[LINK] RFID Issues: Privacy in Public Places

[Geoff Ramadan]

This article is from AIM - the American "Association of Identification and 
Mobility". (similar organisation to ADCA)

Obviously the Airport RFID application has generated some local concerns about 
RFID and privacy. Brett Moore is the editor of AIM.

I would be interested in your views to his reply on this, especially the last 
paragraph.

Regards

Geoffrey Ramadan, B.E.(Elec)
Chairman, Automatic Data Capture Australia (www.adca.com.au)
and
Managing Director, Unique Micro Design (www.umd.com.au)


http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/templates/aiminsights.asp?articleid=1849&zoneid=43

For those following the various privacy concern debates, two new applications 
have surfaced to fuel fears of privacy invasion: one designed for access control 
that allows companies to track employees within their facilities and one 
intended to track passengers in airline terminals. These applications are, in 
the eyes of many concerned with personal privacy, embodiments of their worst 
nightmares.  But now it's time to ask the question, "How much privacy are we 
entitled to in a public place?"

A number of recent news articles and commentaries have decried the potential for 
employers to locate their employees in real time in the workplace.  This, some 
insist, is a gross invasion of personal privacy.  The logic of their fear is 
somewhat difficult to grasp.  After all, this is a work place, not a private 
club or home.

The scariest scenarios most of these negative reports paint is of companies 
monitoring an employee's bathroom use or noticing that a "pink" tag and a "blue" 
tag routinely visit the store room during lunch.

In the first scenario, it's also possible to look at this as tracking how much 
time an employee spends away from his or her work station, in other words, time 
not working.  In the second scenario, this might well be a case of entirely 
inappropriate office behavior that might be cause for dismissal.  In both of 
these cases, the employer has a right to know what employees are doing on 
company time -- just as they have to right to block access to pornographic web 
site access from company computers.

One has to ask whether critics who assert that employers are "spying" on their 
employees by determining their whereabouts would feel that it was "spying" to 
monitor a contractor in their own home who is billing for their work by the 
hour.  Or would they simply insist they're just making sure they're not being 
overcharged?  Is there a difference because of the scale of the monitoring, 
technology used or who's doing it?

These so-called privacy concerns also ignore some other important scenarios.

In an emergency evacuation (fire, bomb threat, etc.) it would be good to know 
where people were, who got out of the building and, more importantly, who might 
still be trapped inside.

There are times when being able to locate a particular individual who's not at 
his or her desk can be important (or critical in a healthcare facility) to 
handle a call or answer a question.

In some workplaces, it may be important to monitor who's in a secure area where 
visitors and even some employees aren't allowed without an escort.

The airline passenger tracking application is another example of how "privacy" 
is bandied about loosely without much consideration to the actual location or 
application.

Personal privacy in an airport, bus terminal or rail or subway station may be a 
bit of an oxymoron.  People are in a public place -- public being the operative 
word.

Airlines want to be able to be able to locate passengers who have not arrived at 
the gate for their flight.  Knowing the person's location, the airline could 
send someone to alert the passenger that the plane is boarding.  This could help 
ensure that passengers don't miss their flights -- a benefit to the consumer. 
Or, if the passenger isn't in the terminal, it could help clear the stand-by 
list more quickly.


More importantly, if a passenger does not board a flight, that passenger's 
checked luggage must be removed from the plane for security purposes.  If a 
passenger leaves the airport, the airline could be alerted and the baggage could 
be located and removed before boarding time.  If the passenger subsequently 
shows up, the baggage could be reloaded.  In essence, the process could be 
"invisible" to the other passengers while increasing their security and helping 
avoid delays.

It should also be noted that both of these applications have been publicized as 
being broadly applicable, as initial marketing releases tend to do.  It is 
likely that these won't be universally implemented and that the airport 
application may well initially be an opt-in service.  As consumer convenience, 
safety and other benefits are better understood by the public, these types of 
systems may, in fact, be embraced by consumers.

The notion of privacy in a public place is, by definition, rather limited.  One 
has the right to expect privacy of one's person and possessions but, beyond 
that, it's a matter of common sense to realize that, no, you can't expect 
complete privacy when you're in an office, airport or other public place.