Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement


Most Commented

Crosscut articles of the past 10 days with the most reader comments.

Fixing our big flat tire
(33 comments)

Sound Transit showdown
(21 comments)

More fun than Deliverance!
(7 comments)

In Maine, banks are involved in Seattle Times Co. decisions
(7 comments)

In the garden: U-pick blueberries
(7 comments)

Helpful policy tips for Dino Rossi
(5 comments)

The geekiest arsonist
(4 comments)

Presto! A Seattle parks levy!
(4 comments)

Sausage Links, sex, satire, and rock 'n' roll edition
(3 comments)

Lesson in laughter
(3 comments)

Mossback »

Jul 27, 2007 5:00 AM | last updated Jul 27, 2007 6:08 AM
An RFID tag in a passport.

An RFID chip embedded in the page of a passport. (IndyMedia.org)

Advertisement
Advertisement

The microchipping of Washington

Big Brother is in your Nikes. And cows have more privacy than you do in the Evergreen State.

By Knute Berger

Thursday, July 19, the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce and Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington held a forum at the University of Washington law school on radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology and its implications. RFID allows remote scanning, that is scanning for information from a distance.

I've written about RFID before. It's the technology that is being used to collect tolls on the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It will be used in the "enhanced" Washington state driver's licenses available in early 2008. This week, Washington announced that the enhanced license's RFID technology will be provided by Digimarc, the Beaverton, Ore., company that is also providing face-recognition software for Oregon's new biometirc driver's licenses.

RFID is also used by the Seattle Public Library to keep track of books, and a number of local transit agencies are looking to use them in a network of "smart cards."

And it is also controversially used in the new U.S. passports and specified for the new RealID national identity card mandated (but not fully funded) by the federal government.

The chips are ubiquitous, embedded in everything from running shoes to bottles of shampoo. And in what shouldn't be a surprising trend, some members of a generation inured to the permanency of tattoos are allowing nightclubs to implant RFID chips in their bodies.

RFID chips can track products and consumer behavior, and they are used in key and bank cards. Eventually they will enable the seamless tracking of every U.S. citizen and facilitate the aggregation of information about identity, location, consumer habits, financial transactions, medical data, and just about everything else into mineable databases.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer recently carried an excellent Associated Press overview of the "chipping of America," and the The Seattle Times covered the forum.

The privacy and security issues around the technology are significant. Civil libertarians are concerned about invasions of privacy and misuse of data by government and business. To address this, the ACLU of Washington has set up a Technology and Liberty Project to focus on electronic information, privacy, and the future of high-tech's impact on free speech. Washington is just the second state to have such a group.

Beyond growing government power, there is worry that hackers could steal identities or tap into private electronically transmitted information, such as access codes. A group from the University of Washington late last year tested the security of a type of new Nike sneakers, footwear that records user data on a chip in the shoe. That data (running speed, distance, etc.) can then be transmitted to your iPod. The UW researchers intercepted the data and found that by connecting to Google Earth, they could track the wearer. Now stylish, sporty ankle bracelets aren't just for convicted felons anymore.

RFID technology is evolving, tech companies are starting to address security concerns, and a cottage industry has sprouted offering RFID countermeasures. You can, for example, buy scan-proof wallets. (Or you can make your own aluminum foil-lined duct-tape wallet with help from the Internet.)

In Washington, lawmakers tried to pass a bill last session that would have regulated use of RFID chips. State Rep. Jeff Morris, D-Mount Vernon, Rep. Zack Hudgins, D-Tukwila, and Rep. Deb Eddy, D-Kirkland, spoke at the forum and detailed their experiences trying to write rules for an emerging technology, to educate their colleagues, and to get a bill passed to safeguard consumers. Morris, who is chair of the House Technology, Energy, and Communications Committee, described their efforts as an attempt to get a sense of "where the guard rails should be" in protecting the public. He had hoped at the very least that legislation would require the use of RFID chips in products be disclosed to consumers.

But, Morris said, backers of the RFID bill ran into "vehement" opposition from lobbyists. They included representatives from the cell-phone industry, the American Electronics Association, EPCglobal, and Hewlett-Packard.

Morris likened watching business interests descend on the bill to watching a pride of lions take down a zebra on the savannah. They were able to scare many freshman legislators from supporting the bill by raising doubts about whether or not this was the time to be regulating new technology.

The bill failed. There is some talk about waiting until federal or industry standards for RFID are in place before acting again. But many are skeptical about industry's ability to watchdog itself. Morris says it can take two to four years to get a bill like this passed. California passed a bill last year limiting the use of RFID by government agencies, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. The legislation will be revived.

Rep. Hudgins, a former Amazon and Microsoft employee, said that it's difficult to pass laws like this until something captures the public's attention. He noted that here a "guy ran into someone" while text messaging, so the Legislature made it illegal to text-message while driving.

Maybe the equivalent will have to happen with RFID before the public takes the risks seriously. In California, it was outrage in the so-called "Sutter case," where a school and a technology company cut a deal to tag children with trackable IDs, that helped get attention and support for RFID regulation.

Morris said the only anti-RFID bill that passed here was one that restricted its use in tagging cows.

So you can sleep well knowing that Washington state livestock are safeguarded from unwarranted intrusions on their grazing. Until a bill for people passes, the citizens of Washington can just say "moo."

  • Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.
Comments
"Mr. Mossback, those new Gap jeans that you like are now in stock..."
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jul 27, 2007 7:28 AM
Crosscut WriterAnyone who's ever seen the movie "Minority Report" probably felt slightly uncomfortable at the prospect of walking through a mall and having every store recognize you by way of retinal scanners or other similar devices. While that may be the wave of the future and something about which to be concerned lest you hear while walking by Victoria's Secret with the size 18 missus, "Aren't you coming in to pick up the size 10 teddy you ordered for Lucinda?" the real issue won't be with grocery stores tracking your purchases or chips in shoes or some such, it will be with the very entity we look to for protection from all this stuff: government.

It has to be axiomatic that whatever government is up to, at its bottom it's no good. If government gets too deep into RFID claiming it's protecting us from business' use of the technology, you can bet your last freedom it intends to use that technology to the max down to having it rat you out if you throw even one dirty paper napkin in your recycle-only bin. Crime of the century that, eh what?

What we abhor and rail about when done by a business, we regard with nonchalance when done by government. Yet ultimately government, and only government, has the power to forcibly take or imprison, the Constitution be damned.

Lest any among you say, "Pshaw!" ask a landowner who's property was subject to a taking by an elastic stretch of emminent domain for some ostensible public purpose like a...shopping mall. Even in Washington State, takings happened that weren't truly "public" in nature when the taken property ended up getting sold to private interests at substantial profit to the governmental agency that took it in the first place. The original landowner, of course, got nothing of that substantial profit.

Governmental agencies in this state cover their tracks. Like cats in their box they do it quickly. One cute trick in use for a long time was to make sure every time a communication was issued some lawyer's name was prominently included in the "to" or "cc" field thus making it immune from public disclosure as a privileged attorney-client communication.

Transparency in government isn't in government's intererst, and government interests fight it at every turn. I can choose not to buy Nike sneakers embedded with RFID technology; besides, they probably won't be sold at TJMax or an outlet mall anytime soon. But I don't get a choice when it comes to government. The blunt-object monopoly over certain services, programs, and functions government has over our lives precludes us from exercising one of life's ultimate freedoms: alternatives. No margarine versus butter here.

I don't mind government using technology to track prisoners (you gotta love those ankle bracelets), collect tolls, or otherwise improve the cost-effective delivery of services. But I fear government abuse, and I hope every freedom loving citizen shares that fear.

As the wag said, "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

While concern over intrusive use of RFID technology by Bank of America or Allstate insurance is a legitimate topic of discussion, absolute fear over what will be - not might be, but will be - the abuse of it by government demands action now!

Us chickens who think that fox lurking behind the henhouse has our best interests in mind deserve all that's coming to us if when we accept his invitation to go back there and canoodle.

The Piper
Well, okay, as far as you went ...
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Jul 27, 2007 9:51 AM
Knute, in questions distributed before the event, legislators were asked to address the pros and cons of using RFID in public services. The failed bill discussed at length in this post dealt only with private, mostly retail, uses; government and medical uses were entirely exempt from HB 1031.

As I stated in my remarks at the symposium, we in government may have much better result in identifying the "guard rails" of data collection and usage, if we first analyze government's use of RFID. The limitations that we are willing to impose on ourselves will provide a template for what we can reasonably require of the private sector.

To that end, I'm looking at legislation directed first at government, the retention of tolling records, potential insecurities with the "enhanced" drivers' license (a back-door REAL ID, if there ever was one!) and other issues concerning linkage and disclosure. A bill that I sponsored last year that would have limited the copying of government-issued IDs (a source of ID theft) didn't even get a hearing, so we'll try that one, again.

Other than a few anecdotal human anti-chipping laws, no state has been able to establish a good policy agenda for RFID. But here in Washington, we've got continued interest and an improving analytic approach, I think, that will help us settle on those legislative "guard rails".

Deb Eddy
RE: Well, okay, as far as you went ...
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jul 27, 2007 10:22 AM
Crosscut WriterRed, blue, left, right, R, D, liberal, conservative...This is something we all need to support and join hands on.

Governmental use of RFID may start out benign, but it won't end up benign. Big Brother is lusting in his heart for this technology with which to watch over all of us.

The Piper
RFID FUD can get out of hand.
Report a violationPosted by: cwesley on Jul 27, 2007 12:57 PM
Editor's Pick There is a lot of FUD about RFID, but the technology, like all technologies, is as secure as you make it. For many reasons, I think that the fear mongering that has associated RFID is generally misplaced.

As for security, RFID is a localized technology. You have to be within a few yards of readers, and even that is further reduced when you have things like walls in buildings or metal in cars between the RFID tag and the reader. So unless the government is going to put an RFID reader on every lampost the feasibility of "seamless tracking of every U.S. citizen and facilitate the aggregation of information about identity" is extremely remote.

This kind of hyperbole is especially ironic given the fact that the US government ALREADY has access to all of this kind of data in much greater volume with less overhead via "secret rooms" they have set up across the country in ISP data centers.

If you're afraid of the government knowing what you're doing, RFID doesn't matter. They already know, anyway.

That said, personal information doesn't even need to be embedded within the RFID chip itself -- a GUID (global unique identifier) could be the only information stored locally, leaving it up to the government system to store your name, age, SSN, etc in a database. The reader would send your GUID to the subsystem that communicates with the database and then perform the required action. All of the sensitive operations would be done behind the existing firewalls--all RFID does is offer a different mechanism for authorization.

Even IF you had to store personal information locally, it could be encrypted so that even if you read every RFID-enabled ID that passed through a checkpoint without the key you couldn't decrypt and read the information anyway. The most you could tell would be that the same indivdiual passed through x times--even then you would't automatically KNOW who it was.

Could RFID technology be abused? Absolutely. If it is implemented in an irresponsible manner.

But should we not use the technology to increase convenience and efficiency simply because there is risk, even though it can be mitigated? Absolutely not.

If anyone is interested, I've found this to have a lot of interesting information about RFID.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement