RFID tags in shampoo bottle tops
The secret consumer level item testing of RFID tags in Max Factor Lipsticks, by WalMart and Proctor & Gamble in the USA, despite their press statements that they had restricted their trials of the technology to backroom and warehouse operations, is interesting.
Chicago Sun-Times report:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-nws-spy09.html
It seems that, just as with the Tesco Cambridge (UK) RFID trial using Gillette razorblades, the temptation to monitor the public guinea pigs in secret by means of remote CCTV was too great to resist.
CASPIAN press release:
http://www.spychips.com/broken_arrow.htm
The example of an RFID tag embedded in the plastic cap of a Proctor & Gamble Pantene brand shampoo bottle, rather than in an external paper label, shows how, for many consumer items, it will be impractical to physically remove such RFID tags without damaging or spoiling the product itself.
Comments
The use of an RFID tag requires a scanner to read it. Scanners have a limit of around 5 metres. Could anyone explain the benefit of knowing that Mrs Trellis of South Wales uses Pantene Pro V shampoo? That, of course, is after someone is sent round to break in and check it. Alternatively they could just take it from the bar code on the bottle anyway.
Posted by: Dan | March 5, 2004 3:57 PM
The point about the RFID tag experimentally hidden inside the plastic bottle top, is that it demonstrates that there will be many types of consumer goods where it will not be possible to physically remove the RFID tag at the checkout till without damaging or losing the liquid product in transit on the way home.
Such RFID tags need to have the ability to be "killed" electronically at the checkout till.
If this technology becomes widespread, and bear in mind that it is *not yet* a big threat since it is only at the eearly trial stage, there will be the risk of being "profiled" in transit with newly bought goods.
It will not be necessary for people to break in to people's houses in order to snoop on what they buy and where they buy it from. There are already people who are paid a bounty to rummage through rubbish bags for any personally identifiable items to aid ID theft and, in the case of celebrities, in the search for lurid scandals.
The difference between a barcode and an RFID tag is that the lateer includes all the manufacturer and product code data that a barcode has, but also has a "unique" serial number of each, for excmple, shampoo bottle as well, and it can be read in secret by radio when hidden from direct line of sight.
Just because the standard Readers operate at a limited range, this is only because they have to operate within regulated Radio Frequency power levels - unscrupulous people who hook up a Reader to an amplified directional antenna will easily pick up RFID tags from say a vehicle driving past a building. This will be especially true of the UHF frequncy tags ones which are what EPCglobal, Wal-Mart, the US military etc. are planning to adopt. These operate at Mobile Phone frequencies, and therefore easily penetrate through the walls of buildings etc.
Posted by: Watching Them, Watching Us | March 7, 2004 3:03 AM