[LINK] RFID & Privacy

[Geoffrey Ramadan]

stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> At 11:42 PM 22/10/2006, Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
>
>   
>>>>> what rights do prisoners have re RFID privacy?
>>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=bf-Jt4fQ8ZrssxZaGu5w1dA
>>>>>           
>>>>      
>>>> I would argue none..
>>>> RFID is a more effective and safer way of doing what they are
>>>> already doing (which is being constantly monitored and restrained)
>>>>         
>>> By that I mean, RFID-ing people, is not covered at all.
>>>       
>> Surely the principles outline cover this and are still applicable,
>> regardless to who or what you attach it to.
>>
>> I don't think you want to restrict the guidelines to specific use
>> of RFID.
>>     
>
> Things don't object to wearing RFIDs .. but people might.
>
> Why not an industry code on human-tags to limit memory?
>
>   
>> all they want to do. is identify the Prisoner and track him. Not
>> link it to any other personal data.
>>     
>
> So, an industry code of ethics limit of 16 characters for human tags
> would be fine then.
>   
Memory on RFID tags is very limited anyway. And more so on passive tags

Also, not all tags have memory, only ID.

Though I  can  imagine there is some value in having  user r/w memory  
on RFID tags. eg. mining company, machine or location access authority 
could be also programmed into a RFID tag in the case that a reader has 
no access to a database.

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


> It'd be remarkably easy to legislate this, together with laws for yes/no
> only readers for human tags, but much better CSR if industry initiated. 
>
> Regards, Geoff
> Stephen Loosley
> Melbourne, Australia
>