Slashdot Log In
Walmart to Push RFID
Posted by
michael
on Fri Jun 06, 2003 11:36 PM
from the done-deal dept.
from the done-deal dept.
bravehamster writes "According to this article over at MSNBC, Walmart is going to push its suppliers to start using RFID to track inventory by 2005. The article goes on to mention how it was Walmart who helped jumpstart widespread adoption of barcodes. The report also points out some of the barriers in the way of RFID acceptance, but never once mentions consumer privacy concerns. Guess that kind of stuff just isn't important anymore."
Related Stories
[+]
Wal-Mart Pushing Suppliers For RFID 35 comments
Weather Storm brings us an InformationWeek article about Wal-Mart's push for suppliers to RFID tag their product shipments. Wal-Mart seems to have lost patience in waiting for its suppliers to adopt the inventory tracking initiative. From InformationWeek:
"The retailer says that beginning Jan. 30, it will charge suppliers a $2 fee for each pallet they ship to its Sam's Club distribution center in Texas that doesn't have an RFID tag. The charge is to cover Sam's Club's cost to affix tags on each pallet, says a Wal-Mart spokesman. The retailer hasn't taken such a strong-arm approach yet with the more than 15,000 suppliers that still haven't complied with its request to tag pallets and cases headed for its Wal-Mart stores. Instead, it seems focused on turning its 700-store Sam's Club warehouse-outlet division into an example of RFID supply chain technology in action, down to requiring item-level RFID in 22 distribution centers by 2010."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
the biggest concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the biggest concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't recall anyone with a cadilliac or other high end luxury car, or other passive anti theft car with the RFID tag in the key, concerned about privacy.
I don't recall any dolphins or sharks complaining about the RFID tag on their fins.
I'll complain when they try and tag my children at birth...
Re:the biggest concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Now imagine that each one of these RFIDs has a unique number, and somewhere along the line you become attached to one of these tags, now all of your purchasing history is associated with YOU, and not an aggregate. And the wonderful thing is, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. To most people this is no problem, to me, it is. I try my damndest to stay out of all forms of database, with mixed results, and with these tags, I CAN'T. My purchasing history will follow me.
Re:the biggest concerns (safeway angle) (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the future: DRM'ed clothing. Wear a non-matching shirt and pair of pants and you go to jail.
Fashion police! Come out with your khakis up!
Re:the biggest concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:the biggest concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone makes a mistake and the RFID for my underwear somehow shows up in JCPenney's inventory computer, and I'm arrested for shoplifting when I go to JCPenney? (the RFID tags aren't turned off, they just mark that ID "sold" in their inventory so they don't arrest you when you take them out the door)
Someone makes a mistake and the ID for my underwear isn't updated in the master Wallmart database. I wear them to another Wallmart, where I'm arrested for shoplifting. (with those magnetic tags I can see them and remove them myself when I get home)
I'm suspected of a crime, and the cops get my shopping records from Wallmart then put out an APB to all retailers to be on the lookout for my underwear's RFID? (note: this could be a good thing, but it could be abused, too)
I'm not paranoid. I have no objection if they put RFIDs in the packaging, like they do now with the magnetic markers. I object to putting the RFIDs in the product, which is what the retailers want because they're afraid I'll just unwrap it before I try to walk out with it.
Perhaps that's the real problem here: they treat us all like shoplifters instead of customers and thus assume we have no rights. This is just another reason to not shop at Wallmart (as if I needed yet another).
2 questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:2 questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, instead of paranoid worries, I hope people start focusing on the promise of RFIDs: instant checkouts, instant inventories, instant customer feedback to the retailer (meaning better product choices by the stores) and much better inventory management (meaning lower prices!). Never mind trackable warranties, potential theft prevention/insurance, etc, etc, etc...
Re:2 questions... (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmm. And suppose next week you go to a different store wearing the item you bought!
I hope they do leave them on. I'd hate to miss out on the hours of fun !
Give it a break... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tim
Re:2 questions... (Score:5, Informative)
Passive RFID tags require a powered reader unit (such as a handheld unit similar to the ones used for barcodes or a stationary unit) which query the RFID for the information. Since these RFID tags have no power source of their own, even with a powered reader unit the maximum reading distance is ***A FEW FEET***. The amount of data that is able to currently be stored on passive RFID tags is quite small as well. Passive RFID tags are fairly cheap, however unless breakthroughs have been made in the last 6-8 months, they still are not cost effective to stick on anything and everything.
Powered RFID tags are battery powered and are capable of storing substantially more information than passive RFID tags. Signal distance is also further than passive RFID tags however still, unless you had a reader unit in your house or some sort of truck mounted reader unit went through the neighborhood any RFID tags in your house would be unreadable, the distance even powered RFID tags is pretty short. Tags such as these cost a few dollars each, definately not cost effective to stick on just anything.
As stated in the article, and from my experience visiting a Walmart regional distribution center, is that RFID tags will be used for logistics/distribution operations. Even if they were going to start sticking RFID tags on everything tomorrow(which would be prohibitedly expensive) their distance limitations would make them useless once you got out into the parking lot, and that erring on the generous side on the distances they can transmit. So unless you have a RFID reader in your house, no worries.
For the above questions, 1) For a consumer to detect a tag is pretty obvious, they are not that small, plus, all RFID technologies I am aware of require an antennae which would be a give away even if the tag was somehow incorporated inside the product with a small antannae sticking out. Researchers at Motorola have been investigating doing away with the need for an antennae however, maybe they have overcome this issue. 2) No ideas
Recent conversation (Score:5, Insightful)
Truth be told, I fail to see the privacy issues the adoption of these things would raise. I assume that, once you've brought your item home, you're free to remove the offending tag. Or, if you want to mess with the system, switch 'em around [re-code.com].
Re:Recent conversation (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm not paranoid enough. High tech crooks cruising a neighbourhood with souped up RFID sensors, scoping out homes to rob. Now there's a thought. The ultimate target is a home that reads plenty of consumer electronics and jewelry tags, but no toothbrushes or combs. Guess they're on vacation. In fact, I like the idea so much that I'd like to be the first to coin the phrase waRFIDing to describe it.
gun control (Score:5, Insightful)
Not saying its a good idea, but I just wonder if its floating out there
Simple solution... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see what the big deal is?
They can do it (Score:5, Informative)
Walmart = sleaze (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend and I were walking through walmart to get some engine coolant(minor emergency, no choice), and I expressed my distaste for walmart. She asked, "Why? Where else could you get all these wonderful things?"(points to grocery section, hardware, etc.)
My answer was rather simple. "Well, before Walmart, the center of my town- the local town hardware store, the local grocery store, and so on. But thanks to Home Depot and Walmart running all the local businesses out, now you can't get anything without driving 20+ minutes". So now, for the $2 in savings, I've got to burn $2 in gas just to get there. I've got to spend 5 minutes finding a parking space, 5 walking from the lot into the store, another 5 trying to find the section and get there, another 5-10 waiting in line...so on etc. That's 'better'?
All because the only thing consumers value these days is the pricetag- not all the other benefits that come from giving your business to a small, locally owned business...or the hidden costs(your time, travel expenses, etc). Lost your reciept? Walmart tells you to go fuck yourself,m you shoplifting scum! Joe at Joe's Hardware remembers selling you that door hinge a few days ago- so the answer is "hey, no problem, here's your money." Not to mention, Joe knows what he's talking about when you ask him a question about doors, instead of some PFY who blankly stares at you because you asked something other than "what aisle is ___ in?"
You know what? It's not the only thing that bugs me about Walmart- their people are downright sleazy. It's stuff like the stories about Walmart managers taking donated items out of charity dropboxes in the stores that were not in walmart bags, and restocking them onto the shelves. Why? Walmart claimed it was to prevent shoplifting(or, in this case, 'shopdonating'), and items not in Walmart bags must not have been legitimate purchases. The donation box was AFTER the registers, not before. Further- ever been in a Walmart? There's more security cameras than you can count- yet a)items were supposedly shoplifted, yet not caught on tape and b)supposedly walmart didn't have any security cameras covering the area where the donation box was. Uh huh. Oh, and don't get me started on Walmart's union-busting...
It's so frustrating to see these giant box stores pop up. A big part of the local economy shifts over to that one store- all the mom+pops die off, and everyone that worked for mom+pop end up working for Walmart, they get nice clean blue uniforms, and all is(mostly) good. What happens when Walmart goes the way of K-mart, Caldoors, Bradlees, etc...or decides that store isn't quite profitable enough? Oops. Smallville's unemployment just went to %50.
Re:Walmart = sleaze (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Walmart = sleaze (Score:5, Informative)
Advice for next time: You do not have to consent to a search of your bag in their parking lot, and you definitely do not have to go back in the store to have your picture taken (why, why, why would you agree to do that???). If you feel uncomfortable with how you're being treated by a store security guard, ask them whether they intend to physically keep you there. If they do not, turn around and leave without another word (this will be the case 99% of the time). If they are, clam up and demand the police. Once they have taken it upon themselves to detain you they face a pretty high standard of evidence (higher than the police would). They absolutely cannot forcibly search you under any circumstances - only the police can do that. If the store security people get touchy-feely, do not be shy about informing them you'll be pressing assault charges. It doesn't have to hurt to be an assault - it just has to make you uncomfortable.
If they "threaten" to call the cops, call their bluff. Keep walking. On the (highly unlikely) chance that they do, the police will find you walking down the road, and if they believe that you've stolen something, they'll do the same search that the security guard was going to do (except more professionally). You are not doing anything wrong by walking away from a store where you didn't steal anything, no matter how much some guard wants to hassle you.
Re:Walmart = sleaze (Score:5, Insightful)
The anti-union crap Wal-Mart puts out is hilarious. Almost half of my training (two weeks) involved watching videos and taking computerized tests agreeing with Wal-Mart on how unions are bad and Wal-Mart is good and that I should never join a union because they'll never help me and Wal-Mart is such a dandy place to work that I'll never want to work anywhere else ever again, or join one of those sleazy unions!
Between that mindwash and the near-deification of Sam Walton (I'm not joking), the whole training session made me feel like I was joining a cult.
Back on the subject, the RFIDs and such better have a really simple implementation and there had better be some damned good training for removal, because NONE of the 40+ cashiers at the store I worked at knew how to fully deactivate the existing tags!!
I attended one of the cashier team meetings and, when asked, NO one had any idea how to do it right. The proper way is to KEEP SWIPING across the little demangetizer until the 'bing' sound stops. How hard is that? With the extreme emphasis on training the people there, you'd think that more people would know that, but they don't. I hope the RFID deactivation methods they employ are FAR simpler than this, because I honestly don't think that that lowest common denominator could handle it if not.
Re:Walmart = sleaze (Score:5, Insightful)
Detection from afar (Score:5, Interesting)
About drive-by scanning: I believe that you need an antenna that's the
square of the distance to read a tag. That's why there's a little plate reader
or handheld at the checkout and those walkthrus at the door are huge.
To read it from 5 feet, you need 25 sq feet of antenna.
The other thing is that the tag itself won't be zapped or deactivated.
Each will hold a key that IDs the product (all 10oz cans of peaches from
DelMonte will have that same key, like a barcode, probably that same UPC
number) and it will also have a key that's unique to the tag itself.
It won't be zapped, it will just change the status record of that item from
"stocked" to "sold" (or "missing from inventory but not sold").
Shoplift a sweater, and even if you get it out of the store, if you wear it
to the store a year later, you could get pinged.
As much as I hate the idea, you can't blame them for implementing it.
It opens up a huge world of possibilities and won't cost them that much.
With Wal-Mart's clout, it will be up to the vendor to eat the cost of the tag,
WM just has to implement the system and specs the tag. No doubt the tag
supplier will be a WM subsidiary.
Don't want to put in the tag in your product Mr. Vendor?
Sorry, we'll find someone else that will.
Re:OK Don't Get Paranoid, Yet (Score:5, Informative)
RFID tags need no power supply. They are powered by the reader. (From the radio waves emitted by it.)
From this [rfidusa.com] page:
An RFID system consists of an antenna or coil, a transceiver and a transponder or tag. A radio signal emitted by the antenna activates the tag allowing it to be read and in some instances have data written to it.
Re:Waaa waaaa "privacy concerns" (Score:5, Insightful)
i mean, if all wal-mart does is implement this system and guarantees that the tags will be disabled, i think that's all fine and well, but this should be monitored closely so that we don't end up with an orwellian big brother checking over our shoulders seeing what we bought.
i heard on off the hook how those member discount cards at grocery stores are monitored so feds can see if your buying large amounts of precursor chemicals for drugs (sudafed was one example). well, great, they're trying to stop the production of drugs, but they're doing it at the expense of the everyday citizen who may now be subject to investigation and hassles that may damage their reputation and/or career just because for some legitimate reason they needed a large amount of sudafed!
also, supposedly they are now implementing a massive government database to track all these purchases and scan the data looking for potential terrorist buying habits (lol!).
that's what i have . . . innocent until proven guilty; why should the government monitor citizens until it has legitimate grounds to?
Re:New way to advertise (Score:5, Insightful)
An important thing to realise about targeted ads is that the number of ads won't change - you won't be suddenly blitzed with many more ads. The difference is that the ads you'll see will more frequently be relevant to you.
Less dross. More stuff you're interested in. Sounds good?
If anything, the total number of ads will tend to decrease as advertisers won't need to plaster every damned product to make sure they're all seen by the target market. Further, I would expect that each targeting site would be much more expensive than a static site (but probably cheaper than all the static sites they'd need to cover all the product lines).
Both of these will tend to make the RoI calculation come out in favour of few advertising sites, each with many potential ads they can show.