Electronic tags bug privacy advocates
Wal-Mart takes lead in RFID tracking of goods
By ANNE MITCHELL, amitchell@news-press.com
Published by news-press.com on May 24, 2004
Shoppers at some Wal-Marts are taking home electronic bugs on merchandise fitted with tracking tags.
In a test at seven Dallas-Fort Worth area Wal-Mart stores, Hewlett-Packard printers and scanners have tiny computer chips in the boxes that transmit radio signals.
For now, radio frequency identification or RFID technology is primarily aimed at tracking shipments. But tests such as those in Dallas indicate that these chips may eventually end up in consumers cupboards and pantries even in clothing nationwide. And its perfectly legal.
Many privacy experts and consumers are worried about the Big Brother implications.
In Britain, Tesco supermarket shoppers last year were photographed by hidden cameras when they picked up packets of tagged Gillette razors from so-called spyshelves and again when they presented the razors at the cash register. Its not clear what Gillettes goal was.
That test has since been abandoned, but that and other applications have raised privacy concerns worldwide.
Australias Sydney Morning Herald headlined an RFID story: A free big brother in every pack.
I truly get a chill thinking about it, confessed Mary Bauer, who co-owns The Beach House chain of swimwear stores headquartered in Fort Myers. I can see how (consumers) would feel violated.
There are less invasive ways of obtaining customer information, such as frequent buyer cards, Bauer said. But the customer is also getting something back in the form of discounts or a free flight, she said. And, most importantly, its done with the full permission of the consumer.
That may be what bothers critics most of all.
You have no way to know if someone is scanning you, said Katherine Albrecht, founder and director of CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering).
And even if you did, you cant disable the tags easily. Heat wont kill it. Washing wont kill it, she said. Nothing short of a stun gun or a microwave will do it. Albrecht said she has tried it.
Other industry trials Albrecht said she has uncovered include RFID tags in Purina dog food, between the wax paper and the bag, and in packs of Huggies baby wipes and the lids of Pantene shampoo. Theyre easy to hide, some being the size of a grain of sand.
Wal-Mart is requiring its 100 biggest suppliers to use RFID tags on case and pallet shipments to its stores in the Dallas area by January.
Other retailers testing RFID systems include No. 2 U.S. discounter Target Corp., Albertsons supermarkets and Marks & Spencer Group Plc, Britains largest clothing retailer. The most publicized trial of item-level RFID tagging to date is Metro-AGs Future Store in Rheinberg, Germany.
RFID tags cut labor costs because they can be read from a distance up to about 20 feet without direct scanning, unlike traditional bar codes. Retailers can track merchandise as it moves from distribution centers to stores.
news-press.com
Readers forum: Is radio frequency identification a violation of privacy or a necessity to protect consumers from rising costs due to theft of goods?
Suppliers may have to pay more than $9 million on software, tags, extra employees and related items to meet Wal-Marts initial requirements in the first year, according to a study by Cambridge, Mass.-based Forrester Research. The price of tags 15 to 70 cents may keep them off most goods. But theyll likely be down to 5 cents by late 2006.
Gus Whitcomb, spokesman for Wal-Mart, said the outer packaging of the Hewlett-Packard items where the tag is located has a label that alerts customers to the tag. Also, he said, there are signs and education leaflets on tear pads on the shelves.
The leaflet explains that customers may keep the tag post-purchase or they can take it off and toss it in the trash can before exiting the store, Whitcomb said. The Hewlett-Packard test will be expanded to other, unspecified, areas of the United States next year.
Like bar codes, people just need time to become comfortable with it, Whitcomb said.
On its own, RFID may not seem so invasive until you see what other technology is being developed.
In Japan theyre working on a sidewalk that can read RFID tags, for blind people, Albrecht said. And Nokia just introduced a cell phone that functions as an RFID reader.
AnnMarie Ferry, 34, an Estero mother of two, said what Wal-Mart is doing is a little too much for me. I think its pretty invasive. Ferry said she would probably decline to buy something that was tagged.
Laws cant keep up with new technology, she said.
Right now legislation is pending in California, Mississippi and Utah requiring tagged items to be clearly labeled as such, Albrecht said.
I think the industry has recognized there is tremendous consumer opposition to this, she said. (A survey by) Proctor & Gamble found 78 percent of consumers opposed it on privacy grounds.
David Syzmanski, director of the retailing center at Texas A&M University, said retailers are waiting to see Wal-Marts results before deciding whether to also require vendors to put tags on shipments.
There will be a lot of bugs to work out, he said.
Many major retailers routinely link shoppers identity information from credit, ATM and loyalty cards with product bar code numbers to record individuals purchases over time, Albrecht said.
If nothing is done to stop it, the same will happen with the unique RFID numbers on products. This means that if retailers can read an RFID tag on a product they previously sold you, they can identify you as you walk in the door and even pinpoint your location in their store as you shop, she said.
Many people already use RFID even though they may not know it, Whitcomb said. Tollway tags, automotive keys to prevent vehicle theft, lost pet prevention tags and even some airline baggage labels all use RFID technology.
The industry plan is to put an RFID tag on every product on Earth to identify and locate them at any time, anywhere. Wal-Mart is taking the first steps to creating a society where everything could be surveilled at all times, she said.
Whitcomb, for Wal-Mart, said the data has little value on its own.
Even if someone wanted to spend a lot of money to buy a portable reader and you let them get close enough to you to scan a tag, they would end up with a series of numbers that would mean nothing to them unless they had access to the retailers computer system. And even if they somehow had that, they'd simply know you bought a tube of XYZ something they could just as easily see if they looked at the product you were carrying, Whitcomb said.
That doesnt wash with Albrecht.
While technically thats true, Wal-Mart fails to explain what it means for items to carry remote-readable unique ID numbers. Its like saying someone's Social Security number is only a number, so sharing it with perfect strangers should be of no concern, she said.
