T***o Spy chips - every little helps them

[Andy Hamilton]

Anyone heard of the spychips at T***o?

[shiney]

No, I hadn't Andy, but I have just followed the link and read on. They are really very naughty aren't they? It was very interesting. Thanks.

I don't really shop at Tessys because they are expensive to be honest. The fruit and vegetables are overpriced in my opinion and I always spend more when I go there on my basics.

[The Chili Monster]

Isn't it just sophisticated tagging? I mean, clothes and DVDs are usually security tagged. For all you know, they are inactivated at the checkout (let's face it, the website hardly came across as unbiased).

T***o (as not to be too Orwellian) already knows loads about it's customer base from it's clubcards - addresses, the food you buy, how much and how often you spend, how much your house is worth and how much you bought it for, the size of your council tax bill, etc.

[shiney]

Does it know that I grow my own food as well? Bet they don't!

Even I don't know how many raddishes I am likely to get this year. At least there's no taggin' in my garden.

[Chickenlady]

I am not sure I understand exactly what information they will be getting, and why they want it? Why do they want loads of pix of shoppers - surely they can't scrutinise them all? And they already know where you live if you have a Clubcard.

I still don't like the idea of this, though. It is all a bit Big Brother.

[alchemy0]

Isn't it just sophisticated tagging? I mean, clothes and DVDs are usually security tagged. For all you know, they are inactivated at the checkout (let's face it, the website hardly came across as unbiased).

Security tagged so you can't walk out the shop with them, not security tagged so they know what you bought, where you are and what other products you have bought. The website doesn't have to be unbiased it is stating fact, and not in an overly dramatic way..... doesn't the fact that they can collate this data worry you?

T***o (as not to be too Orwellian) already knows loads about it's customer base from it's clubcards - addresses, the food you buy, how much and how often you spend, how much your house is worth and how much you bought it for, the size of your council tax bill, etc.

I chose not to use a clubcard, I sure as hell don't want them to be able to data gather without my permission or knowledge. Two wrongs don't make a right and we should never (imo) say, well they've already got some of our information, lets just hand over the rest.

Okay, off of my soapbox
Claire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

http://www.spychips.com/

[The Chili Monster]

Alchemy() wrote:

Security tagged so you can't walk out the shop with them, not security tagged so they know what you bought, where you are and what other products you have bought.

According to the afore mentioned website:

T***o Snaps Your Photo?

As reported in the London Times and the Guardian, hidden cameras at T***o have taken mug shots of people picking up products with Spychips. Now, the press reports that T***o "expects to finalize a deal within weeks for the purchase of millions of [RFID] tags." It's time to take a stand.

Aren't you just assuming that these radio frquencies are being turned into images away from the store? How do you know that these chips work outside of the shop? I think you'll find there's legislation to protect the individual. Bearing in mind that professional shoplifters have no problems removing conventional tags ... don't you think that businesses have a right to protect goods?

doesn't the fact that they can collate this data worry you?

Society has been collating data for years, think census, think school records, think CCTV, think TV licenses, think flight lists. If I thought about all the ways that my privacy could be infringed/is being infringed I think I'd be a jabbering wreck who never left the house.

Two wrongs don't make a right and we should never (imo) say, well they've already got some of our information, lets just hand over the rest.

Nobody's suggesting otherwise. I was simply pointing out that many UK retail concerns have already got a perfectly legitimate and open method of obtaining information about an individual

[Muddypause]

These would worry me much more if the information could be tied to me personally. That's not to say I'm welcoming them. In their current state, I'm not sure what these tags can do that a stock keeping record can't. I often pay for goods with a credit card, so am potentially open to a fair bit of record keeping anyway, but I, too, refuse to have a store card for the same reasons. And I do despise the way that customers become just another commodity, to be tagged, numbered and recorded just like the washing powder.

And I was a little surprised to find that a CD that I had bought from Amazon the other day had what looked to me to be an RFID tag inside the CD case, which was in turn inside a factory sealed wrapper. Who put it there, and why? As it came from a mail order company, the tag can be related directly to a name and address.

More of an issue with me is the 'security' man in the supermarket car park who records your regestration number on a hand held computer. Ostensibly, this is so that he can tell if you've outstayed the 2 hour limit. But what happens to all that recorded information? There is at least the potential to track your movements by car, aligning it with time of day, length of stay, distance from home, number of visits... Link this to a clubcard, or a credit card, and over time they will be able to build up quite a file of your personal preferences, lifestyle, habits...

We do our shopping and driving in public, so while none of this is a secret, it doesn't seem to me to be a sign of a healthy society to allow corporate giants to keep tabs and build files on the general population like this.

[The Chili Monster]

Yes, Muddy, you are right: we appear sometimes to live in a society that relishes the prospects of going to hell in a handbasket being photographed, logged, zapped and chipped along the way.

Under English Law, businesses are allowed to keep records entailing some "customer/personal" details for core business functions such as accounting; in marketing this could be expanded to details of competitors (eg quotes, response to query times etc). Anything outside of this and the business is required to be Data Protection Act Compliant; this applies equally to electronic and paper data, and holds true if dealing with countries that trade openly with the UK and/or other parts of the EU.

Compliance currently sets back a business by £35 per year.

I don't think T***o (or any other big company) is interested in little ol' me. They are interested in what little ol' us are buying - what we buy, do we fall for the buy one, get one free type offers. What brands are we using? Are we really boycotting certain foodstuffs/brands? Do we prefer to shop on Saturday afternoons or do we lurk somewhere between the fish counter and frozen food at 9.35 pm each and every Monday evening?

In other words, they are looking for trends.

[Wombat]

The whole thing looks bloody scary to me!

Nev

[alchemy0]

Aren't you just assuming that these radio frquencies are being turned into images away from the store? How do you know that these chips work outside of the shop? I think you'll find there's legislation to protect the individual. Bearing in mind that professional shoplifters have no problems removing conventional tags ... don't you think that businesses have a right to protect goods?

No, tbh I don't think that businesses have the right to protect goods in this way, especially not when they are making such HUGE profits and squeezing every last penny out of suppliers.

Society has been collating data for years, think census, think school records, think CCTV, think TV licenses, think flight lists. If I thought about all the ways that my privacy could be infringed/is being infringed I think I'd be a jabbering wreck who never left the house.

Still don't think we should add to the list of ways that they can keep tabs on us. My main problem with these is that they are small, can be put anywhere without knowledge, and are all individually coded (each item, not just each product type), so that when you scan it at the checkout they know exactly which product you bought and can link it with the clubcard, they can also track it out of the store to wherever it ends up.

I just think that companies take advantage too easily and things are introduced bit by bit, and tbh I don't like the look of where this could end up and I think it's foolish to think it would never happen, it won't be that bad, or who needs choice anyway. (Just to clarify, I'm in no way calling you foolish Chili Monster )

Claire

[The Chili Monster]

Alchemy0 wrote:

tbh I don't think that businesses have the right to protect goods in this way, especially not when they are making such HUGE profits and squeezing every last penny out of suppliers.

Didn't we agree that two wrongs don't make a right?
If you don't like the way T***o operates, then exercise your right to procure goods elsewhere.

You're still assuming that these people are monitoring your movements from the shop. Not even the website claims that T***o is doing this (although it's implied) and, as I pointed out before, the photos T***o captured were taken using CCTV owned by T***o in a T***o store (and would in all likelihood be trained on that aisle anyway, spychips or no spychips).

I also made the point that T***o is not interested in the individual as such, rather in trends. This is so they can control and manage resources as a business in the future. Even small businesses adopt this practice.

or who needs choice anyway

Tell that to people in countries who can't vote.

I get your point, Alchemy, but there's no proof that the use of spychips is for anything untoward (otherwise it would have been on the news by now) and IMHO, if I shopped at T***o (which I don't) the only information they'd glean from their chips is (a) my purchases and (b) where I live. Compare that with my insurance company know my medical history (the consent issue is a joke here, no consent = no life insurance = no mortgage) and anyone (that includes me and you) can pay £3 for a credit check on anyone we like. Now that's personal information!

[alchemy0]

Alchemy0 wrote:

tbh I don't think that businesses have the right to protect goods in this way, especially not when they are making such HUGE profits and squeezing every last penny out of suppliers.

Didn't we agree that two wrongs don't make a right?

Absolutely right, my bad. They are separate issues. I don't think they have the right to protect their goods in this way. I hate the fact that despite supposed regulations they still make HUGE profits, squeeze suppliers, apply retrospective discounts, and don't pay anybody nearly enough.

If you don't like the way T***o operates, then exercise your right to procure goods elsewhere.

Right exercised. I do not shop at T***o.

I also made the point that T***o is not interested in the individual as such, rather in trends. This is so they can control and manage resources as a business in the future. Even small businesses adopt this practice.

If this is what you choose to believe, fine. I think it's rather more ominous. Small businesses don't have the same leverage, politically and financially.

or who needs choice anyway

Tell that to people in countries who can't vote.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and taking away our choice won't help them

I get your point, Alchemy, but there's no proof that the use of spychips is for anything untoward (otherwise it would have been on the news by now) and IMHO, if I shopped at T***o (which I don't) the only information they'd glean from their chips is (a) my purchases and (b) where I live. Compare that with my insurance company know my medical history (the consent issue is a joke here, no consent = no life insurance = no mortgage) and anyone (that includes me and you) can pay £3 for a credit check on anyone we like. Now that's personal information!

I agree, there are too many infringements.

Whilst there may be nothing untoward at the moment, where is it going? Not everything makes the news, and even when it does it can be successully buried or reported in an innocuous way.

[The Chili Monster]

Looks like spy chips have been around for quite some time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 95,00.html

Alchemy wrote:

I don't think they have the right to protect their goods in this way. I hate the fact that despite supposed regulations they still make HUGE profits, squeeze suppliers, apply retrospective discounts, and don't pay anybody nearly enough.

So it's perfectly ok to steal from a business just because you don't agree with its ethics? Using this argument, vegans could "free" livestock from farms.

Small businesses don't have the same leverage, politically and financially.

Depends on exactly who is running the firm, not its size. Marketing, competitor analysis and management accounting are available to all businesses, and in fact firms that do not harness such information, rarely succeed in the long run.

Not everything makes the news, and even when it does it can be successully buried or reported in an innocuous way

see link above.

[alchemy0]

Alchemy wrote:

I don't think they have the right to protect their goods in this way. I hate the fact that despite supposed regulations they still make HUGE profits, squeeze suppliers, apply retrospective discounts, and don't pay anybody nearly enough.

So it's perfectly ok to steal from a business just because you don't agree with its ethics? Using this argument, vegans could "free" livestock from farms.

I in NO way implied this, I simply said that I don't think they should protect their property in THIS way, no objection with other methods they want to use.

Small businesses don't have the same leverage, politically and financially.

Depends on exactly who is running the firm, not its size. Marketing, competitor analysis and management accounting are available to all businesses, and in fact firms that do not harness such information, rarely succeed in the long run.

Not everything makes the news, and even when it does it can be successully buried or reported in an innocuous way

see link above.

This is not proof that everything makes the news.

Yes, I agree, certain marketing information is useful, however, this can be collected anonymously, or using other methods. It is not marketing I am against, per se (although I don't like advertising but that is a separate issue) but simply the use of a technology that could be mis-used and is a subversive invasion of privacy.