WASHINGTON-While retailers and manufacturers insist they can safeguard consumers’ rights by self policing radio frequency identification systems, some groups see an opening to argue for broad-based privacy legislation applicable to a host of emerging wireless technologies.
That RFID proponents and advocates have such starkly different approaches to a technology that may well revolutionize supply-chain management could foreshadow problems ahead for policy-makers seeking common ground on the issue.
At the moment, Congress and the Federal Trade Commission do not appear to be in a rush to write rules for RFID applications tested and planned for use by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp., Albertson’s Inc., Lowe’s, the Department of Defense and others.
Meantime, California, Utah, Massachusetts Maryland and Virginia either have considered bills in their state legislatures or are considering legislation. Earlier this month, the California Assembly Business and Professions Committee defeated Sen. Debra Bowen’s (D) RFID bill 8-0.
While states focus on RFID-specific bills, key special-interest groups have a different strategy. They are thinking big. They see RFID as the vehicle for an uber privacy bill for the Digital Age.
“CDT believes that it would not be appropriate to enact legislation specially regulating RFID,” stated Paula Bruening, staff counsel of the Center for Democracy & Technology, in prepared testimony for a hearing of the House Commerce subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection last Wednesday.
“To enact legislation specifically for RFID would risk technology mandates that are ill-suited to the future evolution of the technology,” said Bruening. “On the other hand, technology-neutral baseline privacy legislation would ensure that retail and marketing uses of the technology in conjunction with personal information were bounded by fair information practices. Location information, whether generated by cell phones, by mobile computing, or by RFID, also merits stronger privacy protections.”
Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, agrees. He told lawmakers RFID tags deserve serious attention because they represent a drift toward a surveillance society.
“As Congress considers the privacy issues posed by RFID chips, I urge you to view them in the larger context-a world that is increasingly becoming a sea of data and databases, where the government and private corporations are gathering more and more details about our everyday existence,” said Steinhardt. “The explosion of computers, cameras, sensors, wireless communications, GPS, biometrics and other technologies in just the last 10 years is feeding what can be described as a surveillance monster that is growing silently in our midst.”
The panel’s chairman, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), said some privacy concerns are exaggerated.
Indeed, low-power RFID tags can be read only by scanners within a few feet. But negative publicity from a handful of RFID-trials-gone-sour has put Wal-Mart, Proctor & Gamble Co., Benetton and other retailers and manufacturers on the defensive. The hard lesson learned by industry: Full disclosure and privacy protection are essential to winning consumer support. RFID technology likely will not reach its full potential without public backing.
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), ranking minority member of the House subcommittee, said RFID may offer significant benefits to supply-chain tracking. She added, “What we are also hearing, however, are the potentially serious Orwellian possibilities of RFID technology.”
Last week’s exchange on RFID was the first in Congress, but not the last.
House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) said additional hearings will be held. Barton said benefits of RFID to homeland security could prove to be the most beneficial aspect of the technology for Americans.
