« More on Viagra tagging | Main | RFID: a pathway to your soul? »
January 10, 2006
EAS or RFID? New labels prompt questions
Consumers are finding new cloth labels in Old Navy and Gap clothing like the one in the picture above, and writing to us with the question, "Does this contain an RFID tag?"
It's a legitimate concern. Katherine and I found prototype Checkpoint brand RFID clothing labels on display at an industry trade show back in the fall of 2004, and it's clear retailers and manufacturers are very interested in tagging higher-priced items, like clothes. So I called Gap, Inc., parent company of Old Navy to find out.
Initially, the customer relations representative politely declined to discuss the label technology, saying, "The information is proprietary. I do apologize. I don't have much more to offer."
I explained who I was, told her that I thought the labels were simply EAS tags, and added that official confirmation from the company would probably be in its best interest since consumers had written to us with concerns. I also mentioned that I was planning to blog about the labels within the hour.
(Note: EAS stands for "electronic article surveillance. " EAS tags are anti-theft devices that can resemble RFID tags, but do not have computer chips with unique identification numbers and the associated privacy problems.)
She wrote down my phone number and promised to get back to me within the standard three business days, but graciously returned my call within five minutes. Here's her official comment about the label:
"It is only to prevent loss. It is not used for tracking purposes....It does not contain RFID technology at this time." (emphasis added)
(Note: At some point those labels could contain RFID tags, so we need to be vigilant.)
Any time we consumers have a question about the function of a device on or in a consumer item, we should pursue a definitive answer from the manufacturer or retailer. It not only puts the company on notice that consumers are watching, it also provides us with with information we need to make informed decisions in the marketplace.
Liz McIntyre
Posted by liz at January 10, 2006 1:00 PM
Comments
Liz, that's actually a EAS tag (it looks like a series 400 RF tag).
It's a good idea to remove these before washing them and/or putting them in a drier, because heat and rubbing can actually re-activate a dead tag.
Cheers
Matt (from Australia)
Posted by: Matt at January 25, 2006 12:42 AM
I didn't know the RF EAS tags could be reactivated by mere heat and rubbing. Interesting. I thought they could be permanently disabled at checkout.
Posted by: Liz McIntyre at January 25, 2006 9:07 AM
Liz,
Sorry about the late response:
I've only been able to reactivate an RF-EAS tag if the tag was only waved over the deactivator for a two seconds or less. It still deactivated the tag so it didn't set off the pedestals, but it wasn't enough to kill it properly.
In Scan-Thru environments, such as supermarkets, tags are simply not held over the deactivator long enough (or even close enough) to kill them *completely*.
Holding a tag STILL over a deactivator for about two seconds or less seems to kill them *completely*.
Also, when you see a clueless clerk rubbing the tag directly over the deactivator for a good few seconds, it's a blessing - because that seems to kill the tags completely too.
Cheers
Matt (from Australia)
Posted by: Matt at February 2, 2006 6:17 AM
i washed a pair of jeans with one of those tags shown above (the one on the left)before i removed the tag is it safe to wash or wear? please tell me here thank you
Posted by: mimi at March 15, 2006 11:14 PM
Dear sir or madam,
we are a company to work on store equipments.we need 2000 RF mini hard tags(8.2mhz) for one of our project.please send your prices.
Best regards
H.R.Babolmorad
no.165-darya blv.-saadatabad-TEHRAN-IRAN
Posted by: H.R.BABOLMORAD at May 3, 2006 10:13 AM