March 31, 2005

RFID4U and Privacy

Someone emailed me promoting their website, RFID2VIN.com. This is a site created to promote the use of RFID on all vehicles. I touched on something like this before when I mentioned that Great Britain was implementing RFID on license plates.

From RFID2VIN:

RFID and their device holders would be issued by local state Departments of Motor Vehicles. Installation would be done by authorized personnel only. Police could incorporate checks of devices when pulling over motorists for moving violations. It is also suggested that they be examined like motorists are now at “sobriety checkpoints” with these unannounced checkpoints being established solely for this purpose. A quick (non-invasive) verification of the coded RFID media could be accomplished with the use of remote handheld readers--also known as “interrogators” See Figure 2. Inspection of devices could also become a part of the safety inspection for those states having mandatory such inspections at predetermined intervals.

Prohibitive fines could be levied in cases of tampering and/or removal of devices. Drivers who do not report tampering (i.e. broken lens, loss of media, etc.) for any reason could also be subject to large fines.

The website starts out by saying that the tags would be short range (no more than 8 inches?), but I doubt that would be the case if RFID is ever implemented. These "interrogators," as they are so aptly named, could probably be installed along the roadways to check all passing cars against some database and to log where you have been.

I, of course, have to bring this all back to the whole police camera debate...the Nashville Scene printed a couple of letters in reply to their editorial on the police cameras. (By the way...a quick rant to the Scene. You need to set your stories as a static URL when they are first published. Once a new issue comes out, it's impossible to find old articles as the URL changes...but I digress). One person wrote the following:

The key to the whole debate about surveillance cameras targeting traffic and other violators is contained in your first sentence ("Big Brother Serpas," March 24). These cameras are to be installed on public streets. Guess what, there's no privacy, or expectation of privacy, to be violated in public. While I do object to roadblocks without probable cause, anything that will make the morons of Nashville pay attention and drive like they have good sense is welcome.

David Patterson

This notion of no expectation of privacy in a public place was also echoed by the Tennessean's endorsement of Big Brother this past weekend.

The idea that while you are in a public place you should expect to be under the watchful eye of the powers that be is disturbing to me. I'll quote myself by saying, "citizens shouldn't expect to be under the ever present eye of the police. This is America." That's right...America. If I'm obeying the law, I want to be able to walk down the street and drive down the road anonymously without the police knowing who I am or wondering what I am doing.

I don't know...maybe I just have an unrealistic view of freedom.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.