The Advantage and Disadvantages of the RFID Technology from the Consumer Perception - Research Paper Example

Contents I. Executive summary II. Terms of Reference III. Methodology Procedures III Sample Selection IV. Finding Analysis: 4 Myths Vs Reality: 4.1.1.Hidden placement of tags. 4.1.2.Unique identifiers for all objects worldwide. 4.1.3.Massive data aggregation. 4.1.4. Hidden readers. 4.1.5. Individual tracking and profiling. 4.2. RFID benefits to Consumers: 4.3. Limitations of RFID Technology: Myths Debunked 4.3.1. Read-range distances are not sufficient to allow for consumer surveillance. 4.3.2. Reader devices not prevalent enough to enable seamless human tracking. 4.3.3. Limited information contained on tags. 4.3.4. Passive tags cannot be tracked by satellite. 4.3.5. High costs of tags make them prohibitive for wide-scale deployment. 4.4.RFID Practices that Should be Flatly Prohibited: 4.5. Frame work of RFID rights and Responsibilities 4.5.1.Principles of Fair Information Practice. 4.5.2.Openness, or transparency. 4.5.3. Purpose specification. 4.5.4. Collection limitation. 4.4.5. Accountability. 4.4.6.Security Safeguards. V. Conclusions VI. Recommendations 5.1.Killing Tags at Point of Sale 5.2. Blocker tags VII. References / Bibliography I. Executive summary Industry representatives have described the numerous benefits of RFID in todays workshop. But RFID is a classic information technology in that there is a potential downside as well. If the technology is implemented irresponsibly, we as a society could experience it not as a wonderful convenience with many social benefits, but as a tool for consumer profiling and tracking -- in other words, as one part of a larger surveillance infrastructure. II. Terms of Reference The current study tries to identify the advantage and disadvantages of the RFID technology from the consumer perception. And the study also tries to identify the reality behind the privacy issue of the consumer and The study identifies the guidelines defined by different authorities in concerned with the Privacy issue and finally the study analyses the course of action needed for RFID implementation without hampering the privacy issue of consumer. III. Methodology / Procedures The current study uses Qualitative observatory research methodology of the supported educational journals and the current trends on the RFID technology in particular with Consumer rights protection. The research method employed in this study will however involve the collation of data through the analysis of the educational journals on the Privacy issue of RFID. The use of this research method is to obtain the basic fundamental reality on the RFID technology as well as the reality perceived by the Industry, consumers and the activists. III. 1. Sample Selection The articles reviewed are basically on the status papers on the RFID technology, the consumer surveys conducted and the illustrations on advantages and disadvantages perceived by the activists and industry analysts. The research into these journals covers a wide range of areas. The key areas being: (i) Fundamentals of RFID technology (ii) Types of tags used in consumer retails market (iii) Advantages and Disadvantages of RFID to Consumers (iv) Myths and Reality on RFID (v) Guidance to prevent Misuse of RFID technology. IV. Finding / Analysis: Proponents of the RFID technology have described it as a next-generation bar code, sure to ease inventory control and lower costs. Eventually, RFID tags could end up on everything from razor blades and books to clothes that send cleaning instructions to your washing machine. But privacy advocates and civil libertarians say the technology designed for tracking widgets at a very short range can easily be adapted to tracking and spying on people, just as software "cookies" now track computer users movements online. And as some of the worlds largest companies prepare to shift their record keeping to the new model, theres a growing debate as to how - or whether - it should be regulated. The proposed uses of RFID tags pose exponentially greater risks to personal privacy. Many technology experts predict the development of a seamless network of millions of RFID receivers strategically placed around the globe in airports, seaports, highways, distribution centers, warehouses, retail stores, and consumers homes, all of which are constantly reading, processing, and evaluating consumers behaviors and purchases. In addition to undermining a consumers ability to enjoy a lifestyle in relative anonymity, critics of the technology counter that the information gathered by RFID readers could be obtained by the government for surveillance or monitoring the activities of citizens, or even misused by hackers and criminals. Even more, the ever-expanding use of RFID chips would leave no aspect of life safe from the prying eyes of retail and corporate giants. Chips integrated into commonplace products such as floor tiles, shelf paper, cabinets, appliance, exercise equipment, and grocery and packaged products would allow even our most intimate activities to be monitored. To understand the RFID effect on the consumer, it would be better to closely look at the technology in the following way: RFID tags are tiny computer chips connected to miniature antennae that can be affixed to physical objects. In the most commonly touted applications of RFID, the microchip contains an Electronic Product Code (EPC) with sufficient capacity to provide unique identifiers for all items produced worldwide. When an RFID reader emits a radio signal, tags in the vicinity respond by transmitting their stored data to the reader. With passive (battery-less) RFID tags, read-range can vary from less than an inch to 20-30 feet, while active (self-powered) tags can have a much longer read range. Typically, the data is sent to a distributed computing system involved in, perhaps, supply chain management or inventory control. 4.1. Myths Vs Reality: While there are beneficial uses of RFID, some attributes of the technology could be deployed in ways that threaten consumer privacy. The critics are worried that the tags and the scanners will one day become ubiquitous. 4.1.1.Hidden placement of tags. RFID tags can be embedded into/onto objects and documents without the knowledge of the individual who obtains those items. As radio waves travel easily and silently through fabric, plastic, and other materials, it is possible to read RFID tags sewn into clothing or affixed to objects contained in purses, shopping bags, suitcases, and more. 4.1.2.Unique identifiers for all objects worldwide. The Electronic Product Code potentially enables every object on earth to have its own unique ID. The use of unique ID numbers could lead to the creation of a global item registration system in which every physical object is identified and linked to its purchaser or owner at the point of sale or transfer. 4.1.3.Massive data aggregation. RFID deployment requires the creation of massive databases containing unique tag data. These records could be linked with personal identifying data, especially as computer memory and processing capacities expand. 4.1.4. Hidden readers. Tags can be read from a distance, not restricted to line of sight, by readers that can be incorporated invisibly into nearly any environment where human beings or items congregate. RFID readers have already been experimentally embedded into floor tiles, woven into carpeting and floor mats, hidden in doorways, and seamlessly incorporated into retail shelving and counters, making it virtually impossible for a consumer to know when or if he or she was being "scanned." 4.1.5. Individual tracking and profiling. If personal identity were linked with unique RFID tag numbers, individuals could be profiled and tracked without their knowledge or consent. For example, a tag embedded in a shoe could serve as a de facto identifier for the person wearing it. Even if item-level information remains generic, identifying items people wear or carry could associate them with, for example, particular events like political rallies. 4.2. RFID benefits to Consumers: RFID is expected to have the biggest impact in the supply chain, where it will cut costs, cut inventories and reduce out of stocks. Do all the benefits go to businesses? If two companies reduce their costs by 5 percent, chances are high that competition will force them to pass along at least some, if not all, of the savings to consumers. On a macro scale, RFID has the potential to dramatically improve the way we use resources. Today, companies produce goods in the hope that consumers will buy them. In the future, RFID will help to better match supply and demand, so the companies are not producing huge amounts of product that no one really wants. More efficient use of resources is critical to preserving the environment. And, of course, RFID will also help the environment by making it possible to identify goods that can be recycled (not to mention hazardous materials that need to be disposed of according to special procedures). For these reasons alone, its obvious that the solution to the privacy problem is not to ban all RFID tags in consumer products. But there are other benefits as well. Mark Roberti, Editor of RFID Journal sharing his experience said, "A couple of years ago, my house was broken into and my television was stolen. Even if the police had managed to recover it, they had no way of knowing it was mine. If it had an RFID tag in it, it might have been returned to me". (Fewer insurance claims might also reduce the average consumers homeowners insurance.) Making objects smart through the use of RFID creates a wealth of potential benefits for consumers. Some are minor, such as creating smart appliances that read a tag and know how to cook your frozen pizza or wash your cashmere sweater. Some are potentially more important. Tags on meat and other food products could improve the recall processes in the event of a problem with bacteria. That could save lives. The Intels new research on how RFID can be used to assist those that have Alzheimers disease or other cognitive impairments. Is Intel doing this for purely altruistic reasons? No. The systems will create demand for its processors if they prove useful. But if Enron manipulating electricity prices in California was business at its worst, this is business at its best. The research could not only be profitable; it could profoundly improve the lives of both the patients and the people who take care of them. In fact, as the worlds population ages, this work could help millions of people. And other benefits of RFID that are least perceived to consumers are increased access to more products, instant recognition of preferences that can lead to faster/better service, and instant in-aisle suggestions for companion products. But all these benefits are very out of awareness to the consumers. A Survey on U.S. consumers’ perceptions of RFID technology, conducted by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Global has shown that the majority of consumers are unaware of the technology and that the appeal of RFID lies not in changing their shopping experience but in recovery of stolen items, improving product safety and lowering the price of goods. Consumer support for RFID mostly involves security and safety. The survey found that the top two benefits most important to respondents were the potential for faster recovery of stolen items (rated as “extremely important” by 71 percent of respondents) and improved car anti-theft capabilities (70 percent of respondents). 4.3. Limitations of RFID Technology: Myths Debunked One issue, Mr. Sarma says, is the carrying distance of todays RFID signals. The cheapest tags have no power source of their own and typically can only communicate with a reader over a few inches or, at most, a yard. Some tags do have batteries, but theyre much more expensive and, although they might be able to communicate 15 feet or more in ideal conditions, theyre much less reliable. Batteries are also expensive, and when they die, the card stops working. The following technological limitations have been proposed as reasons why consumers should not be concerned about RFID deployment at this time. The perceived limitations are as below: 4.3.1. Read-range distances are not sufficient to allow for consumer surveillance. RFID tags have varying read ranges depending on their antenna size, transmission frequency, and whether they are passive or active. Some passive RFID tags have read ranges of less than one inch. Other RFID tags can be read at distances of 20 feet or more. Active RFID tags theoretically have very long ranges. Currently, most RFID tags envisioned for consumer products are passive with read ranges of under 5 feet. 4.3.2. Reader devices not prevalent enough to enable seamless human tracking. The developers of RFID technology envision a world where RFID readers form a "pervasive global network" It does not take a ubiquitous reader network to track objects or the people associated with them. For example, automobiles traveling up and down Interstate 95 can be tracked without placing RFID readers every few feet. They need only be positioned at the entrance and exit ramps. Similarly, to track an individuals whereabouts in a given town, it is not necessary to position a reader device every ten feet in that town, as long as readers are present at strategic locations such as building entrances. GPS can be used to locate a lost hiker or a stolen car because a GPS device can not only use the information from satellites orbiting the earth to locate its exact position, but might also contain a high-powered radio transmitter (not unlike that of a cell phone) that broadcasts its location. But tiny RFID tags cannot read satellite signals, nor do they transmit strong radio signals, especially without a prompt from a reader. A better analogy for how RFID tags help “track” an item is the way a barcode helps FedEx “track” a package 4.3.3. Limited information contained on tags. Some RFID proponents defend the technology by pointing out that the tags associated with most consumer products will contain only a serial number. However, the number can actually be used as a reference number that corresponds to information contained on one or more Internet-connected databases. This means that the data associated with that number is theoretically unlimited, and can be augmented as new information is collected. For example, when a consumer purchases a product with an EPC-compliant RFID tag, information about the consumer who purchased it could be added to the database automatically. Additional information could be logged in the file as the consumer goes about her business: "Entered the Atlanta courthouse at 12:32 PM," "At Mobil Gas Station at 2:14 PM," etc. Such data could be accessed by anyone with access to such a database, whether authorized or not. 4.3.4. Passive tags cannot be tracked by satellite. The passive RFID tags envisioned for most consumer products do not have their own power, meaning they must be activated and queried by nearby reader devices. Thus, by themselves, passive tags do not have the ability to communicate via satellites. However, the information contained on passive RFID tags could be picked up by ambient reader devices which in turn transmit their presence and location to satellites. Such technology has already been used to track the real-time location of products being shipped on moving vehicles through the North American supply chain. In addition, active RFID tags with their own power source can be enabled with direct satellite transmitting capability. At the present time such tags are far too expensive to be used on most consumer products, but this use is not inconceivable as technology advances and prices fall. 4.3.5. High costs of tags make them prohibitive for wide-scale deployment. RFID developers point to the "high cost" of RFID tags as a way to assuage consumer fears about the power of such tags. However, as technology improves and prices fall, we predict that more and more consumer products will carry tags and that those tags will become smaller and more sophisticated. We predict that the trend will follow the trends of other technical products like computers and calculators. 4.4.RFID Practices that Should be Flatly Prohibited: Merchants must be prohibited from forcing or coercing customers into accepting live or dormant RFID tags in the products they buy. There should be no prohibition on individuals to detect RFID tags and readers and disable tags on items in their possession. RFID must not be used to track individuals absent informed and written consent of the data subject. Human tracking is inappropriate, either directly or indirectly, through clothing, consumer goods, or other items. RFID should never be employed in a fashion to eliminate or reduce anonymity. For instance, RFID should not be incorporated into currency. 4.5. FRAMEWORK OF RFID RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Technology assessment. RFID must be subject to a formal technology assessment process, sponsored by a neutral entity, perhaps similar to the model established by the now defunct Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. The process must be multi-disciplinary, involving all stakeholders, including consumers. 4.5.1.Principles of Fair Information Practice. RFID technology and its implementation must be guided by strong principles of fair information practices (FIPs). The eight-part Privacy Guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a useful model (www.oecd.org). We agree that the following minimum guidelines, based in part on these principles, must be adhered to while the larger assessment of RFIDs societal implications takes place 4.5.2.Openness, or transparency. RFID users must make public their policies and practices involving the use and maintenance of RFID systems, and there should be no secret databases. Individuals have a right to know when products or items in the retail environment contain RFID tags or readers. They also have the right to know the technical specifications of those devices. Labeling must be clearly displayed and easily understood. Any tag reading that occurs in the retail environment must be transparent to all parties. There should be no tag-reading in secret. 4.5.3. Purpose specification. RFID users must give notice of the purposes for which tags and readers are used. 4.5.4. Collection limitation. The collection of information should be limited to that which is necessary for the purpose at hand. 4.4.5. Accountability. RFID users are responsible for implementation of this technology and the associated data. RFID users should be legally responsible for complying with the principles. An accountability mechanism must be established. There must be entities in both industry and government to whom individuals can complain when these provisions have been violated. 4.4.6.Security Safeguards. There must be security and integrity in transmission, databases, and system access. These should be verified by outside, third-party, publicly disclosed assessment. V. Conclusions The privacy alarms being raised are at best premature and at worst hypothetical and impractical. Because this is such a promising yet nascent technological application, experts believe that the call for RFID legislation is not yet warranted. Instead, industry should continue its efforts to educate customers about RFID technology and to notify them when they purchase items with RFID tags. Government, in turn, should actively monitor industry efforts to develop and abide by a set of RFID self-regulatory best practices that includes notification. VI. Recommendations Jack Grasso, spokesman for EPC Global of Lawrenceville, N.J.,, the nonprofit organization that sets technical standards for RFID systems assures the consumers not to worry about the technology revolution. His organization has a code of ethics that requires notifying consumers about the presence of RFID tags. The group also recognizes the right of consumers to deactivate RFID tags, and is working to develop systems to make this easy. At its final board meeting in late October, the Auto-ID Center, a nonprofit research organization that developed the Electronic Product Code (EPC) and related technologies, adopted policy guidelines aimed at protecting consumer privacy. The broadly stated guidelines cover four main areas: 1. Consumer Notice: Consumers will be clearly notified of the presence of EPC tags on products or in packaging through the use of an EPC logo or identifier on the products. 2. Consumer Choice: Consumers will be informed of their options to discard, disable or remove EPC tags from the products they acquire. 3. Consumer Education: Consumers will have the opportunity to easily obtain accurate information about EPC and its applications, as well as information about advances in the technology. 4. Record Use, Retention and Security: As with conventional barcode technology, companies will use, maintain and protect records generated through EPC in compliance with all applicable laws. Companies will publish, on their Web sites or otherwise, information on their policies regarding the retention, use and protection of any consumer-specific data generated through their operations, either generally or with respect to EPC use. Right now, no mechanism exists for enforcing these guidelines, which are communicated to all companies that subscribe to EPCglobal and want to use EPC technology to track goods. But Grasso points out that most companies are many years away from using EPC tags on consumer items, so its premature to implement an enforcement mechanism. The RFID industry has suggested a variety of solutions to address the dangers posed by RFID tagging of consumer products. Among them are killing the tags at point of sale, the use of "blocker tags," and the "closed system.”. The paper here examines the Killing Tag option at the moment. KILLING TAGS AT POINT OF SALE Some have proposed that the RFID tag problem could be solved by killing the tags at the point of sale, rendering them inoperable. There are several reasons why we do not believe this approach alone and without other protections will adequately protect consumer privacy: Killing tags after purchase does not address in-store tracking of consumers. Tags can appear to be "killed" when they are really "asleep" and can be reactivated The tag killing option could be easily halted by government directive. Retailers might offer incentives or disincentives to consumers to encourage them to leave tags active. The creation of two classes of consumers. BLOCKER TAGS RFID blocker tags are electronic devices that should theoretically disrupt the transmission of all or select information contained on RFID tags. The proposed blocker tag might be embedded in a shopping bag, purse, or watch that is carried or worn near tags with information consumers want blocked. Blocker tags are still theoretical. According to our understanding, the blocker tag does not yet exist. Until a blocker tag is built and tested, there is no way to know how effective it will be and whether it can be technically defeated. And also, The blocker tag Encourages the widespread deployment of RFID tags. The blocker tag could be banned by government directive or store policy. Adds a burden to consumers Fails to protect consumers once products are separated from the blocker tag. The creation of two classes of consumers.- those who block tags and those who do not. VII. References / Bibliography Chris Richard, Can your razor blade spy on you?; available from http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1106/p14s01-stct.html Accessed on October 18, 2005. Jerry Brito, Relax Dont Do It: Why RFID Privacy Concerns are Exaggerated and Legislation is Premature , available from accessed on October 16, 2005. Beth Givens, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, RFID and the Public Policy Void (Aug. 18, 2003) (presented to Joint Committee on Preparing California for the 21st Century, California Legislature, Sen. Debra Bowen, Chair), available at accessed on October 18, 2005 Auto-ID Centre, Executive Briefing, Public Policy: Understanding Public Opinion 6 (Feb. 1, 2003), accessed on October 17, 2005. Charles Homs, Exposing The Myth Of The 5-Cent RFID Tag, Forrester Research, at accessed on October 16, 2005. Matt Hines, RFID Deadline Hits a Wall, Study Says, C-Net News.com, available from accessed on October 17, 2005. Christine Spivey Overby, RFID At What Cost? What Wal-Mart Compliance Really Means, Forrester Research, at accessed on October 16, 2005. Auto-ID Center Field Test Report, RFIDJOUNRAL.COM, available from accessed on october 18, 2005. Federal Trade Commission, Radio Frequency IDentification: Applications and Implications for Consumers, available from accessed on October 18, 2005. Joanna Ramey, RFID: Is It A Threat To People’s Privacy? Lawmakers Act to Restrict Use of the Devices in Stores, while retailers question the need for legislation, Women’s Wear Daily, May 12, 2004. Mark Baard, Lawmakers Alarmed by RFID Spying, Wired News, available from accessed on October 15, 2005. Mark Roberti, RFIDs Consumer Benefits; available from accessed on October 17, 2005. Zoe Davidson, RFID Right to Know Act of 2003, (CASPIAN, Boston, Mass.), available from accessed on October 19, 2005. Beth Givens, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Implementing RFID Responsibly: Calling for a Technology Assessment: Radio Frequency Identification: Applications and Implications for Consumers ; available at accessed on October 18, 2005. Christine Spivey Overby, Commentary: An RFID code of conduct, C-Net News.com, available from accessed on October 18, 2005. Larry Dignan & Kim S. Nash, RFID: Hit or Myth?, eWeek, available from accessed on October 18, 2005. Jane Black, "Playing Tag with Shoppers Anonymity," Business Week Online; Available from accessed on October 18, 2005. Privacy risks of Radio Frequency Identification "tagging" of library books, Available from http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/RFID/20031002_sfpl_comments.php accessed on October 18, 2005. Hiawatha Bray, You need not be paranoid to fear RFID, October 10, 2005, available from Accessed on October 17, 2005 Jonathan Collins, Consumers Voice Opinions on RFID; survey on US consumers for RFID by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young , Available from Accessed on October 17, 2005. Read More