RFID — the next double-edged sword

A couple of years ago I attended a demonstration at the Judge Institute given by the MIT Auto-ID Lab in conjunction with some large US companies like Procter and Gamble. The Lab had developed something called Radio Frequency ID — tiny radio transmitters which could be printed on to product packaging, clothing etc. The idea — as explained to us — was that this would make inventory control much easier. Each product could be ‘read’ by a suitable device, which would then look it up on the Net and ascertain what it was and decide how it should be treated. One of the demos showed a package of quick-cook pasta being put into a beefed-up microwave oven. The oven read the code emitted by the tag, looked it up on a database on the Net and determined how long the cooking time should be. Using this technology, the academics explained, supermarket shelves could ‘know’ when stocks of a product were running out, and checkouts could compile a bill without requiring you to unload all the stuff onto the counter. They even suggested that the RFID system could be used to enable shelves to adjust prices for individual customers (who were of course equipped with a suitable gizmo). And so on and so forth.

What was NOT mentioned, of course, is that RFID technology could enable the finest-grain surveillance technology ever seen. RFID tags are already approaching the size of a printed full-stop. As such, they can be printed on banknotes, clothes, condoms — you name it. And with the right infrastructure everything that happens to a RFID tag can be tracked — and logged. Now it’s been revealed that the scientists working on this stuff realised all along that their work has a really dark side. According to this Register report, their PR firm has been advising them on how to distract public concern from privacy worries. But the relevant documents fell into the hands of campaigning group CASPIAN. Some quotes:

“The Auto-ID Center is the organization entrusted with developing a global Internet infrastructure for radio frequency identification. Their plans are to tag all the objects manufactured on the planet with RFID chips and track them via the Internet,” CASPIAN says. Apparently the RFID lobby sees public reluctance as nothing more than an obstacle to be overcome with shallow bromides and platitudes. Many of the documents are related to focus-group surveys in which consumers wisely note that RFID offers them few benefits while posing considerable threats to privacy. In response, PR firm Fleischman-Hillard recommends that the industry communicate several inaccuracies, the most egregious being that the RFID transponder is “nothing more than an improved bar-code,” as if broadcasting data were an inconsequential difference. In another it is suggested that the sheep-like populace will resign itself to the inevitability of this innovation, though they may not much care for it. In one document it is recommended that RFID tags be re-named “Green Tags” to suggest an overlay of environmental concern. But it seems that they will be re-named eTags, to give them that cool Silicon Valley cachet instead. At no point do the flacks suggest the obvious solution to consumer concerns, namely that any products containing such tags be identified clearly and that they be designed so that buyers can remove or disable them easily. …

Can this be true? McDonalds in trouble?

“McDonald’s has reported its first loss since the Fifties as Americans blame the fast food industry for their obesity epidemic. Is the brand on its way out?” Fascinating Observer piece by Conal Walsh.

Why I never play computer games

Because I need the time for living. And if I paid attention to this kind of thing I wouldn’t have it.

The impact of Google

There’s a story in today’s Guardian claiming that a mysterious and reclusive British financier has bought the most expensive apartment ever sold in New York — he’s paying $45 million in cash for a 12,000 square feet, 76th floor flat overlooking Central Park. The building in which this pad is located is still being built, but that’s not the interesting bit. The identity of the buyer is shrouded in mystery. “He’s not a celebrity”, said the Real Estate agent who’s acting for him. “You wouldn’t even find him if you did a Google search”.

Interesting, that, isn’t it. Google is regarded as so powerful and ubiquitous that the new measure of obscurity is that you cannot be found by it. But that’s not the end of the search engine’s quiet penetration. For example, someone came to see me last week about a project I’m working on. After the initial pleasantries he said: “OK. I’ve been to the web site and done a Google search, so we can start from there”. Which I guess would have dismayed some people, but in this context was terrific. It meant that we could get quickly to the heart of what we wanted to discuss.

The other implication of Google+the Web is that one of the tenets of old-style print journalism — the assumption that the writer has privileged information which the reader does not possess — has to be abandoned. It was always unwise for journalists to patronise their readers; but now, it’s absolutely fatal. Better to assume that they know more than you. Apart from anything else, this does wonders for the quality of your work — you have to wise up, not dumb down.

There’s also a constitutional issue about balance of powers. If Google is now so powerful, who’s going to make sure it doesn’t abuse its power? Remember Lord Acton: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. That’s one reason Google Watch is important.

Comment from Ian Winship: “The impact of Google’ should be complemented by the ‘myths of Google’ – ie, that all information is on the Web (but it isn’t); that the Web is free (but lots of professional information is subscription only); that Google can find everything on the Web (not the subscription stuff, not the invisible web, not the open Web that it doesn’t index); that there are no other search engines (there are lots and their coverage overlaps with Google, they have other features), etc.

As well as Googlewatch to monitor Google there’s Gary Price’s Resourceshelf (www.resourceshelf.com) which often picks up and comments critically on articles about Google.”

Hacking for free speech

Interesting piece by Chris Sprigman about Hacktivismo, which has developed tools for poking holes in censorship firewalls.

The star system in academia — and its consequences

You thought the transfer market for top footballers was outrageous? Well, think again. It’s even more cut-throat in US academia. Fascinating, detailed account of the mayhem caused when too much private money goes chasing too few academic stars. Thanks to Arts and Letters Daily.

A Beginner’s Guide to Textbook Writing

Lovely, cynical piece by Garrett Bauman (whose textbook is now into its fifth edition).

Internet telephony threatens corrupt and incompetent African telcos

In many parts of Africa, it’s difficult to get a dialtone. And even in places where there are phone connections, you have to wait for years or bribe someone simply to get a phone installed. But guess what? If you have an internet line, the you can have much more reliable phone service — by using the Net. Needless to say, the telcos don’t like this. Interesting piece on this by a NYT reporter.

The morality of P2P networking

Interesting debate between Ian Clarke, Freenet’s inventor, and Matt Oppenheim, RIAA’s senior vice president of business and legal affairs.

Ed Felten’s Great Idea: why not create librarian-friendly censorware?

Ed writes:

A Modest Proposal

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can condition Federal funding for libraries on the libraries’ use of censorware (i.e., that a law called CIPA is consistent with the constitution), it’s time to take a serious look at the deficiencies of censorware, and what can be done about them.

Suppose you’re a librarian who wants to comply with CIPA, but otherwise you want your patrons to have access to as much material on the Net as possible. From your standpoint, the popular censorware products have four problems. (1) They block some unobjectionable material. (2) They fail to block some material that is obscene or harmful to minors. (3) They try to block material that Congress does not require to be blocked, such as certain political speech. (4) They don’t let you find out what they block.

(1) and (2) are just facts of life — no technology can eliminate these problems. But (3) and (4) are solvable — it’s possible to build a censorware program that doesn’t try to block anything except as required by the law, and it’s possible for a program’s vendor to reveal what their product blocks. But of course it’s unlikely that the main censorware vendors will give you (3) or (4).

So why doesn’t somebody create an open-source censoreware program that is minimally compliant with CIPA? This would give librarians a better option, and it would put pressure on the existing vendors to narrow their blocking lists and to say what they block.

I can understand why people would have been hesitant to create such a program in the past. Most people who want to minimize the intrusiveness of censorware have thus far done so by not using censorware; so there hasn’t been much of a market for a narrowly tailored product. But that may change as librarians are forced to use censorware.

Also, censorware opponents have found the lameness and overbreadth of existing censorware useful, especially in court. But now, in libraries at least, that usefulness is mostly past, and it’s time to figure out how to cope with CIPA in the least harmful way. More librarian-friendly censorware seems like a good start.