RFID NEWS
Text size:
T
T
T
Senator Queries FTC about RFID
U.S. Senator Bill Nelson asks the Federal Trade Commission to explain its role and strategy for addressing RFID’s potential risks to privacy.
By Claire Swedberg
Sept. 20, 2004—Seeking answers to RFID-related privacy concerns, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has gone to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with a list of questions about the technology. Nelson, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, sent FTC chairwoman Deborah P. Majoras a letter on Aug. 31 questioning the FTC’s role in regulating RFID technology. The senator stated that RFID technology poses a significant range of privacy and security risks.
In the letter, Nelson questions what jurisdiction the FTC has to regulate the technology, as well as what actions the agency has taken or plans to take. The FTC has some jurisdiction over RFID, according to Nelson staff members, which Nelson hopes to clarify. One example of the agency’s involvement in RFID was a one-day seminar on RFID, hosted by the FTC in June, that included several industry and public interest witnesses.
Nelson would like to know if the FTC will use its general authority over unfair or deceptive trade practices to regulate RFID and bring enforcement actions in necessary. Nelson also asks whether the FTC has received complaints regarding RFID use that may raise concerns for consumers. An example of such use, he states in his letter, would be a pilot program run with RFID tags embedded in limited number of products to test the effectiveness of the system.
The letter refers to a 2003 incident, in which, Nelson wrote, a razor blade manufacturer embedded RFID tags in a limited number of its products to track and sell the blades without the knowledge of consumers. This, Nelson wrote, was a privacy violation.
In that 2003 case, the Gillette Co. had begun installing an RFID-enabled "smart shelf" in June in order to track tagged razor blade packages in a Brockton, Mass., Wal-Mart. In July 2003, however, Wal-Mart announced that it had canceled the proposed trial program before it ever got started.
“Was it tracking consumers?” asks Christine Hanson, Nelson’s deputy press secretary. “If it was, that’s a problem because they didn’t know.” And whether or not the tags were to be used simply for inventory tracking, “the consumers didn’t have a choice,” Hanson says, which is what caused Nelson’s concern.
Nelson also pointed to other scenarios that could indicate potential abuses of RFID technology, such as the use of RFID by employers to learn what types of tagged medicines an employee is carrying, or the use by a retail store to determine what products a consumer carries in her purse and then marketing to her based on that information.
In the letter Nelson also asks whether the FTC has taken any enforcement actions against companies who have abused RFID technology and whether the agency has compiled any statistics about the use of RFID, such as which companies use it.
The purpose of the letter, says Hanson, is to “get a background of what is being done.” She adds, “He wants to know what the landscape is.” After the FTC responds to the letter, which is expected to be in late September or early October, Hanson says Nelson will consider the next step.
“New technology is coming out every day,” Hanson says, and Nelson’s goal is to ensure that “safeguards are in place so that it is not abused.”
RFID Journal Home
Sept. 20, 2004—Seeking answers to RFID-related privacy concerns, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has gone to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with a list of questions about the technology. Nelson, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, sent FTC chairwoman Deborah P. Majoras a letter on Aug. 31 questioning the FTC’s role in regulating RFID technology. The senator stated that RFID technology poses a significant range of privacy and security risks.
In the letter, Nelson questions what jurisdiction the FTC has to regulate the technology, as well as what actions the agency has taken or plans to take. The FTC has some jurisdiction over RFID, according to Nelson staff members, which Nelson hopes to clarify. One example of the agency’s involvement in RFID was a one-day seminar on RFID, hosted by the FTC in June, that included several industry and public interest witnesses.
|
| Senator Nelson |
The letter refers to a 2003 incident, in which, Nelson wrote, a razor blade manufacturer embedded RFID tags in a limited number of its products to track and sell the blades without the knowledge of consumers. This, Nelson wrote, was a privacy violation.
In that 2003 case, the Gillette Co. had begun installing an RFID-enabled "smart shelf" in June in order to track tagged razor blade packages in a Brockton, Mass., Wal-Mart. In July 2003, however, Wal-Mart announced that it had canceled the proposed trial program before it ever got started.
“Was it tracking consumers?” asks Christine Hanson, Nelson’s deputy press secretary. “If it was, that’s a problem because they didn’t know.” And whether or not the tags were to be used simply for inventory tracking, “the consumers didn’t have a choice,” Hanson says, which is what caused Nelson’s concern.
Nelson also pointed to other scenarios that could indicate potential abuses of RFID technology, such as the use of RFID by employers to learn what types of tagged medicines an employee is carrying, or the use by a retail store to determine what products a consumer carries in her purse and then marketing to her based on that information.
In the letter Nelson also asks whether the FTC has taken any enforcement actions against companies who have abused RFID technology and whether the agency has compiled any statistics about the use of RFID, such as which companies use it.
The purpose of the letter, says Hanson, is to “get a background of what is being done.” She adds, “He wants to know what the landscape is.” After the FTC responds to the letter, which is expected to be in late September or early October, Hanson says Nelson will consider the next step.
“New technology is coming out every day,” Hanson says, and Nelson’s goal is to ensure that “safeguards are in place so that it is not abused.”
RFID Journal Home
READERS' COMMENTS
Alarmist politicians
Yet another politician using the latest technology craze to garner the limelight. To get Congress involved before there is any identified problem or harm caused by this new, emerging and innovative technology is a waste of taxpayers money. RFID will clearly help productivity, supply chain management and overall efficiency in the private sector, but to call for Congressional action this early in the application of the technology is not only premature but also alarmist. While there maybe privacy concerns raised because of the technology, we don't know that there has been any actual case of abuse or misconduct using the technology. We do know that there has been much benefit, particularly for the past ten years in the DoD. The US government was not designed to be a pre-emptive body which evaluates technology. Nelson wants to make sure safeguards are in place for new technology that comes out everyday - can you imagine the cost of investigating every new technology or how different the world would be we did allow such behavior? When Thomas Jefferson invented the wheel cipher for coding messages in the 1700s as Secretary of State, do you think there was a congressional inquiry on the inventions potential harm to the public? Of course not, and there should not be money wasted on investigating RFID until there are concrete, proven cases of abuse, misconduct or wrong doing.
Posted By: R. GREENE 9/19/2004 at 6:50:23 PM
RE: Alarmist politicians
Why is it that we can be proactive in every area of our lives but to question what technology could be used for and whether or not it should be regulated before problems start? This sounds to me like a politician that has been bought and paid for by business that is looking to use the technology or makes and sells the technology. Privacy is a right given to us under "The Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights". To be actively ensuring that the people of this country can enjoy protections of their Rights before an invasion is just good policy that has been missing for a long time. Nobody is saying that the technology should be abandoned. Simply that there should be some choice for consumers that wish to have the devices inactivated or do not want to purchase products that have the technology in use. If this sort of action had been taken before cigarettes were out on the market, and the public was made aware of what the products had a potential to cause, then the tobacco companies could have avoided the lawsuits. Apply that to this item where they could potentially cause some sort of issue with medical conditions or other areas of a persons livelyhood. Is the cost of a little investigation worth the costs that the companies will pay once a lawsuit is in the courts? Not to mention the cost of the court proceedings to the public until some precedents to resolve cases are done. What is the cost of Judicial Activism? It seems to me, that the statement that a Senator is an alarmist is naive when trying to say "Imagine what the costs are". Well, I have imagined, can you? I may not be in your constituancy, but I will be contacting the representatives in my area to try and get them to buy in on the protection of my rights from this invasive technology. > Yet another politician using the latest technology craze to > garner the limelight. > > To get Congress involved before there is any identified > problem or harm caused > by this new, emerging and innovative technology is a waste > of taxpayers money. RFID will clearly help > productivity, supply chain management and overall > efficiency in the > private sector, but to call for Congressional action this > early in the > application of the technology is not only premature but > also alarmist. While there maybe privacy concerns raised > because of the technology, we don't know that there has > been any actual case of abuse or misconduct using the > technology. We do know that there has been much benefit, > particularly for the past ten years in the DoD. > > The US government was not designed to be a pre-emptive body > which evaluates technology. Nelson wants to make sure > safeguards are in place for new technology that comes out > everyday - can you imagine the cost of investigating every > new technology or how different the world would be we did > allow such behavior? When Thomas Jefferson invented the > wheel cipher for coding messages in the 1700s as Secretary > of State, do you think there was a congressional inquiry on > the inventions potential harm to the public? Of course not, > and there should not be money wasted on investigating RFID > until there are concrete, proven cases of abuse, misconduct > or wrong doing. >
Posted By: J. Starr 9/20/2004 at 9:42:13 AM
Alarmist politicians
What ever happened to due diligence? Why should we wait until an abuse appears before we attempt to resolve this issue. Examining the possibility of privacy violations should be expected by every citizen that values his/her privacy. If this technology is to be used for product inventory will it be deactivated when the item leaves the place of purchase. How will we know? I would rather not have this technology follow me into my home. I don't like the idea of big brother watching, listening, or knowing what I do in the sanctuary of my own home. I like my privacy.
Posted By: L. Etzel 9/21/2004 at 9:02:12 AM
RE: Alarmist politicians
Err too early? Hello RFID microchips have already been inserted into many voluntary and not-so-voluntary patrons/patients etcetera. Gillette and other companies have already started using them and most logistical and courier companies are implementing the costly system or thinking about it. You either have something against this politician or politicians in general. My guess is that you strongly support RFID and or work in the industry. Ciao, Adam. P.S The analogy to the 1700s with Jeffersons cipher is unparralled and silly. Technology advances daily and usage has increased as you know. It would have been like calling for the just released T Ford to be investigated by congress because it might cause O-zone depletion and passengers should wear seat belts and a power limit to be placed on the engines so they don't go faster than a 'safe' speed. Not that the T Ford went much faster than one can ride a bicycle these days. Come on you're being unrealistic and the comparisons between the two are unparrelelled therefore silly suggestions. So just stand up and support the little good that your government does these days or sit down and shut up. > Yet another politician using the latest technology craze to > garner the limelight. > > To get Congress involved before there is any identified > problem or harm caused > by this new, emerging and innovative technology is a waste > of taxpayers money. RFID will clearly help > productivity, supply chain management and overall > efficiency in the > private sector, but to call for Congressional action this > early in the > application of the technology is not only premature but > also alarmist. While there maybe privacy concerns raised > because of the technology, we don't know that there has > been any actual case of abuse or misconduct using the > technology. We do know that there has been much benefit, > particularly for the past ten years in the DoD. > > The US government was not designed to be a pre-emptive body > which evaluates technology. Nelson wants to make sure > safeguards are in place for new technology that comes out > everyday - can you imagine the cost of investigating every > new technology or how different the world would be we did > allow such behavior? When Thomas Jefferson invented the > wheel cipher for coding messages in the 1700s as Secretary > of State, do you think there was a congressional inquiry on > the inventions potential harm to the public? Of course not, > and there should not be money wasted on investigating RFID > until there are concrete, proven cases of abuse, misconduct > or wrong doing. >
Posted By: G. Banerji 9/23/2004 at 10:53:41 PM
Nelson's Paranoia
Given that the purpose of the RFID tag is to hold a code number ie an Identifier, it is difficult to comprehend how knowledge of this code will constitute an invasion of privacy since the code number is just a meaningless code number. To interpret the code requires additional data which is unlikely to be in the public domain.
Posted By: M. Ohi 9/30/2004 at 3:54:51 AM