RFID Proposals At Issue In California

Jul 1, 2007 12:00 PM, By Stephanie Silk

Some proposals in the California State Assembly are aimed at keeping government, schools and private businesses from tracking people with the use of radio frequency identification technology (RFID). The assembly passed a related law last year, and it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Here's what some parties with interest in the proposals are saying:

California State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, who introduced the proposals: “Bad people might access the [RFID] information and do bad things with it — could be identity theft, could be stalking, could be profiling — all that is possible. The larger issue has to do with government's use of the information.”

Roxanne Gould, a spokeswoman for the High-Tech Trust Coalition, a lobbying group: “You should go after inappropriate use [of the technology] or unauthorized access. When phones were invented, someone figured out how to tap into them, and as a result, we didn't just get rid of the phones.”

Kathleen Carroll, CIPP, director of Government Relations for HID, a supplier of RFID cards and readers: “This precedent could have a chilling effect on innovations in RF technology that could benefit millions of Californians. Manufacturers of the technology as well as end-users who benefit from the technology's substantial advantages over other identification technologies should be concerned about the bills because they unfairly regulate the use of a specific technology and impose regulations on the use of the technology that could prove harmful. HID Global would strongly support any bill that would increase the civil and criminal penalties associated with the misuse or abuse of RF technology.”

Don Erickson, director of government relations for the Security Industry Association (SIA): “Like his legislative approach last year, Sen. Simitian has chosen to legislate first and study the consequences of that action later through a California Research Bureau study. His approach has little regard for the effect such action would have upon technological advancement or public safety. A glaring example of how this legislation would compromise the security systems supported and designed by our industry is a requirement that the location of readers be publicly disclosed.”

Valerie Small-Navarro of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) California Legislative Office: “Bottom line: There are important privacy issues, and the bill attempts to address those issues. There is a broad spectrum of organizations supporting this, and even a lot of impartial sources say there are issues with RFID, especially placed in government documents. The sky is not falling. If this bill passes, it's not going to stop creativity. There are still a lot of good uses for RFID, but when putting them in government-issued documents that people carry on them, we think it causes privacy issues.”

Sam Paredes, executive director for the Gun Owners of California (GOC): “The very nature of RFID, which is a contactless technology, means that when the system has been breached, the device holder won't know it and therefore won't know to take steps to protect him or herself. [The laws] are far more significant when incorporated in government-issued identity documents that citizens are compelled to carry. Unlike a cell phone or key fob, which may also use RFID technology, citizens don't have a choice over the technology in their driver's license or student ID card. And they generally don't have a meaningful choice to not carry these documents.”

THE CALIFORNIA BILLS

Here is a list of the bills that have passed out of the Judiciary Committee in the California Assembly at press time:

• SB28 would prevent the DMV from using RFID in driver's licenses for three years.

• SB29 would bar K-12 public schools from using RFID to track, monitor or record students for three years.

• SB30 would establish fundamental protections for any government-issued ID, by telling the cardholders the kind of information contained in the card, and revealing the type of technology built into that tag.

• SB362 would prohibit a person from requiring, coercing or compelling anyone to undergo subcutaneous implanting of an identification device.

• SB388, by state Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, Calif., would allow an individual to sue the maker of RFID equipment used in scanning their personal information.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue