On Privacy and RFID

Consumer concerns on privacy over the RFID technology is a hot debate among all the parties involved. Simon Garfinkel from Technology Review has almost always something interesting and thought provoking to say on the subject. In his November 3, 2004, article he brought the subject up, in the light of the recent developments, which he describes as "the rush by Wal-Mart and other companies to put radio frequency identification devices in their goods " and concluded :

"... as EPC technology starts its move from the laboratory to the marketplace, it’s becoming clear that attention to privacy niceties and even some forms of notice will increase the price of this technology. After all, it takes time to properly alert people to the presence of RFID. Wal-Mart might have had signs up at Broken Arrow, but at least some people at the stores who bought RFID-labeled products didn’t know that the products contained radio frequency tracking devices. MIT could have printed an RFID symbol on my ID card, but it didn’t; there was no requirement for it to do so. Honda doesn’t bother putting an RFID symbol on its car keys—this despite the fact that the keys can be read from 30 centimeters or more away using specialized equipment.
The problem of voluntary, industry-approved privacy standards is that they’re voluntary—companies don’t need to comply with them. And the very real danger facing the RFID industry is that a suspicious public will push for regulation of this technology. Although the industry has successfully killed legislation proposed earlier this year in California and Massachusetts, high-handed actions on the part of RFID-advocates will likely empower consumer activists and their legislative allies to pass some truly stifling legislation."

AIM, the global trade association for automatic identification, has responded to the above mentioned article in its November 23 editorial. It states that "AIM has no control over the policies and practices of retailers using the technology. It would be far more appropriate for retail associations, such as the National Retail Federation (NRF), to make responses and issue policies" and adds that " many of the concerns expressed by Mr. Garfinkle are, in fact, already addressed by the policies of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) to which all major US retailers subscribe." However", editorial continues, "whether or not a store adheres to these policies is a management decision on the part of each store. Stores that violate these policies risk alienating customers ".

So, there you have it... the long waited response from AIM to the concerns (about consumer privacy as well as the need for a "Consumer Bill of Rights") and where the association stands on these issues.