WalMart is spying on your underwear

[Raoul]

:tinfoil:

Walmart Means To Spy On Clothing Use - 24/7 Wall St.

[Guest Jamie]

So just quit wearing any.

Can't spy on what ain't there.

J.

[MCSCOTT]

I just kinda glanced over the article since the first paragraph sounded kinda ignorant to me. They have bar codes on everything, and everything that is bought or sold gets scanned, so they should be able to keep up with their inventory based on that. That's a big part of what I do for my company, and I don't need any micro chips to tell me what I need to buy for stock, or how much of each thing I have in my warehouse.

But yeah, like Jamie said, just quit wearing underwear. I haven't bought any in the last ten years.

[Garufa]

Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart. Have to get to K-Mart.

[Guest KimberChick]

Old Navy has been using RFID tags sewn into their jeans for years.

[McAllyn]

Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart. Have to get to K-Mart.

K-Mart sucks, Ray.

[Guest jackdm3]

K-Mart sucks, Ray.

But that's the only place I can feel comfortable around flashing blue lights.

[Raoul]

But that's the only place I can feel comfortable around flashing blue lights.

So true.

[monkeylizard]

RFID tags in individual items, as opposed to their common use on shipping containers, pallets, or cartons is game changing.

1) Inventory: Barcode scanning doesn't allow for instant inventory tracking due to loss. I know I brought in 100 of item X, and I sold 40 through the cash registers. I should have 60 remaining on my shelves. But I really only have 57 due to 2 thefts and one that passed a register and didn't get scanned by the cashier. No more cycle counts. RFID gives instant scan capability for the whole store.

2) Placement: The retailer can know if customers are picking up item A in one location, but then putting it down in another, perhaps then picking up item B. They can then see that product B is preferred over product A, but A is in a more visible spot. You can't see that with barcodes, since you only know that the customer eventually purchased B.

3) Checkout: Get a cart, wander all around the cavernous Wally World filling it with WWB ammo, action DVDs, nacho cheese, a hoodie, and steaks. Then you take it all out of the cart and place each item on the conveyor belt. Then each one is individually scanned and placed in a bag. Then the bag is put back in the cart. What if the cart could tell you exactly how much your purchase was as you added each item? And what if you simply pushed your cart to a check out station, or through a scanning arch, that can "see" every item in the cart (or in a jacket pocket) without them being removed? UPC can't do that. RFID can.

[LagerHead]

RFID tags can't be tracked outside of the store, or maybe as far as the parking lot anyway. You have to have a receiver to track them. So as far as spying on you, not so much.

[molonlabetn]

So, I guess there's no reason to start wearing underwear now...

[MCSCOTT]

RFID tags in individual items, as opposed to their common use on shipping containers, pallets, or cartons is game changing.

1) Inventory: Barcode scanning doesn't allow for instant inventory tracking due to loss. I know I brought in 100 of item X, and I sold 40 through the cash registers. I should have 60 remaining on my shelves. But I really only have 57 due to 2 thefts and one that passed a register and didn't get scanned by the cashier. No more cycle counts. RFID gives instant scan capability for the whole store.

2) Placement: The retailer can know if customers are picking up item A in one location, but then putting it down in another, perhaps then picking up item B. They can then see that product B is preferred over product A, but A is in a more visible spot. You can't see that with barcodes, since you only know that the customer eventually purchased B.

3) Checkout: Get a cart, wander all around the cavernous Wally World filling it with WWB ammo, action DVDs, nacho cheese, a hoodie, and steaks. Then you take it all out of the cart and place each item on the conveyor belt. Then each one is individually scanned and placed in a bag. Then the bag is put back in the cart. What if the cart could tell you exactly how much your purchase was as you added each item? And what if you simply pushed your cart to a check out station, or through a scanning arch, that can "see" every item in the cart (or in a jacket pocket) without them being removed? UPC can't do that. RFID can.

I suppose if it will do all of that it would be a great thing, especially if the shopping cart could tell you how much is in there, and if you only had to push it through an arch to check out instead of the clerk checking out each item. The question though would be whether these micro chips are placed in the actual item itself or just in the packaging. If they're in the item itself then I don't think I would be buying many clothes from there since someone looking for you could simply go to Wally World to find out your location. If it's only in the packaging, then it wont cut down on inventory losses from theft since a good portion of shoplifters remove items that they're stealing from the package. This can easily be accounted for inventory wise when the empty packages are found, but what if they are stuffed at the back of the shelf where they're suppose to be and don't get found for a long time. With things like that in mind I still think cycle counts would have to be done, even if they don't have to be done as often.

So while I do agree it could be better, the question of how much better is what I would be asking, as well as what (if any) added costs will be placed on the consumer? If it costs a ton of money for the special carts, archways to scan items, and the micro chips, then will they have to raise prices in order to cover these costs?

[Raoul]

I suppose if it will do all of that it would be a great thing, especially if the shopping cart could tell you how much is in there, and if you only had to push it through an arch to check out instead of the clerk checking out each item. The question though would be whether these micro chips are placed in the actual item itself or just in the packaging. If they're in the item itself then I don't think I would be buying many clothes from there since someone looking for you could simply go to Wally World to find out your location. If it's only in the packaging, then it wont cut down on inventory losses from theft since a good portion of shoplifters remove items that they're stealing from the package. This can easily be accounted for inventory wise when the empty packages are found, but what if they are stuffed at the back of the shelf where they're suppose to be and don't get found for a long time. With things like that in mind I still think cycle counts would have to be done, even if they don't have to be done as often.

So while I do agree it could be better, the question of how much better is what I would be asking, as well as what (if any) added costs will be placed on the consumer? If it costs a ton of money for the special carts, archways to scan items, and the micro chips, then will they have to raise prices in order to cover these costs?

Of course if they can track your purchase they can also link it to your debit/credit card/check. That data goes into a database. If someone wants to know who's buying ammo and how much it's easy to pull that data out of the DB. As of now there's no requirement to show an ID for a cash purchase. However, the new healthcare bill does require small businesses to do a 1099 for any purchase over $600.00.

"Oh children, it's just a shot away"

[Guest Lester Weevils]

RFID tags can't be tracked outside of the store, or maybe as far as the parking lot anyway. You have to have a receiver to track them. So as far as spying on you, not so much.

Dunno how serious is the eventual security issue. Maybe some RFID's can be encrypted so they won't 'answer back' at all except in response to a certain scanner code. That would make an RFID invisible except if the scanner was broadcasting the proper code.

But if an RFID would respond always to a generic scanner call, then the scanner could capture the RFID bit pattern even if the scanner isn't programmed to interpret the contents of the bit pattern.

If you have a camera with facial recognition software at the entrance to Beale Street, or the entrance to the shopping mall or office building. If you get the fellow's underwear RFID bit pattern and a facial-recognition shot at the front entrance, then if you have RFID scanners thruout the facility, and even at periodic places out on the street, at gas stations, etc-- You could tie an RFID tag to an identity and then track the person's wherabouts pretty well every time the person passes a scanner.

An RFID attached to a car-- Given scanners along the roads, you could track the car.

[Guest jackdm3]

And track it to the guy buying my boxers from my garage sale.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The bit pattern doesn't forever tie a person to an object or credit card. But it could be used for short-term tracking, as I outlined. Dunno how important it is to security.

If a criminal had a handheld scanner smart enough to interpret the codes, you could walk by the guy on the street and he could potentially know about everything in your possession. There were some rumors of RFID's embedded in some money. If they ever RFID currency, the criminal could just stand on the street corner scanning for who has enough money to be worth robbing.

[Guest jackdm3]

This thread's gonna be central.

Edited July 23, 2010 by jackdm3

[Guest Lester Weevils]

RFID conspiracy fears have for several years been a growth industry, possibly raising the price of tin foil on the commodities market.

Here is a typical topic--

Tracking People With RFID Passports

Whether or not passport RFIDs can be traced, and what good it would do if they could be traced.

One obvious nefarious use (if they could be hacked by the right people)-- Terrorists hunting for Americans (or Israelis, or whatever) on foreign city streets. Over the last few years, in many countries, USA citizens often pretend to be Canadians just to avoid trouble.

[Guest KimberChick]

This is gonna be central.

I carry an American Express Blue Cash card. it's got an RFID tag in it. Among friends and coworkers, it runs about 50/50 as to who is and whose not when they see it or see me use it at a Quickpass-type terminal.

[Mike.357]

However, the new healthcare bill does require small businesses to do a 1099 for any purchase over $600.00.

according to Glen Beck today the 1099 apply's to anyone who purchases anything from anyone for 600 bucks or more.

So get ready to 1099 the buyer of your AR when you do a FTF sale of it.

[Guest jackdm3]

What if you sell the lower to one person and the upper to the spouse? Will that work?

[Raoul]

according to Glen Beck today the 1099 apply's to anyone who purchases anything from anyone for 600 bucks or more.

So get ready to 1099 the buyer of your AR when you do a FTF sale of it.

God only knows what's actually in the d@^% thing. It's so vague they can probably interpret any way they want.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What if you sell the lower to one person and the upper to the spouse? Will that work?

Hi Jack

Supposedly you can microwave an item for a short time and it will burn out the RFID. So you could just microwave everything you buy at Walmart before use.

When paranoia on RFIDs first began a few years ago, I wondered if it would be a viable product to sell an inexpensive RFID sniffer that doesn't read data-- Just broadcasts calls and looks for RFID replies to locate hidden tags. Similar to inexpensive bug-sniffers that look for RF transmitters where they ought not to be. Given a high enough public paranoia, seemed a product that could sell briskly.

On a more practical application (if security doesn't become a problem)-- I'm forever losing things. If I could inexpensively tag all my tools and gadgets for household inventory. If I can't find the Dewalt drill or the TV remote, just tune a handheld sniffer to the ID of that device and walk the house until I find it.

[Guest jackdm3]

"We're gonna need a bigger microwave."

[Raoul]

"We're gonna need a bigger microwave."

No, no, no...take em off first