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

[Geoffrey Ramadan]

Brendan Scott wrote:
> 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 
>
>   
Like all technology, and in particular new technology, there will always 
be people who want to use it in inappropriate, illegal, or unethical ways.

As RFID is an enabling technology that adds real would sensing 
capabilities to IT, I would have to concede your point, that the 
*possibility* for inappropriate use would have to increase.

Geoffrey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>