Citing needs to address public concerns over privacy and data usage, the EU has committed to draft rules on RFID use “before they become widespread” in Europe. One wonders if they realize how widespread the use is in libraries, or if they only looked at industrial/commercial use. Anecdotal evidence stateside is that European libraries have invested heavily in RFID technologies.
Globe & Mail article here
Don’s blog comment here, and links to the ALA resolutions relating to RFID.
A cool little article from Wired News about artists embedding RFID tags into objects as commentary on ubiquitous wireless. I learned a few new terms courtesy of Bruce Sterling, one of my fave sci-fi authors. Objects with RFID tags are “spime” because they can be tracked through space & time. Apparently Sterling says arphids and not arreffeyedee when pronouncing the acronym. Who knew?
I can’t believe I’ve been missing this. The ever-amusing Unshelved comic has been running a series on RFID. That will teach me to avoid my aggregator for a couple of days. I’ll have more to say about my sporadic postings soon.
The Research and Markets firm has released “Best Practices of Public Library Information Technology Directors.”
The findings were based on interviews with several large public library tech directors. Regarding RFID they conclude:
Libraries that are using RFID automated book check out technology appear to be divided into two camps: those which hesitate in implementing the technology, and those which essentially limit or eliminate non-automated check out, literally compelling patrons to adjust to the new technology. All of those that had taken the latter approach were glad that they had.
An editorial today in the San Francisco Chronicle favors the adoption of SB 682.
Library Journal has a nice little write up of the Seattle Public Library’s automatic sorting system. The system uses RFID. The library had to hire additional staff to work the machines, contrary to the claims of some RFID opponents who say that RFID is used to replace expensive human labor.
The Minneapolis-St.Paul Star Tribune has a piece on library RFID. It’s of interest, not because of RFID details, but because it’s an example of non-library media coverage of library RFID. There is nothing about privacy or return on investment (unless you count the part about needing to do more with less). Compare and contrast with Berkeley.
My reports on RFID sessions from ALA are available on the LITA blog.
Tiny Trackers: Protecting Privacy in a RFID World
Radio Frequency Identification Technology in Libraries - Meeting with the RFID Experts
This article discusses some additional uses of 13.56 MHz RFID tags, in relationship to the State Deptartment’s recent decision to use RFID in passports, and the ensuing uproar from various quarters, including the ACLU. Probably useful background information for if you get privacy advocates giving you grief about some of the misconceptions they have read in the press about RFID.
http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/templates/aiminsights.asp?articleid=363&zoneid=26
The April 2005 American Libraries (p. 13) reports on the stresses Jackie Griffin, director of Berkeley Public Library, is encountering over her staff and the public linking staff layoffs with the purchase of RFID tags. Also mentioned is the CA SB682 described by Laura a few weeks ago.
I’ve got a bit of ranting to do about the most recent commentary in the Berkeley Daily Planet from anti-RFID activists Peter Warfield and Lee Tien. Full disclosure: I’m neither pro or con on RFID. I think the privacy concerns are valid and return on investment is poorly documented. Yet, I also believe the technology holds promise for improving service to library users. My fence-sitting advice to librarians considering RFID is “tread carefully.” This shouldn’t be news to anybody that read my fall 2004 netConnect article.
Any decision a librarian makes on RFID should be supported by facts. A list of particulars without context doesn’t do anybody any good. I question the Daily Planet’s ability to be unbiased in their reporting of this ongoing story. Some of Warfield and Tien’s reasoning is specious and should not be left to stand without question.
(more…)
The Berkeley Daily Planet has published another commentary by anti-RFID activists Peter Warfield and Lee Tien. I’ve got quite a bit to say about it, but I’ll refrain until I can do a bit of fact-checking. I think there are problems with some of their points and good rebuttals to others. Stay tuned.
The top story in today’s Berkeley Daily planet reports on the appointment of a new trustee to the library board. Ying Lee, who opposes the decision to use RFID, said she didn’t know enough about Jackie Griffin’s plans to comment on the budget.
The article does say that the board will be having a community meeting on April 12 to discuss RFID and proposed staff layoffs.
I’ve been predicting that such a meeting would happen and I’m glad to see that it is. The library needs some good PR. Yes there are privacy issues with RFID. No doubt about it. I think, however, that the media coverage is conflating the issues with the staff layoff situation. If the board is able to get the budget numbers out to the people along with how those numbers were generated/obtained then folks will see that Jackie and the board have made decisions based upon their needs. They are not installing RFID due to technolust or a grand desire to eliminate staff.
Evaulation is going to be the key to long term public acceptance of those decisions. Hard numbers to illustrate the decrease in workers comp costs and qualitative studies about patron satisfaction with customer service will demonstrate that RFID was (or wasn’t?) worth it.
The 11/30 Dilbert strip mentions RFID. Can increasing consumer awareness be far behind??
San Francisco Public Library’s quest to install RFID is once again in the news. Local radio reports that the $300,000 plan to pilot RFID is currently on hold. The SF Board of Supervisors will revisit the issue in January.
All of the familiar players are quoted. Expect another contentious board meeting in the near future.
The 5/6/2004 episode of California Connected is archived. You can view the video segment discussing RFID. Also included: a transcript of a web salon discussion and an interactive feature involving a “promiscous chip.” [scroll down to view]
The fall 2004 Library Journal netConnect supplement is out. The focus this quarter is on RFID. Yours truly wrote a couple of articles. I’ll have another article coming out soon in College & Research Library News.
CNET weighs in on library RFID. It’s mostly the same old, same old. Of note: they mention the BISG and ALA RFID best practices, saying they have been released. I hadn’t yet seen this anywhere, although I did mention it in my 7/2/2004 post with a promise to scan and post my print copy. I didn’t do it. I’m horrible. A thousand lashes with a wet noodle for me.
I did a bit of poking around on the BISG site and found a ccompleted draft had been posted. On August 18. I wonder why ALA hasn’t made any big noises about it. It may have been announced on their Intellectual Freedom email list, but I’m not a subscriber (soon to be rectified, you can be assured dear reader). It hasn’t been mentioned on the Office of Intellectual Freedom’s RFID page nor has it garnered a link on the ALA RFID Fact Sheet. Perhaps we’ll hear something when the guidelines are ratified.
The other noteworthy part of the CNET article is the goals attributed to Vinod Chachra of VTLS
The real shakeup could come many years from now, when RFID completely transforms the way libraries operate, if you buy into Chachra’s grand plan. He envisions a day when libraries completely do away with the time-tested Dewey Decimal classification system, opting instead for a sort of organized chaos governed by the vigilant and unblinking eye of RFID.
Never going to happen. Somebody please explain the priciples of serendipity and collocation to this man!
Another article on the 9/19 protest held outside of the San Francisco public library. It provides more detail on what the city could do with the $300,000 it’s holding for the library’s RFID project while the library prepares its analysis. Once again, it’s not much news. It does provide a bit more perspective on the public relations issues that face SFPL.
Sonia Arrison writes a commentary for TechNewsWorld in which she discusses Senator Byron Dorgan’s (D-North Dakota) call for federal government to get involved with RFID development.
Arrison comes out against legislating the technology since “there is no current harm taking place as a result of RFID.”
I don’t think this is a very strong argument. Do you wait for a burglery before you lock your house up? Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel. I think industry proponents should be proactive in developing best practices if they don’t want legislators to intervene. The privacy issue is a political issue and politicians will make hay from it as protests like San Francisco’s continue.
I don’t know whether there should be intervention or not, but I’d like to see more developed arguments on both sides of the issue.
I’m a bit sad that I was away and missed Scott Carlson’s call while he was writing this article for the Chronicle of Higher Education. He did leave a nice voice mail, however. Thanks Scott for thinking of this blog.
The best feature of this piece is the hard figures attached to ROI. Carlson writes:
The University of Nevada libraries found more than 500 lost items after officials tagged 600,000 items in its collection — which saved the library $40,000 in replacement costs. The library does inventories more frequently now. At the University of Connecticut, RFID tags have allowed the library to set up self-checkout stations. That has freed up staff members, whose salaries total about $120,000, for other tasks around the library.
Now I’m not entirely certain that staff salaries can be considered ROI. Unless staff was laid off you would have to pay those salaries anyway. The benefit here is not one of savings but opportunity-cost. By reassigning staff you have more opportunity to serve users. A study of user satisfaction or tracking of reference transactions might provide some quantification of the benefits. I’m not saying that the freeing up of staff isn’t a benefit. Surely it is. I only question where the ROI is being applied. Connecticut and UNLV are on the right track with their examination of benefits. I hope we see more publications from these institutions regarding it.
So. A week ago Salon.com published an article on RFID in Libraries (btw, you need to view an ad or have a subscription in order to read it).
Katherine Mieszkowski does a fairly balanced job or portraying the privacy debate. She says, “The (tag) numbers used aren’t interoperable between libraries now, but does that mean they will never be?”
If we ever hope to use the RFID tag during interlibrary loan they will be.