RIFD

[AYOUB]

Chips with everything

 

It's a spying revolution where everything about you can be tracked and traced. An antenna can be planted in credit cards, cheque books and the smallest consumer goods. But is it a big boon or a big brother nightmare? Mary O'Hara reports

 

Saturday January 24, 2004

The Guardian

 

Imagine if the instant you stepped over the threshold of your bank a tiny antenna hidden in your ATM card could broadcast what you had in your wallet, who you are, and how much you had in your account. And imagine the bank then used this information to decide if you should be treated as a valued customer.

Imagine, also, that just from your physical presence it knew all this before you even made it to the teller, and that not a single word had been exchanged. But if you imagine that this is sci-fi pie in the sky, think again.

 

Jobs & Money has learned that the testing of a wireless technology that can do just this is already underway in Germany.

 

Welcome to the "spy chip" revolution, where everything from the money in your pocket to the shoes on your feet could contain a miniature chip with an antenna capable of tracking whatever you spend and wherever you spend it.

 

This is the unnerving vision of a new generation of consumer campaigners who claim that the development of the technology - RFID or Radio Frequency Identification - will profoundly transform the lives of consumers across the globe in under a decade.

 

And they are worried that much of the trialling, and the assessment of the possible impact on consumers, is being done behind closed doors without ongoing government or consumer scrutiny.

 

The chips work by transmitting low range radio signals to scanners - in the case of banks, a scanner concealed in a doorway could use the information sent by the chip in your card to tell a central database that you are approaching. This is because the signals transmit a unique identification number or EPC (Electronic Product Code) that would identify that a credit card or cheque book registered to you is approaching.

 

RFID chips have been around since the 1960s in less sophisticated forms.

 

However, when a research unit at the prestigious US university the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) joined forces with a number of big corporations to refine the technology, the outcome was smaller, and cheaper chips and antenna.

 

As a result, it is now possible to implant the antenna in the smallest of consumer goods as well as in money, credit cards and cheque books. More and more companies are assessing what the chips can do for them.

 

The embedding of the antenna in individual items is not yet commonplace - they have so far mainly been used by companies to track palettes of goods through the distribution chain and have been concentrated in the retail sector.

 

Large, global firms such as Wal-mart, Procter & Gamble and Philips have all been experimenting with RFID either on palettes or individual items.

 

However, campaigners warn that widespread implanting on smaller items including bank notes and credit cards is just around the corner.

 

Katherine Albrecht, a doctoral student at Harvard and founder of Caspian (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering), the protest group leading the charge, is blunt. "Businesses claim RFID is nothing but an updated bar code, but this is just not true. We do not have a problem with the use of RFID on palettes, but we think there needs to be some serious research into the implication of putting chips in individual items.

 

"Fast-forward 10 years and a person could be going into a store, or even a government building or bank, and scanners could pick up the EPC of everything in that person's purse. Its like an automatic profiling - an electronic frisk without even being aware of it."

 

Her counterpart in the UK, Chris McDermot who runs "Notags" says: "I think it's important that we stimulate a debate. No one is saying there aren't potential benefits to this sort of development, but consumers need to be informed about how it might affect them. It is the potential misuses that need to be assessed." The campaigners have been dismissed by some corporate champions of RFID as scare-mongering, exaggerating, luddites.

 

But what is really happening and if something is at stake, what is it?

 

A great deal of mystery surrounds RFID and there is little consensus on whether its reach will extend to financial services. Plus, there is widespread confusion about what the technology is actually capable of.

 

Lets take the consumer advocate's side of the debate. They point to a series of potentially ominous misuses such as the fact that the chips and antennae are so small as to be virtually undetectable and that consumers could have no idea if something is tagged or not.

 

They claim that because the individual chip numbers would need to be stored centrally on a database, it could potentially be hacked into by criminals.

 

They also worry that because the chips can be read by scanners at a distance (at present around 5ft-20ft depending on the type of chip) this could lead to a situation where walking past a transmitter in a shop could trigger the shop to try to sell you goods.

 

Take this scenario: If the scanner knows you are outside a supermarket and you are a member of their loyalty card scheme, the chip number could be picked up, transmitted to a database that then triggers a text message to your phone trying to sell you something.

 

Defenders argue this is all speculation. Some claim that the above scenario would be impossible because the chips can be disabled. Campaigners counter that the technology does not exist to disable the chips.

 

A spokeswoman for M&S, which recently trialled RFID in men's clothes, says it's about being open. M&S, (unlike Benetton, which recently withdrew from embedding chips in clothes after a global protest) says they were merely on labels that were removed before customers left the store.

 

So how worried should we be? The companies who have stumped up the cash to either develop, or use, RFID tags say it's all about improving efficiency and making more money. They argue consumers will benefit from better service and that savings made will be passed in lower prices.

 

Many companies say they have no intention of individual item tagging anyway, and are happy to stick with palettes in store rooms.

 

But if RFID is adopted in earnest by banks, when people carry items such as credit cards with them all the time, and, where unless they are stolen, can be traced back to them, there could be yet unexplored ramifications. Campaigners say it's not enough to rely on companies policing themselves with such a potentially all-encompassing technology.

 

It is for this reason that Tom Watson, MP is tabling an adjournment debate on the issue in Parliament on Tuesday. And it is the reason why the National Consumer Council will hold the first summit on its impact in two weeks.

 

That representatives from the DTI, major retailers (including Marks & Spencer), civil liberty groups, and campaigners are expected to attend, is a sign of how seriously the issue is taken.

 

Until now, for example, the only involvement from government has been the Home Office's attempt to establish if use of RFID will help reduce theft and fraud. Jill Johnstone, head of policy at NCC says: "So far there has been some discussion about particular uses - but little about the risks and benefits.

 

"Now retailers are extending the use from tracking stock to tracking sales out of the store, it is high time those risks and benefits were discussed openly."

 

What exactly is RFID?

 

Radio Frequency Identification is a wireless technology. In its latest form, it is a tiny computer chip connected to a miniature antenna that is attached to, or embedded in objects. This is done via a tag pasted on to an object or even sewn into fabric. They are sometimes called "spy chips", or "spy tags".

 

The type of chips commonly being tested by companies contain a unique stored number, meaning the chip in effect identifies the product to which it is attached as that specific product. When chips are in the vicinity of scanners they will transmit this stored code to the scanner meaning the whereabouts of the item can be pinpointed.

 

Where have they been used to date?

 

A number of large companies have been testing or using the technology to monitor the movements of palettes of goods in the distribution process. They have used the tags to seal the chip and antenna to batches of goods rather than individual items.

 

The US government has even used them to track the movement of troops' supplies.

 

But a controversy erupted when steps toward tagging individual items emerged.

 

For example, Benetton embedded chips in some clothes last year. Gillette was also criticised when it attached tags to Mach3 razor packages which involved the chips' antennae triggering a camera each time a shopper took a package off the shelf, and later at the check-out.

 

What are the possible uses for RFID?

 

As the technology has become more sophisticated, companies such as Wal-Mart in the US and M&S in the UK have begun to consider how they could use it to increase efficiency and cut costs. However, it is now possible that sectors other than retail are jumping on board with the chips now able to be implanted on bank notes and cards.

 

A number of European banks have expressed an interest in exploring how it might be used, perhaps as a way of marketing a range of financial products.

 

And the Home Office has pumped £5.5m into a project collaborating with business to assess whether RFID can be useful in theft and fraud prevention.

 

Why are they controversial and who is against them?

 

Consumer groups are calling for the possible impact of the chips to be looked at seriously by government because they fear that the technology is moving so rapidly it could be detrimental to consumer rights and privacy. They argue that without regulation, RFID could be open to abuse.

 

They also object to companies experimenting with it behind closed doors without considering how it might effect individuals, or, in some cases, without informing them. A US-based group, Caspian (www.nocards.org) has been spearheading the campaign. The group believes that giving every item on the planet a unique code and then storing them on a single database could have "profound societal implications".

 

What are the possible benefits?

 

Even the critics see that there are some potential upsides to the chips. Cheaper versions of RIFD have enabled firms to buy in bulk. Proponents are convinced that by attaching the tags to palettes it then means goods can be tracked from the minute they leave the factory to when they arrive at a store.

 

It is faster, more efficient, and cheaper, they say.

 

And those who are experimenting with the chips on individual items say it can drastically improve stock monitoring and make life easier for staff.

 

They also say that possible negatives can be avoided if ways to disable the antenna before someone leaves the shop can be introduced. The retailers believe the tags may deter thieves and say they are not about snooping.

 

For example, the Gillette experiment hoped to clamp down on theft. There is also the argument that embedding chips in a credit cards could reduce theft if criminals believed RFID could be used to trace them. And, it may be possible one day to use information stored on the chips as a way of finding out more about the product being bought.

 

For example, a supermarket customer buying a piece of organic meat may one day be able to swipe the package at a scanner and get the full history of the product from farm to shelf.

 

 

CHIPS WITH EVERYTHING