RFID in Libraries

SecureID News reports on press conference held by California Senator Joe Simitian for RFID industry professionals.

Simitian, as you may recall, was the author of the state RFID privacy bill which has been stalled since August 2005. According to the article, the bill is still being revised. Simitian was meeting with the industry in order to assauge fears that the bill will affect their business.

An interesting comment on the SB 682 developments over on Mary’s blog which provides a peek at the mindset of one pro-RFID person.

It’s strongly worded. I’m very interested in the passion displayed at both ends of the spectrum with this debate. However will we develop solutions if phrases like, “they lied,” or “they tried to pull a fast one,” are bandied about? This commenter is similar in tone to Warfield and the other contra RFID voices given so much prominence by the Berkeley Daily Planet.

California Senate Bill 682, the Identity Information Protection Act, was tabled by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

This is a big blow for proponents and indiciative of how much sway the industry lobbyists have.

The Simitian Identity Information Protection Act of 2005 has been amended once again and re-referred to committee. Based on my cursory reading it appears as if most of the changes this time around are cosmetic fixes to the wording. I’ll need to go through it more carefully to be sure, however.

Cory Doctrow is reccomending that Californians support SB 682, calling it “very sensible.”

The EFF and ACLU are also behind the bill.

Doctrow says that the bill has been watered down by supporters of the RFID industry (well, that’s sort of obvious given the types of things that have been edited out of the original version. See all the amendments at the California legislative information site).

There have been two additional amendments to the California Identity Information Protection Act of 2005 since Lori reported on amendments made on 6/15/2005.

The bill still prohibits library cards from containing RFID tags but two amendments will affect California libraries. There is now a sunset provision on the library card ban and universities and community colleges were excused from the restrictions on student identification cards. The details are in sec.1798.10(c) of the bill

(more…)

The California Identity Information Protection Act of 2005 (a.k.a. California Senate Bill 682) has passed its Senate readings and has moved on to the State House of Representatives. It also passed its first reading there.

Information is available on the bill and you can subscribe to receive updates.

The bill would make it illegal for government agencies (such as libraries) to issue cards

“containing a contactless integrated circuit or other device that uses radio waves to broadcast personal information or to enable personal information to be scanned remotely, except as specified. “

The original bill has been amended so that,

“its provisions do not apply to existing systems, as defined, in use prior to the effective date of this bill.”

RFID Journal has a good analysis of this amendment. According to that article, the removal of the clause which prescribed that current RFID cards be phased out also removed any of the bill’s fiscal implications. This allowed the bill to go directly to the House without further committee review. It’s also probably why this bill is receiving more bipartisan support than earlier attempts at legislating RFID in California.

As addendum to Margaret’s post about RFID in passports, Internetnews.com is reporting on numerous organizations that are on record as opposing the Real-ID Act. This is the legislation proposes a national driver’s license — and it could very well be RFID enabled. The article quotes Bruce Scheiner of the Counterpane Internet Security:

“Real ID requires driver’s licenses to include a ‘common machine-readable technology.’ This will, of course, make identity theft easier,” Schneier said in a recent blog posting. “Assume that this information will be collected by bars and other businesses, and that it will be resold to companies like ChoicePoint and Acxiom.”

Even worse, Schneier said, the same specification for RFID chips embedded in passports includes details about embedding RFID chips in driver’s licenses, making it an even juicer target for thieves and terrorists.

The ALA Washington Office has a page listing ALA’s official positions official positions on privacy related legislation.

The Act is expected to be signed into law today. If you’re implementing RFID at your library expect to answer more questions from members of your constituency if this story really takes off in the media.

The Progressive Policy Institute, an educational institute which promotes accelerated economic growth and challenging special interests, has issued a report calling RFID privacy concerns “at best premature and at worst hypothetical and impractical.”

Their policy document, Radio Frequency Identification: Little Devices Making Big Waves, disses legislative oversight. Instead they would prefer that the industry self-regulate and step up efforts to educate consumers.

I found my copies of the letters U.S Senator Bill Nelson sent to the FTC and FCC and posted them.

On July 14 the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Sub-committee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (what a mouthful!) held a hearing, “Radio Frequency Indentification (RFID) Technology: What the Future Holds for Commerce, Security and the Consumer.”

Transcripts and prepared testimonies should be available within a month or so. I’ve made links to articles reporting on the hearing in the extended post. Those on both sides of the issue trot out the same arguments we’ve already heard. One thing worth considering, however, is the notion of general privacy legislation covering all types of technologies. The Center for Democracy and Technology advocates such an approach.
(more…)