RFID Journal Blog
Where the RFID Community Shares Ideas

In that opinion, I wrote, "It's clear the media and bloggers adore negative news about RFID." As evidence of this, I reported that when I searched for "JAMA" [the Journal of the American Medical Association] and "RFID," Google returned 150,000 Web pages containing information about a JAMA report claiming RFID could have a negative impact on health-care equipment (see Researchers Warn RFID May Disrupt Medical Equipment, A Sobering Warning on RFID in Hospitals and Dutch RFID Interference Study Is a Worst-Case Test).

This compares to nine pages returned by Google when I searched for a study conducted by Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, which showed RFID systems had no impact on medical equipment (see New RFID Study Finds No Interference With Medical Devices).

My correspondent pointed out that the Purdue study had not yet been published. That's true—and there are now 618 references returned by Google (up from nine), so the study has received a little more play in the interim, though it certainly doesn't come close to the coverage the negative JAMA article has received.

My correspondent questioned my numbers and said they mean "nothing." But I think the number of pages on Google is a pretty solid indicator of relative interest in a particular topic or person. I would say, for instance, that the fact that Google returns 13,600 pages for "Mark Roberti" and 19,600,000 for "David Beckham" indicates the world has a greater interest in the popular football (soccer) player than it does in me. ("Sex," by the way, returns 856,000,000 pages, while "arachnology," the study of spiders, returns 105,000.)

To further illustrate my point that the media loves negative stories about RFID, I did a search for "Katherine Albrecht," a well-known opponent of RFID. The result: 50,400 pages—nearly three times the number my name returns, and 17 times more than Bill Hardgrave, director of the University of Arkansas' RFID Research Center, a well-known expert on radio frequency identification.

Albrecht, on the other hand, is certainly not an expert on RFID. She can't discuss the many RFID applications, or the benefits to businesses and consumers, so why is she quoted so often? It's simple: because she has negative things to say about RFID—and journalists love negative articles. (Yes, I know she wrote a book on RFID, but a lot of opponents write polemics and get published, for the same reason journalists publish biased article—it's assumed that's what people want to read.)

I apologize to all serious bloggers and journalists who really do want to inform people. It's wrong to lump everyone together, but it seems to me that the facts support my view that most editors and bloggers love negative news about RFID. Here's some more evidence, for those not yet convinced.

(Note: The plus signs tell Google the word must be contained in the page, and the quotes tell Google the term in quotes must be in the page.)

Search Term		Pages Returned
+RFID +privacy +invasion		29,400
+RFID +privacy +abuse		215000
+RFID +"big brother"		419,000
+RFID +consumer +benefits		129,000
+RFID +consumer +savings		62,600
+RFID +"consumer benefits"		3,840
+RFID +"benefits to consumers"		5,170

Mark Roberti is the founder and editor of RFID Journal. If you would like to comment on this article, click on the link below. To read more of Mark's opinions, visit the RFID Journal Blog or click here.

Open Discussion
Apparently a lot of folks who criticize RFID as having no benefits use the word "crap." Doesn't mean my numbers are wrong.

My understanding is the mythbusters was focused on rumors about how easy or hard it is to hack RFID chips. It was not about the pros or cons of RFID. Companies are trying to protect their financial interests. If you owned a store with a certain type of lock, I doubt you would want Mythbusters telling folks how to open that lock. However, I would agree that companies need to face the security issues in RFID and not rely on keeping hacking technique secrets. That's not a long-term solution.

I do wish that we had an open discussion about the pros and cons. All articles I read in the mainstream press are full of supposed "cons", but never mention all of the potential benefits.

Posted By: Mark Roberti 9/3/08 at 7:56 AM

Not so sure about your numbers
I search for RFID + crap + benefit and I get 101,000 results in 0.17 seconds on google.

Perhaps people who don't have all the facts are concerned. At the same time, the lawyers getting together to stop discussions about the pros and cons of RFID on Mythbusters is pretty telling in my opinion.

Sort of like the attorney for the Mass transit authority preventing discussion of the weakness of the radio frequency payment system.

I want open discussion, not one-sided discussion. When RFID proponents use the law to prevent discussion about people's concerns, people will be concerned ... MORE.

However, I too want an "open" and "frank" discussion of pros and cons.

Posted By: Counsel 9/2/08 at 7:31 PM

I Agree, Balance is Key
Thanks to all of you for your posts. I will try to respond to the most salient points raised in each.

First, Google is a blunt instrument, and I wasn't suggesting it offered any level of precision. I'm not sure page rank has anything to do with showing relative interest in a topic, though—we're looking at total pages returned. You can't, however, tell if someone wrote a critical article about the JAMA story, or a positive one, based on Google. So the search results don't provide a precise look at positive or negative stories. Still, I did scan the results, and most people simply wrote about the findings published, without questioning them, in the case of either article. I used the term "consumer benefits" to show how few articles focused on the positive side of RFID.

As for Mike's claim that I am paying lip service to issues that could have a negative impact on RFID in an effort to protect my business interests, I will let readers judge for themselves. But for the record, I never responded to Mike's invitation because I had hoped I might be able to join one of the meetings at some point, and was waiting to see if my schedule would permit. In addition, I assumed the invitation was informal, since it was expressed in the body of numerous back-and-forth emails.

I also think it is rather arrogant for someone to believe that just because they send me an invitation, I must respond. I receive dozens of requests each week from VCs looking to understand the RFID market, analysts who want to comprehend a particular market segment or company's position, vendors hoping to tell me about a new product, journalists writing an article about RFID, researchers seeking my opinion on their thesis and so forth. I try to respond one way or the other—time permitting—but I do have a company to run.

I disagree with Jon M. when he claims, "RFID proponents are heavily biased towards RFID and criticize anyone who tries to express any drawbacks as biased." A few vendors might have attacked the JAMA article, but my editorial and other comments on this site pointed out that we must take the potential affect of RFID on equipment seriously. And this week, we had six or seven protestors at our RFID in Fashion 2008 event holding signs saying “Stop RFID.” Far from dismissing this small minority, many exhibitors went outside to engage them in an open, honest dialogue.

I completely agree with Hywel Williams—balance is key, and at RFID Journal, we strive to maintain such balance. We write about the positive aspects of RFID, and we don't try to cover up the potential abuses of the technology or potential problems with implentations. Radio frequency identification will only deliver consumer and business benefits if we address privacy concerns, security holes and other issues—burying them does no one any good. And those who have read RFID Journal for a while know that has always been my position. I believe it is the position that best servers our readers and advertisers and thus RFID Journal itself.

Posted By: Mark Roberti 8/15/08 at 3:24 PM

Balance is the Key
I would like to make some comments on both the original article and on the two currently published comments.

Firstly my fundamental viewpoint agrees wholeheartedly with Marks position that the media of all sorts is by inclination negative. It seems that negativity sells stories, or at least that seems to be what in my opinion is a false premise held by the media in general and the press in particular. What makes this worse is that very often the “scare stories” are based on at the best half truths and often hardly any truth at all. In RFID terms people constantly bring up “big brother” type arguments about security and the ability to locate and track people which we all know is possible with sophisticated ACTIVE RFID and GPS technology, and totally confuse it with passive tags readable from a few metres at best, and carrying no personal identification, other than POSSIBLY by reference to some remote and probably inaccessible database. This at a time when most of the population in the western world have cell phones about their person merrily transmitting signals which can be tracked, and loyalty cards which hold massive amounts of identifiable information, which no one seems to bother about, at least not to the same degree. This is just one example of IGNORANCE which is by far the biggest problem, and is leading to a “fear mindset” amongst the population in general which is also spilling over to other areas such as GM crops, and the like.

I have some sympathy with Mike, in that maybe the way to tackle the fear generated be it real or imaginary, is to listen to the objections and either take them on board if real, or dismiss them if false. My only concern here is the “conspiracy” mindset which exists amongst many “anti” people, best summed up by the phrase “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts”, who simply will not accept any truth other than their own.

Finally Stephen, get this article in context please, Mike is not writing an academic paper, he is using the statistics gathered as no more than a guide. If you are so hung up about his “poor phraseology” in terms of his Google enquiries, why have you jot published the answers to your queries.

Posted By: Hywel Williams 8/15/08 at 1:02 AM

Biased bias
Whilst I would agree that sensationalist RFID reporting does focus on the possible negative aspects of the technology ( after all bad news sells), however it is also true that many of the RFID proponents are heavily biased towards RFID and criticise anyone who tries to express any drawbacks as biased. An example would be the study reporting possible RFID interference in hospitals. As anyone in a medical field knows, you have to prove safety and assume the equipment will be used in the worst possible situation. The Purdue study assumed absolutely perfect use, which is unrealistic, but that was not focussed upon.

Posted By: Jon M 8/15/08 at 12:50 AM

Perhaps Your Lip Service Has Something To Do With It
Mark,

Despite a recent email volley you and I had, regarding your characterization of security experts as fear mongers (which, in all fairness, you were apologetic about), you have not had the courtesy to respond to any of the numerous invitations I have sent you to attend a meeting of the RFID Security Alliance. In fact, you have not had the courtesy to politely decline. This is despite the fact that your communication to me (and the RFID Security Alliance, through me) specifically stated that the RFID industry needs to work with security experts in establishing a dialogue. This is despite the fact that several members of the RFID Security Alliance have expressed concern that you are purposely avoiding the issue of RFID security, despite the evidence that there are several serious issues which are now manifesting themselves.

So before you continue with your attack on those who express "negative" news about RFID, perhaps you might reconsider the notion of working with those who seem to be throwing up the red flag. Then again, perhaps the call for careful consideration of these concerns simply slows down the adoption of what your organization is promoting, and jeopardizes your bottom line.

Then again, perhaps I am mischaracterizing the situation entirely. I am not infallible.

Posted By: Mike Ahmadi 8/13/08 at 6:17 PM

Be careful with Google
Mark
You need to be careful of over-reliance on Google to demonstrate a position. A fairly comprehensive understanding of PageRank is required before drawing any conclusion, and PageRank is a very complex (and somewhat opaque) topic.
To take your examples:
In the first line, is there any difference in pages returned for +RFID +privacy +invasion VERSUS +RFID +privacy +no +invasion.
Likely not. Yet a huge difference for the point you are trying to make.
The word "no" or "not" is extremely common and for your survey, extremely important. I am fairly sure that PageRank will tend to de-emphasize or even ignore it, and this is not good for your point.

Equally, would the last one not have been better as +RFID +"no benefits to consumers" in place of +RFID +"benefits to consumers" (again, the way you cite it ignore the importance that the simple word "no" would make, with minimal likely impact on returned pages).

Posted By: Stephen cloughley 8/11/08 at 1:34 PM

Add Your Comment:

Please enter your name or an alias and your email address.
Only your name or alias will appear in your post.

Name / Alias:
Email:	(will not be displayed)
Comment Title:
Comment: