ITBusiness.ca has an article entitled Privacy expert highlights risks of implanting chips in patients that talks about implanting microchips in patients for various reasons.

The article discusses a presentation made to a conference on electronic health information by Prof. Ian Kerr.

Its an interesting read. As is often the case with new technology – especially that meant to capture or store information – there can be significant benefits, but also significant potential for abuse of privacy, security or other matters.

Its important to raise these issues and have these debates before such technology is widely deployed, as the way they are implemented is crucial to minimizing the risks.

Read the ITCanada.ca article

RFID by itself is not a privacy problem. Its how its implemented that counts. There have been a number of comments on RFID and privacy recenty by various privacy commissioners and others. What needs to happen is for attention to be paid to privacy issues when designing RFID systems, and not as an afterthought.

Take a look at a post by David Fraser in his Canadian Privacy Law Blog. He refers to a recent Globe article and says: (and I agree) I find these articles to be interesting, but often overstate the threat that RFID poses in Canada. Most of the concern is that item-level tagging of purchased items will lead to the ability to track individuals once they have left the store. While this might theoretically be possible, the advent of a new technology does not mean that Canadian laws go out the window.

Read David’s post

The Ontario Privacy Commissioner released her annual report yesterday on activities from 2005 and current concerns.

Issues include the need for governemtns to be more transparent about the details of contracts for goods and services, RFID, and document destruction.

Read the press release

Read the annual report

David Canton – For the London Free Press – June 10, 2006

Read this on Canoe

Radio frequency identification is used in various technologies that use radio waves to identify people or objects. RFID has practical applications that can be of benefit to consumers, businesses and government, but also raises privacy concerns when its use enables parties to obtain personally identifiable information.

Many of us have already used RFID technology for things such as opening parking garage gates, office building locks or to buy gas.

A group of businesses and consumer advocates have recently developed a guideline designed to promote consumer privacy in the implementation of RFID.

An RFID tag is a small object that can be attached or incorporated into a product, animal or person. RFID tags contain microchips and antennas to receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from an RFID transceiver. The reader can be mere inches or several feet away, depending on the technology used.

RFID can be used to keep track of objects, or people, providing services or as an internal component of a product or device. RFID systems can be used just about anywhere, from clothing tags to missiles to pet tags to food — anywhere a unique identification system is needed.

For example, RFID systems are being used in some hospitals to track a patient’s location and to keep track of the location of doctors, nurses and expensive equipment. RFID tags can also be injected in animals – or even people — through a syringe. In the future, it is expected that RFID will be attached to consumer products in order to track the products from manufacturer to a store and right to the consumer’s home.

RFID raises privacy concerns, particularly when its use enables parties to obtain personally identifiable information, such as a person’s location, what products a person has, what services a person uses, or many other possibilities.

Representatives from various consumer groups and businesses, including Microsoft and IBM, under the leadership of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), recently undertook an extensive analysis of RFID and developed guidelines on use of the technology in an effort to address privacy concerns and reduce concerns about using it.

The CDT guidelines are based upon three general principles that can be applied to allay privacy concerns on RFID technology.

The first principle is that of technology neutrality. This principle states that RFID technology in and of itself does not pose threats to privacy, but rather that privacy breaches occur when RFID technology is deployed in an irresponsible way that does not promote privacy protection.

The second principle urges the concept of privacy and security as primary design requirements. It states that privacy and security must be addressed as part of the initial design of the technology, rather than retrofitting RFID systems to respond to privacy and security concerns.

The third principle relates to consumer transparency. It says there should be no secret RFID tags or readers and that use of the technology should be as transparent as possible. Notice to consumers is an essential element of this, but the guidelines go further to say that notice must be supplemented by thoughtful, robust implementation of responsible information practices. Consumers should be given clear, conspicuous and concise notice when information is collected through an RFID system.

While RFID technology may benefit the consumer, the businessperson and the government alike, privacy and security are essential issues that must be addressed. Even the perception that privacy problems exist with the technology will make it hard to implement the technology in consumer applications.

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – May 7, 2005

Read this on Canoe

RFID (radio frequency identification) tags have been getting a lot of attention lately from those who fear using them to track goods could pose privacy problems.

An example of a use that should pose little privacy concern is for food traceability.

Think of the advantage of being able to trace where an animal or some produce has been in its lifetime. Given the mad cow disease scares of the last couple of years, this may be an attractive solution.

(more…)

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – March 19, 2005

Read this on Canoe

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, governments began looking for solutions to identification problems that had plagued them for decades.

The United Kingdom and the United States suggested introducing national identification cards and driver’s licences respectively with “smart card” radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies. Canada has also considered the idea.

Such cards would combine all government-issued documents onto one card. When they were used, they would be authenticated by means such as a photo or biometrics stored in a government-created database.

(more…)

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – March 12, 2005

Read this on Canoe

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding a California grade school’s decision to implement an RFID student tracking program. The debate is whether this use of RFID technology is a great security measure or a creepy intrusion of privacy.

Brittan elementary school entered into an agreement with a company that developed the InClass RFID System, allowing testing of this application in its school.

Scanners were installed over doorways leading into classrooms, the cafeteria, etc., and the students were required to wear RFID-enabled identification badges around their necks. The information recorded by the scanner as a student passed under it was sent to a server in the school’s office and then to a teacher’s PDA, identifying the students that entered their classroom.

(more…)