless you intend to steal the item. Even then, you can remove the tag once you've left the store.

Eventually they want to link everything to this type of chip, and then have it go to a big computer that monitors everything. They are using the threat of terror to push much of this tech. on us. In this case it is for inventory, which means they want to can some more employees. It reminds me of the mark of the beast:

Rev: 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

There are good and evil uses for every technology. I'm not aware of anyone objecting to using this as a more efficient alternative to the UPC or other barcode to prevent theft. It's the other, follow-on uses that worry me and others. There is, for example, an EU proposal to implement RFID technology in Euro notes, allowing govts to track cash as it's being used, ostensibly to "fight terrorism".

Furthermore, there is a significant difference between existing use of barcodes and some proposals for RFID chips: you can see a barcode easily, and you can remove it legally once you've left the shop. At the same time, a retailer can easily tell if you've removed a barcode prior to purchase. So, what problem is RFID solving for you and me? Walmart and Tesco's shoplifting problems? That keeps me up late at night, I can tell you.

Picture the "Minority Report" marketing opportunities of a retailer who can scan both your cash RFIDs and the RFID of the item you're holding, while evaluating it for purchase.

Every commercial success of RFID brings its technical ubiquity closer, and its per-unit costs lower. It will benefits only corporate retailers (who will not pass the savings on) and nosy govts, and brings not the slightest benefit to the public.

We should fight its introduction every step of the way, by whatever means necessary.

woven webs of wonder wandering warily;
effervescent electrons ebbing ever elsewhere,

stoicly surpassing superficiously scabrous sentiments:
ominous omnifariousness obliquely obstinate: obscurants!
whether workers were what was worth,

fear fascicles fused and fastidiously fed
erelong encumber ethical essentialization...euphenics!
apparently aware, yet ambling among analogies &
reeling from redoubtable radio reticulations.

Quote from above:
"We should fight its introduction every step of the way, by whatever means necessary"

This is poor rhetoric. Being progressive does not mean living in a technological ghetto. RFID are a powerful commercial/industrial IT tool and should be considered in that sense. We gain from IT efficientcy in out western society, this is just another step up in efficientcy.

Tellers used to have to punch numbers into cash registers while reading off printed sticker tags, then came bar codes, now comes RFID. It's really not any more sinister than that.

Barcodes made the usefulness of computers much more powerful, RFID will be the next step in tieing the power unleashed by the barcode with the emerging power of networked computers.

They could have tatooed bar codes on prisoners but didn't, we wouldn't have stood for it. They could put RFID in prisoners, but they won't if we won't stand for it.

RFID are a powerful commercial/industrial IT tool and should be considered in that sense. We gain from IT efficientcy in out western society, this is just another step up in efficientcy.

So why not disable them at the checkout before the customer leaves to shop. IF they are simply used for manufacturing/stock control/anti-theft, there is no reason for or advantage for them to remain active once the customer has bought them. I think many of the complaints would go away if this was done.

However, if they do remain active, there is obvious scope for privacy abuses, simply because it makes it quite easy for innocent people to be monitored and tracked without their permission. We won't need to tatoo barcodes on prisoners, nor will we need to implant RFID chips in them because they will already have them about their person.

From someone else above:

RFID only hold a number, this needs to be used as a key to something in a database; the only data is 96 bits or at most 256 bits.

This is a stupid argument. In fact, this is exactly WHY people are concerned about RFID, because we have no control over WHAT database that ID keys into. Simply linking ID numbers to credit card information is an incredibly powerful tool. It means that anyone with access to that database, who can get within 40cm of me, can find out who I am without my permission or knowledge. Even if I try to remove every RFID chip I can find, the chances are I'm going to miss one. And remember that 40cm range is now, with consumer tech. It won't be long before people are finding ways to increase that range.

And that's just linking IDs to credit card details.

I can imagine there will at some point in the future be a strong push for RFID readers at every tube station, bus stop, train station etc as part of a plan to "stop fare dodgers" or "provide a truly intergrated transport system", with the side effect of making it completely impossible to travel anywhere without potentially being monitored by the state. (Car travel is already increasingly monitored using automatic number plate recognition).

Of course, the state can trust the government not to abuse this, and after all, only criminals have anything to worry about.

Why is there the assumption that "only criminals have something to fear" from such overarching monitoring systems? Why has the assumption that people should generally be unquestionably entitled to their own privacy died over the past years?

Here's an idea, is a person who steals a packet of food because some rich chairman decides in the name of "efficiency" to cut his old workforce in favour of machinery and use his extra allowance to buy a boat more of a criminal than the chairman?

Here's another idea, once upon a time western governments developed a utility to monitor all soviet eastern block phone calls and telegrams in the fight for western freedom. Communism died in '89, now that very same scheme they call Echelon is being used to monitor every single phone call/email throughout the western world. There are no great ideologies to fight, only people with free lives. We're all the enemy. I don't see any reason to believe schemes like this wont be used in the future to our detriment.

Quote from above:

"Being progressive does not mean living in a technological ghetto. "

I see: so if I reject RFID technology, I'll be living in a "technological ghetto"?
So since there's no RFID technology around today, I must be living in a "technological ghetto" now. Gosh.

"RFID are a powerful commercial/industrial IT tool and should be considered in that sense."

Only in that sense? Why? Because you say so? Why should they not also be considered in the sense of a powerful surveillance and targeted-marketing tool? Because corporations and govts promise they'll only ever use them to track loo-roll shipments? And you take them at their word?

"We gain from IT efficientcy in out western society, this is just another step up in efficientcy. "

Who's this "we"? You mean, "we" the companies' bosses, or "we" the shareholders? Do you honestly believe they'll be passing the savings on to "we" the consumer? Have you ever worked in retail technology before? When have the savings of barcode, EPOS etc. been passed on? They just build up the margin. Look how much more we pay for retail goods than on the continent.

"Tellers used to have to punch numbers into cash registers while reading off printed sticker tags, then came bar codes, now comes RFID. It's really not any more sinister than that."

If, like barcodes, they weren't hidden, and if, like barcodes, they could be easily and legally removed or reliably disabled, then you would be correct. The evidence to date, however, is to the contrary.

"They could have tatooed bar codes on prisoners but didn't, we wouldn't have stood for it. They could put RFID in prisoners, but they won't if we won't stand for it. "

How touchingly naive. The state does far worse things to prisoners right now than chipping them, pal, and the British public seems entirely happy to stand for all of it.
And I don't see what that's got to do with my objections: why should I feel safe about RFID use in retail and in Euro notes, simply because the govt has no current plans to use them in chipping prisoners?

I Like RFId, just imagine the possibilities, walk into a benetton store with a couple of dozen tags in your pocket, watch the inventory go crazy as you stroll by......

The more layers they add the more fun we have

I think that these tags could help in stock control etc etc, so attach the bloody things to the packages/crates/pallets.

What is not ok is the fact that they may begin installing them in clothing etc without my/our permission!

Actively boycott these devices, if they aid stock control etc then put them (IN OPEN VIEW) on the packaging!

See also my previous post about messing with the cameras in the stores!
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/cambridge/2003/07/274518.html

Have fun!

Just to note, on the subject of RFID in Cambridge, there appears to be a local company involved with this technology. The following advertisment is from a university careers email list:

"IDTECHEX LTD ? Technical Consultants and Suppliers
Established in Cambridge in 1999, specialise in market and technical intelligence in low cost
RFID. This includes contactless smart cards but is particularly focussed on the new "Smart
Labels", used for electronically tracking products, anti-counterfeiting and many other
applications.
Vacancy: Sales & Marketing Manager ? UK or US based, to promote IDTechEx consultancy services,
publications and/or sponsorship leads for conferences in the United States. The role involves
creating, managing and following through with leads for sales from all or some aspects of the
firm?s business - consultancy, reports and conferencing. The position could suit a mature,
recently qualified MBA or a science or engineering graduate, who wants to work in the US. Training
will be given in Cambridge. Global travel will be involved.
Requirements: Business related subject. MBA or science or engineering are welcome to apply. Proven
record in sales, working relatively independently, creative and willing to travel.
Start date: Immediate.
Further details: IR file, visit or Tel Raghu Das on 01223 813 703.
Information Room file at Stuart House: Blue Cambridge
To apply: Email CV and covering letter to:  p.harrop@idtechex.com.
Closing date: Please apply ASAP."

And the website www.idtechex.com gives the address as Far Field House, Albert Road, Quy, Cambridge CB5 9AR, UK

RFID also would allow the government (and others) to track people's movements. after all just insist that readers get placed in all door frames, presto, you have a way to track anyone who enters/exits. now if you can't see why this would be a problem i'll give a possible scenario.


Mr. X is known to the authorities to be an operative for one of those organizations, opposed to the government. his neighbor Mr. Y comes over once a week to play chess, nothing more than a friendly game of chess. the police having a record of this happening, decide he is another operative, so they monitor everyone he comes in contact with. he is also a faithful parishoner at the local church, so they have to check all of them, eventually theu do a sweep and arrest ha;ve of england (or what ever country) while Mr. X (who has been meeting his fellow operatives in a park or other public area) has passed on vital information possibly right under the noses of the police who are busy looking at RFID logs and not doing any real police work.

example 2: Mrs. Q is jealous and suspects that her husband is seeing someone else. she goes to a private investigator, who shows that Mr. Q is visiting a certain Ms. K twice a week, Mrs. Q gets a weapon and waits and after her husband enters the flat of Ms. K she attacks them both, killing them. she gets caught right away, but that is no consolation for poor Mr. Q and his cousin Ms. K.

The ability to track people is too dangerous to the people who are being tracked. if these devices are only for inventory control, disable it once the item is sold. or make it clearly visible and removable.