Kent Oliver introduced the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee session devoted to an open hearing about IFC’s draft of “Guidelines for Implementing RFID in Libraries” from 1:30-3:30 on Saturday 1/21/06 in the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center, Room 217C.
Kent introduced (me) Jim Lichtenberg, chair of the RFID Working Group, jointly sponsored by ALA and the Book Industry Study Group. I outlined the multi-year process that led to the crea-tion of a Privacy Policy in the use of RFID in the publishing value chain, adopted by the ALA Council on January 19, 2005 in Boston as the “Resolution on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology and Privacy Principles.” Both OITP, and IFC have played a tremendously supportive role in this long, and occasionally arduous work. I also had an opportunity to announce upcoming meetings with EPCglobal representatives and the RFID Working Group, as well as the NISO RFID Standards’ Committee to take place Monday in San Antonio.
There followed a lively discussion about the role of guidelines in the early days of a technology, highlighted by comments from Daniel L. Walters, executive director of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District, and current president of the Public Library Association. While support-ing the “well-founded and appropriate” privacy principles of the Council Resolution, Walters stated that the concern of the PLA is that the technology section of the Guidelines as per the current draft, could have a “chilling” effect on libraries who might be interested in exploring or adopting RFID. He opined that this section “prematurely prohibits the uses of RFID,” and that the document “under-represents the benefits of the technology.” The head of the Fayetteville PL noted the extraordinary benefits resulting from their RFID implementation, which has lead to a three-fold increase in circulation.
Some others in the room seconded Walters’ concern about “overly-proscriptive” aspects of the technology sectiom. The implications of this section were almost the sole focus on the 2 hour session.
While supporting the approach to the guidelines generally, I expressed my own concern about the cost of, and the need for, ‘encrypting’ all data on the tag. Currently in US library adoption, all that is carried on a tag is a “dumb barcode,” so even in the highly unlikely event it were read by an unauthorized third party, it remains a meaningless number. Moreover the cost of encrypt-ing data on the RFID tag is significant.
The CEO of the European company, Biblioteca, noted that his company encrypts information on the RFID tags they provide their clients so that there can be no ‘prank’ changes to the informa-tion on the tag. A discussion followed of The Danish Data model for library RFID tags which allows for title and shelf location, to be carried on the tag, as an aid to sorting, shelving, and in-ventory. (This data model was explored in great detail at the NISO RFID Standards’ committee meeting on Monday morning.)
The proposed guideline that would proscribe wireless transmission RFID-related data within the library was also questioned. This was countered, later in the discussion, by the comment that the current lack of security inherent in many library systems and networks carries far more “dan-ger” to patron information than would the use of RFID, even if data were transmitted wirelessly.
In response to these various concerns, it was noted that guidelines, in which IFC has consider-able experience, are always a work in progress and that as technology changes, guidelines will change accordingly. The head of the Berkeley public library cautioned that technology “creeps up on us and that it is essential to be proactive.” The importance of patron and public under-standing was highlighted.
Notwithstanding all the concerns expressed, there seemed to be general recognition of the value of refining these guidelines through another draft. Small lively discussions continued among participants even after the session was formally adjourned.