WASHINGTON-A new California bill would prohibit driver’s licenses and other identity documents issued by the state from containing radio frequency identification chips, an initiative that follows a huge uproar by parents of school children required earlier this year to wear RFID badges.
“This is all about individual privacy, personal safety and financial security,” said Democratic state Sen. Joe Simitian, author of the legislation. “SB 682 ensures that state and local government will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.”
The Simitian measure was introduced last month after InCom Corp.-a Sutter, Calif., firm-backed out of a pilot project with an elementary school that had students wearing RFID identification badges since January.
“The signals broadcast by this type of badge can be picked up by anyone with the technology to read it, which allows a child’s identity and location to be pinpointed with ease. This does not increase security, it lessens it,” said Pam Noles, a policy associate for the ACLU of Southern California. “In Sutter, these badges compromised the safety of the elementary-school students, and parents weren’t even given the option to consent to their use.”
Joining the ACLU in backing the Simitian bill are the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
“Sen. Simitian’s bill provides vital protection for all Californians. Individuals who are required to carry government issued IDs should not be put in a situation where that document enables them to be monitored and tracked,” said Beth Givens, founder and executive director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
The incident is reminiscent of a controversy in 2003 that prompted Gillette Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to drop plans to test use of RFID chips in packages of Mach 3 razors, underscoring just how sensitive the public is about privacy.
“In light of what happened in Sutter, Calif., we think it is especially important that this bill be passed to protect the privacy and security of all Californians,” said Nicole Ozer, technology and civil liberties policy director of the ACLU of Northern California. “No person should ever be forced to carry an RFID tag. It violates fundamental rights to privacy, it is demeaning, and it threatens our physical and economic security.”
Prospects for passage of the Simitian bill and others like it are unclear. A broader-ranging RFID privacy bill championed by fellow Sen. Debra Bowen (D) was defeated in committee last year. Last month, the Judiciary Committee of the New Mexico House defeated a bill that would have mandated disclosure to consumers of products with RFID tags and required that tags be disabled after a product is purchased. In addition, the legislation would have banned businesses from sharing information collected from RFID tags.
Among those who opposed the New Mexico bill were AeA, formerly the American Electronics Association, and EPCglobal, a New Jersey group that is crafting RFID standards.
“We have no problem with consumer notice. It’s a good thing,” said Marc-Anthony Signorino, AeA’s technology policy counsel.
RFID technology is steadily gaining acceptance in government and the private sector as a new tool for supply chain management, security and other purposes.
Input, a Reston, Va., consulting firm, said U.S. government spending on RFID technology is expected to grow 120 percent by the fall of 2008. The Department of Defense is likely to be the biggest federal user, according to Input. Indeed, the Pentagon reportedly has begun accepting RFID-tagged shipments of gear, though its rules must be clarified to give suppliers better guidance.
“The biggest challenge facing agencies adopting RFID is how to construct a system architecture that will handle substantially increased amounts of data,” said Chris Campbell, senior analyst, federal market analysis at Input. “RFID technology has also brought the issues of privacy and security to the forefront as government agencies struggle with secure ways to store personal data, especially in light of the growing concern over identity theft.”
Campbell added: “On the civilian side, most agencies have decided to hold off on implementing RFID technology until they can better understand the expected cost benefits. Process improvements, and more importantly cost savings obtained through the employment of RFID in a limited number of existing programs, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Free and Secure Trade program, will encourage greater acceptance within civilian agencies in the future.”
While the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission examine policy privacy implications and other issues raised by RFID technology, federal regulation is not on the horizon.
Congress is watching carefully, however.
Last year, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated: “While it may be a good idea for a retailer to use RFID chips to manage its inventory, we would not want a retailer to put those tags on goods for sale without consumers’ knowledge, without knowing how to deactivate them, and without knowing what information will be collected and how it will be used …While we might want the Pentagon to be able to manage its supplies with RFID tags, we would not want an al Qaeda operative to find out about our resources by simply using a hidden RFID scanner in a war situation.”
Next week, AeA and the Congressional Internet Caucus will sponsor RFID demonstrations and a policy briefing on the technology. On April 6, the Commerce Department plans to host an RFID workshop.
