When quantitative privacy becomes qualitative privacy (was: Re: [LINK] Surveillance in extremis)

[Brendan Scott]

Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
> 
> Howard Lowndes wrote:
>> Probably not, after all you can see a barcode and you get them on
>> packets of soap flakes, but these 'ere rfiddy thingies- well who knows
>> who they are phoning home to... :)
> This is the myth I a trying to dispel. In this application, the RFID tag
> is no more than a "electronic" barcode.
>
> It does not have any intelligence, nor can it "phone home".
> 
> The Council could have just as easily 'painted numbers' on the bin and
> operators could have simply entered this via the keyboard, and achieved
> exactly the same outcome (albeit less efficiently). No one would have
> even commented.
> 
> However, as Jan pointed out, it is what you do with this information
> that is the real issue... not the RFID tag.

I think it is more than that.  It is the fact that it is easier both to collect and to do something with the information.  Without making a judgment myself, I think it is legitimate for someone to think that ticking off house numbers on a piece of paper is less privacy invasive than an automated RFID system, simply because it is easier to make use of the information in a privacy invasive way.  While the ticks can be converted into the same thing as an RFID scan, it requires additional effort to so condition the data. 

Brendan