The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

College libraries are beginning to use radio-frequency identification, or RFID, tags on their books to help manage their collections. But the tags have other uses. Privacy advocates worry that the tags could be silently scanned by anyone nearby with a tag-reading device -- stalkers, snoops, corporate marketers, or G-men. Unlike a bar-code reader at a supermarket, an RFID reader can pick up a tag's signal through a book bag or a coat. In that way, library patrons' reading habits -- and even their movements -- could be tracked. Are such worries based more on science fiction than fact? Do the tags' practical uses for librarians outweigh their potential threats to privacy or civil liberties? Read more...

You know, sometimes we are paranoid for no reason.

Check out lists from libraries can accomplish the same thing as these chips can accomplish, as long as a patron checks the book out.

If there ever was a problem with such chips I am sure that someone with evil intent or perhaps even a patriot would come up with a miniature electro-magnetic pulse device to ZAP the chip and render it useless.

This is really a non-issue. The technology is not the problem here. The problem is our constant concern over the use of technology and the automatic assumption that whenever something can be abused, that it will be abused.

Personally, I believe everyone can be trusted within reason, and I operate accordingly until they prove otherwise.

> Author: John Garner
> Date: 08-02-04 10:53
>
> You know, sometimes we are paranoid for no reason.
>
> Check out lists from libraries can accomplish the same thing
> as these chips can accomplish, as long as a patron checks the
> book out.

True, but unfortunately the chips can be used beyond the library. One of the concerns spelled out in the article is that RFID readers could be installed at the entrances to buildings and used to (a) track what books people are reading, or (b) track people by matching the person's ID at one checkpoint with the books they happen to be carrying; from then on, those book IDs could be assumed to identify the person.

Of course, this does not apply only to books; you could be identified by RFID tags on your clothing. Once your manufacturer-tagged coat is matched up with your ID at one checkpoint, you could be identified by that coat's RFID tag at any reader that doesn't also have an ID checkpoint.

> If there ever was a problem with such chips I am sure that
> someone with evil intent or perhaps even a patriot would
> come up with a miniature electro-magnetic pulse device to
> ZAP the chip and render it useless.

Mini EMPs might not be the way to go, but RFID-writing devices might be a solution, as described on Slashdot and CNet.

Here's some software for reading RFID tags; I haven't hunted for the hardware yet.

>
> This is really a non-issue. The technology is not the problem
> here. The problem is our constant concern over the use of
> technology and the automatic assumption that whenever
> something can be abused, that it will be abused.
>
> Personally, I believe everyone can be trusted within reason, and I operate accordingly until they prove otherwise.

I agree that everyone can be trusted within reason; however, it's a mistake to assume that everyone *will* behave reasonably. Live a year within any city or moderately large town and you will learn to be friendly, helpful, and still not to invite too many people into your home. This isn't paranoia; it's pragmatism and sensible wariness.

This is particularly wise because history teaches us that some people and most governments will take advantage of other people's good will and friendly attitudes whenever possible. I'm not being pessimistic; it's human nature to try to secure resources and safety for our own families and some people take it too far.

Since the Oklahoma City bombing to the present, we have seen the government use (and use well) private video cameras for public surveillance. (In particular, I'm remembering a store's surveillance video being used as initial evidence of Timothy McVeigh being in Oklahoma City before the bombing.) We should expect that the government will also use RFID tag readers whenever possible. In cases like the Oklahoma City bombing, we may even clamor for the government to do so.

Clearly such public surveillance will help catch criminals. We have to be proactive, however, and make certain that that's *all* it's used for.

The leftists must be shaking in their boots! To arms! To arms! Ashcroft is at it again trying to take away our civil liberties.

Not to worry liberals. The librarians will come to our rescue. They'll refuse to cooperate with the big, bad government who is going to take advantage of our good will.

Where would we all be if we didn't have the ACLU and the librarians to watch out for our civil liberties?

Get a life people...

This hysteria over the use of RFID just demonstrates the woeful ignorance of science of many people.
If you took a moment to understand the technology one would realize that it really has no ability to track people -- the range is simply too short. People confuse RFID tags with the tags/radio collars used in wildlife research -- they have nothing to do with each other.
As it stands thousands of items have bar codes attached. Someone could come by with a portable bar code reader and read those bar codes -- but why???
You want to worry about a real threat to free expression and liberty -- why doesn't someone rein in the airlines who are routinely kicking people off flights because they happen to carry books (or wear t-shirts) that the airlines find objectionable? When you get home from a trip and find a note inside your copy of the Koran that you left in your checked baggage from Homeland Security -- suggesting that you might want to consider not taking this book on future flights. That's a real problem.

When this trend gets extended to the larger society you will have a real problem? Want to read a copy of the Koran (or anything else controversial) in public? Forget it -- people will find it objectionable

This whole subject is a bit silly. The RFID tags only hold 256 bits and are essentially just like a barcode. To find out what you're reading, a third party would have to have simultaneous access to the library computer you checked the book out from. Since each library system has it's own computer, this would require an extraordinary amount of access to check all the library computers in a metropolitan area for a match to the RFID in your pocket.

It's a fascinating idea, but so far no one seems to have questioned the basic assumption that people will continue to check books out from libraries. What technology do we turn to to ensure that outcome?

It is almost impossible these days to do anything without being subjected to one form of electronic surveillance or another. If I go to the grocery store and pay with a credit or debit card, the store can identify me and know exactly what I am buying. But even if I pay with cash, the store's video surveillance cameras can record my face, what I am buying, and at what time I patronized the store. Remember a few months ago when the University of Wisconsin student faked her abduction? Didn't law enforcement officials get access to video footage from Lowe's hardware that showed her buying duct tape just a few days before she was reported missing? When I visit Amazon.com's website, I am given recommendations on what books to buy based on my prior purchases. And if I rent a car, I'd better make sure I am honest when I'm asked whether I plan to drive the vehicle out of state, because the rental car company probably has set up some kind of GPS tracking system that can pinpoint my whereabouts.

I suppose I am less frightened by the prospect of people knowing what books I check out at the library than I am by all of the information being collected about me from other sources. We've all heard the horror stories about identity theft and how innocent people have had thousands of dollars of credit card debt fraudulently charged under their names. This can affect their ability to buy a house or even secure a job. Unfortunately, it may take years for someone who is the victim of this type of crime to clear his or her name. These individuals receive little, if any, assistance from credit card companies, even though the companies send out pre-approved offers to consumers all the time that could easily be used to obtain credit in someone else's name.

I am sometimes overwhelmed at how little effort it would take for anyone--whether in the government or the private sector-- to obtain detailed information about my personal preferences, financial status, and just about everything else about me. On the positive side, I guess my lack of anonymity would discourage me from committing murder. If DNA evidence didn't nail me, then I'm sure some video camera, GPS device, or library book would!

Yes RFID definatelyreducing the use of human resource and application of such technology brings newness to the library activities.
One thing i am very much concerned is the cost factor ,which seems quite costlier for the developing or underdeveloped countries.
Hope that in the near future it may reduce and libraries of developing countries also can adopt the technology.

With Regards
Raghav

Yes. The problem is when you aren't even aware that you are being watched. Did you realize that many new cars, including all Saturns, come with a "black box" data recorder that records the last 5 seconds before a crash including your speed, whether your seat belt was fastened, etc. The dealers don't even tell you this exists or give you an option to turn it off. There have already been lawsuits using this data. It's not so much that I mind the recording, but not being told I'm being watched really bothers me.

Quote:

"True, but unfortunately the chips can be used beyond the library. One of the concerns spelled out in the article is that RFID readers could be installed at the entrances to buildings and used to (a) track what books people are reading, or (b) track people by matching the person's ID at one checkpoint with the books they happen to be carrying; from then on, those book IDs could be assumed to identify the person."

Well, if you wanted to have a way to disable these chips while they were still on the shelves a carefully applied stun gun "zap" would probably do the trick. Stun guns are easy to obtain.

Truly, it is as another poster pointed out in so many words. Those who have true evil intent will circumvent these things and the only thing that such surveilence will accomplish is to pile up useless information about the reading habits of individuals who are insignificant as far as bringing a great degree of harm to society in general is concerned.

Of course, if such information is compiled, it exists out there somewhere. It is my habit on the computer to post things such as I do and to visit really off-the-wall websites (such as the trepanation web site) for a laugh. I would imagine that if anyone was actually paying attention that there would be several large burly men in white coats with a large net outside of my office door waiting to do the emergency detention and to wisk me off to the nearest mental health facility. Reality being what it is, however, I am only a legend in my own mind.

In short, nobody cares what you are reading. If they did they would surley be burning books and shutting down web sites. Those who do care have no control. Think about this next question very carefully. Why do you think that fundamentalist Islamic sects are upset with the West? These folks can also access the Internet. Talk about culture shock!

In childhood I had a friend whose parents were involved with a fundamentalist Christian sect. They kept the Hebrew sabbath of Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. CBS television put two shows on television Friday evening that affected church attendance. One was Rawhide which as you recall (or not) starred a young Clint Eastwood. The other was the hugely popular Route 66. Their membership started staying home and having a good time watching television instead of going to church, shelling out their "tithing" and getting brow beat in the process.

To make a long story short (which I have not done so far) the Fundamental Christian sects in my area forbid their membership to even own a television. They said that it broke one of the 10 commandments about graven images. Violating this commandment would surely land you in Hell. So, my friend could no longer watch television and his parents got rid of their televison.

Fundamentalism exists everywhere in the world. I am not sure that the term adequately describes it, but in this instance at least, you could drive yourself silly just trying to keep track of who is watching television, or reading a book for that matter.

When we need to worry is when somebody forbids the reading of books. Keeping track of what it is that gets read or at least, checked out, is rather innocuous. Unless you are the type that checks you office for hidden microphones and such every day for whatever reason real or imagined.

But you know, really, getting rid of your televison is not such a BAD idea...

While I understand the concern in the public sector, as a marketing professional I see RFIDs creating interesting business opportunities.

For example, it is my understanding that Wal-Mart will require all of its products to be RFID by next year. (I'm sure other retail chains will get on the bandwagon as well.)

In that context, it would be very useful to "read" customers as they enter the store and identify what percentage of the products they are wearing or carrying were purchased at my store.
For those with the highest percentage, I would then want to know - what are their common demographics? What do they value? And ultimately how can I define them into market segments and sell more products to them.

I think this is a practical application since the retailer would have the ability to link what is read of the RFIDs with the data they already have in their customer databases.
Similar to what was seen in "Minority Report" when Tom Cruise's character was identified in the Gap and instantly given appropriate marketing messages.

"The future is now"

Marketer, since you're interested in seeing what people are wearing or carrying when they come into your store, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of customers rewriting the information in the RFID tags on property they bought.

Please note, I'm not talking about rewriting RFID tags within your store, just about people rewriting RFID tags on clothing or items that they bought and then wore when returning to the store. I don't believe this is an easy thing to do right now, but it's possible and will probably become easier, so now's the time to discuss it.

Good Point Michael, I suppose some people will rewrite the tags - just like many people don't answer truthfully on surveys because of privacy issues. I personally have no issue with this. My perspective is that once you purchase the property, it is yours to do with as you see fit.

However, I would also say, that if re-writing the tags became more common, companies who use the tags would demand security features be built in to make that as difficult as possible. With that said, there will always be a new technology to circumvent the security.

I would also think that if someone "re-wrote" the tag and it was scanned at the door - when the data was analyzed that it would show as an error somehow.

I guess my initial point is that companies involved in retail who convert to these types of systems are not just doing it for ease of checkout or other consumer convenience factors. The real benefit to the company is to know as much as possible about its own customers. This technology is another way to obtain that information.

As a consumer and marketer, I would want companies to disclose to consumers that items purchased have an RFID in them and how that data is being used. Similar to privacy disclosures we have on the Internet now.

Being an engineering librarian, this is a topic near and dear to me. Being able to track the books on my shelves and elsewhere would be a great benefit to the users of the library (how many times have you tried to find a book not in its proper place on the shelf?) and as far as I am concerned, that is where our surveillance would end. Librarians have been dealing with issues of privacy since the Patriot Act, and most of us have fought to maintain the privacy of patron’s reading habits.

Having done some research on RFID recently, I think that Michael’s idea of consumers re-writing the tags is less likely than end users using another tag that effectively broadcasts all bands and makes other tags in its radius unreadable. I don’t know if such a tag will cause problems with retail store’s inventory control systems, but I think that they will be an effective countermeasure for those individuals concerned about their privacy.

Gee, thanks Randy for being our defense against the Patriot Act. We need you on the front line making sure the government can't monitor our reading habits. Electronic tagging just facilitates losing our freedoms to read what we want.

It also allows terrorists another safe haven to stay in our midst with the full blessing and support of the left in this country. The combination of librarians like Randy and the ACLU are not concerned about our safety and well-being.

A question for your Randy. Who appointed you to be my guardian? Who gave you the authority to act on my behalf?

What gives you the right to put us all at risk?

Yes, we need these electronic tags. Its one more weapon we can use to protect ourselves.

This is really off-topic, but since when did conservatism (i.e. not the "Left") become in favor of government surveillance?

Personally, I feel that my fear of _excessive_ government surveillance is one of my most conservative views. The government should watch us enough to protect us... but _just_ enough and not too much. Too much surveillance will enable (has enabled?) the government, Republican or Democratic, to become a dictatorship like any Fascist or Communist country you care to name.

I highly doubt special tags on library books are going to prevent any future terrorist attacks. The real issues behind terrorism are much complex than the government, both on the left and right, seems willing to admit.

Back on topic, I agree that there's a potential violation of privacy, but before computers were commonplace, you could easily find out who had checked out a book, since patrons usually signed out books.

Getting back on topic, I thought I'd return to the question of how to track someone by RFID. Karl, I believe, challenged the possiblity... I think the article mentions this, but here's what I envision:

At the main entrances to a Federal building (say, an FCC building in downtown DC), there are badge-checking stations where the guards check your badge to make certain you're an employee.

At that station, you mount RFID scanners. These may not be able to decipher the codes stored on the RFID tags, but they will be able to read the codes. You have the guard's computer match the ID badge with whatever RFID codes the person carries.

Now you mount unobtrusive RFID scanners throughout the building and, better yet, throughout other government buildings and government-controlled structures (like the bridges and foot-bridges over the major roads passing by the Pentagon*).

Finally, you look for the RFID codes that you scanned at the FCC building. You might not know what books or sweaters those RFID codes identify, but you know that they're carried by John Smith and that's all you care about right now. When you see those codes walk or drive by your unobtrusive scanners, you know where that person's been. Best of all, it's all computer recorded & searchable and requires no round-the-clock manpower!

An even more likely scenario is one where the government monitors RFID tags the same way it monitors video surveillance. It gathers the video camera footage captured by the thousands of security cameras at every private enterprise in the area. Which is to say, Big Government asks Big Walmart for their extensive RFID scans and then figures out who is where and when.

Finally, Gov wouldn't even need to match RFID tags with ID badges; they could look for the same collection of RFID tags to pop up here and there, and then figure out (via computer) that this collection is probably the same person.

I can see this being useful for some criminal surveillance. HOwever, I still don't see it being all that useful for preventing terrorism, any more than video surveillance has been. I fear this will be one more invasion of privacy, one more large growth of government, and one more unnecessary addition to government police powers.

* OK, reading info from the bridges is a neat idea but it will depend on how long it takes to read the code off an RFID tag. The speed limit on Rte 110 past the East side of the Pentagon is 40 or 45 mph. People *usually* don't speed there b/c of the profusion of cop cars since 9/11, but that still might be too fast. I dunno. Still, that's where I'd put a scanner. :-) And the Metro, if I could get away with that quietly.

The marketer's submission simply confirms for me that we have more to fear from the business sector than we do from libraries and other government agencies. Wal-Mart and Amazon.com know more about me than the U.S. government will ever care to know. Moreover, the combined powers of business and government law enforcement frighten me.

Will Wal-Mart and other companies use this data solely for marketing purposes? If a man of Middle Eastern descent has purchased fertilizer at the local feed and seed on several occasions, will the company immediately contact the authorities because this person might be making a bomb? If he is simply a farmer and innocent, he has nothing to worry about, right? Or does he? Sometimes innocent people have had their lives ruined by the combined efforts of big business and government. Richard Jewell is a case in point. Initially, he was actually trying to be a good citizen and help law enforcement catch the Olympic Park bomber. However, once the FBI began looking at him as a suspect, CNN and other news agencies made his life a living hell. How many times will law-abiding Muslims be asked to explain why they needed to rent a Ryder truck or why they received a money wire from a relative in Saudi Arabia? If their status as a suspect is leaked to the press, how many of them will be subjected to invasions of privacy the same way Jewell was?

I'm sure this is already happening to some people thanks to the Patriot Act. Will the problem worsen as a result of this new technology? These are serious questions that shouldn't be dismissed.

I have always lived by the concept of "if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear". The idea of surveillance being contrary to individual freedom is constitutional urban legend. One has to remember that the Patriot Act is still subject to judicial review. It is not an open-ended license to invade the privacy of every American or visitors to these shores.

As to the concept of surveillance being somehow against conservative thought, I fail see the logic. It seems to me that the gathering of information is generic to the vigilance required to protect the general public. I can think of several leftist initiatives to protect the public from itself such as smoking bans, restrictive gun laws and so on. Does that mean that liberals are for governmental intrusion into our private space?

This whole tagging issue sounds like ideal fodder for Michael Moore’s next pictorial diatribe. I can see it now. Michael and his camera crew stalking libraries and shoving microphones into the faces of school children caught in the adult fiction section…..

quote:

"Richard Jewell is a case in point. Initially, he was actually trying to be a good citizen and help law enforcement catch the Olympic Park bomber. However, once the FBI began looking at him as a suspect, CNN and other news agencies made his life a living hell."

Now, where is the problem here?

Was it with the News media or was it with the law enforcement agencies?

If the news media would just report news and would refuse to pander to sensationalism and (just) "not gather information on individuals who are innocent", to braodcast to the world, then we would not have a problem, right?

The question is, is the possession of information by the government the problem, or is it how that information is treated once it is acquired the REAL problem?

Information is useless until you act upon it, however, the least useful thing is ignorance. I claim that when we rebel against the acquistion of information, we are advocating ignorance.

Mr Garner:

In regard to Richard Jewell's circumstances, you write:

"Now where is the problem here?

Was it with the News media or was it with the law enforcement agencies?

If the news media would just report news and would refuse to pander to sensationalism and (just) "not gather information on individuals who are innocent", to braodcast to the world, then we would not have a problem, right?

The question is, is the possession of information by the government the problem, or is it how that information is treated once it is acquired the REAL problem?"

Richard Jewell seemed to believe that both the press and the government bore responsibility for his predicament. After all, the press would never have pounced on Jewell if the government hadn't leaked his name as a suspect and if the FBI hadn't made such a dramatic production of searching his home. In fact, Jewell suggested at the time that the FBI wanted the press to focus on him. They (law enforcement officials) were so certain he was guilty that they wanted to reap the benefits of some good publicity once they arrested him. Of course, if Jewell's charges were correct, the FBI's plan backfired in a big way. Ultimately, Janet Reno apologized for the leak, but the damage was already done--to the the agency, but most regrettably, to Jewell.

You ask, "is the possession of information by the government the problem, or is it how that information is treated once it is acquired the REAL problem?' Both can be troubling and unsettling. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI compiled files on a whole lot of people's personal lives just in case the information might be useful at some point. In many cases the information was never used, but the very fact that a high-ranking government official was collecting it was an astounding abuse of power. I would submit that very few of us would feel comfortable if the government had files chronicling all of our romantic relationships, ties to labor unions, personal habits, and so on, even if these files were merely collecting dust at FBI headquarters.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned in my previous posting, I am far less concerned about the information the government has collected on me than I am about the information being collected by the private sector. Wal-Mart and Amazon.com are keeping far closer tabs on me than the Feds are. If I am ever a crime suspect, the government won't use its own files to prove its case. It will track my activities through my bank accounts, credit card transactions, cash register receipts, and video cameras located at these and other businesses. Consequently, I think that we have far less to fear from these tagging devices in library books than we do from electronic monitoring systems elsewhere.

Dana Zimbleman states,

"...After all, the press would never have pounced on Jewell if the government hadn't leaked his name as a suspect and if the FBI hadn't made such a dramatic production of searching his home. In fact, Jewell suggested at the time that the FBI wanted the press to focus on him. They (law enforcement officials) were so certain he was guilty that they wanted to reap the benefits of some good publicity once they arrested him. Of course, if Jewell's charges were correct, the FBI's plan backfired in a big way. Ultimately, Janet Reno apologized for the leak, but the damage was already done--to the the agency, but most regrettably, to Jewell. ..."

The point here is that the government does NOT control the press. The press and the News media panders to sensationalism and the damage done to Mr. Jewell MUST be shared by them. THEY need to account for THEIR irresponsible behavior.

Janet Reno may have apoligized to Mr. Jewell but has the "PRESS" apolgized to him? I am not convinced that the FBI had a "plan". I believe that they were just trying to relieve the constant pressure by the media to produce results. It is not LOGICAL to assume that every government agency has a conspiracy a-foot in their every action. Sometimes, things just happen and the only thing left is damage control.

Concerning the information that government agencies, the press or private agencies may or may not have on all of us, I am sure that if we as a society are uncomfortable it should be because we encourage such entities to behave in this manner by our response to their actions.

Sensationalsim sells in this society. If I might point out the premise in Michael Moore's documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" is that our society breeds such behaviors. We breed these behaviors by our responses and attitudes.

Fahrenheit 911 expands on this and sees conspiracy and ends up inditing the Bush administration which I see as a bit far-fetched, but the observations of our society in the former Michael Moore work I believe to be valid.

In other words, Dana, it is you and I who are at fault as members of society. IF governmental and private agencies had nothing to gain by the acquistion of such information then they would not gather it. I validate you feelings regarding this matter.

If we as a society did not purchase the newspapers and the news magazines that proceeded to trash Mr. Jewell's reputation without proof, then they would not have done it. There would be nothing for them to have gained from it. But, as things stand, America LOVES GOSSIP, doesn't it?

Dana, it is US, and not THEM who are at fault. IF we indeed have a dysfunctional system at work,and I believe that we do, it is US who are enabling it. WE as a society validate it by paying attention to it.

However, with all of what I have said, I still believe that you have a valid point. Generally, the innocent suffer the most from such activities because they are honest. Societies have crucified honest people for many years before it was done to Jesus Christ.

If people are dishonest, they operate in such a manner that they can not be connected to the information that is gathered on them, rendering that information worthless.

So, as you so have accurately assessed, this activity IS pointless. However, it pointless only as long as society is savvy enough to make it pointless.

I think that the tag is invading peoples privacy. It would be easy for a stalker to locate you with the tags. I think that the tags are invading privacy too much and that they are useless.

Mr Garner:

In your last posting, you seem to have altered the position you took in your submission of 8/13. On that date, you suggested that the media were solely responsible for what happened to Jewell:

"If the news media would just report news and would refuse to pander to sensationalism and (just) "not gather information on individuals who are innocent", to braodcast to the world, then we would not have a problem, right?"

However, in your submission of 8/20, you wrote:
"The press and the News media panders to sensationalism and the damage done to Mr. Jewell MUST be shared by them."

By using the word "shared," does this mean that you are now willing to concede that the government also mishandled Jewell? This is the position I have taken all along. I have consistently argued that the combination of big business and big government does pose a threat to civil liberties. You cannot ignore the failings of one group and focus on the other exclusively.

Jewell deserved apologies from both the media and the government. Unfortunately, he did not receive an apology from the news agencies that rushed to judgment in his case. But again, one of the reasons he did not receive an apology was that the courts ruled he was a public figure at the time of the investigation, so he was not entitled to privacy protections of ordinary citizens. However, if I am not mistaken, he reached an out-of-court settlement with NBC News. So while the apology didn't materialize, he did at least receive financial compensation for the nightmare--not a perfect solution, but better than nothing.

I disagree with your suggestion that society's obsession with sensationalism is the primary problem we face. Yes, many people in society may have an appetite for scandal, but that doesn't mean everyone does. Such blanket indictments fail to recognize that we have often transcended these negative impulses and enacted legal protections to safeguard our privacy. In fact, I believe that Americans have done a pretty good job of demanding accountability from the government on issues related to our personal privacy and civil liberties.

I contend that we have every right to scrutinize the Patriot Act closely and challenge any unnecessary erosion of our rights. Arguably, demanding that our government remain accountable to the citizenry is what separates us from dictatorial regimes. In other words, it is a GOOD thing that we question why the government is collecting information on us and demand reforms when abuses occur. When J. Edgar Hoover's activities at the FBI were revealed, the public outcry forced the agency to enact new policies to prevent such things from happening in the future. When our government makes mistakes-- as it did with the handling of Jewell--we expect an apology and a change of behavior as a matter of course.

It isn't paranoia to insist that the government justify its need for personal information it collects. It is simply enough that I want to keep my private life private for my own peace of mind. I shouldn't have to explain my desire to be anonymous. The Declaration of Independence articulated the individual citizen's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These rights are not given and taken away at the whim of this or any government. Rather, citizens are "endowed by the creator" with these rights when they are born.

However, I think we have been far less vigilant when it comes to protecting our privacy from abuses in the private sector. We accept electronic surveillance and consumer profiling without even considering how these activities might impact our lives in the future. Much of the time, these invasions of privacy are merely a slight annoyance. If this information is used simply for marketing, then more than likely our privacy won't be compromised. But the potential for abuse is enormous. If a computer hacker gains access to my credit card company's database, the person can easily use my Social Security number, date of birth, mother's maiden name, etc. for a wide range of criminal activity. I believe a far greater problem for us than sensationalism is that we've not demanded stricter accountability from the private sector in its data collection. We've allowed our names, addresses, and consumer profiles to be sold to marketing companies without requiring the government to enact strong laws to protect consumer privacy. Moreover, it isn't difficult to for the government to gain access to this information either, if we wind up as a criminal defendant in a legal matter.

I myself am guilty of being of not taking this issue as seriously as I should. I went to the eye doctor the other day and was asked to sign some sort of document detailing my privacy rights and explaining when the office might release the information. Do you think I even read the document before signing? No, I was too lazy and preoccupied. For all I know, I could have been signing a confession that I was an al Qaeda operative! Perhaps thanks to this discussion, I will pay closer attention in the future.

quote:

"Jewell deserved apologies from both the media and the government. Unfortunately, he did not receive an apology from the news agencies that rushed to judgment in his case."

Dana,

Mr. Jewell deserves an apology from ALL of us. You are right. One DOES have to read such agreements befor signing them.

However, by law you can resend your signature within 72 hours I beleive. Furthermore, such multi-page documents need to be initialed on EVERY page to be of unquestionable legitimacy.

I guess that the point is this, Dana. We can make paranoid fools of ourselves paying attention to all of the things that COULD happen in this world.

I opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning. After an e-mail from my Senator (or perhaps his assistant), I recently decided that the government did need the authority to track terrorists through the banking industry, and that my knee-jerk reaction was an error.

It has been said that 96% of the things that we worry about do not happen. The trick is to logically reason out the 4% that WILL and to give yourself PLENTY of room for error.

Jewell did not deserve what he got from the media, from the government OR, from the PUBLIC. The latter's opinion drives the actions taken two former entities.

WE are THEM, however I must be eternally vigilant not to become a legend in my own mind.

Mr. Garner:

I must again disagree with you that "Mr. Jewell deserves an apology from ALL of us." While many members of society are addicted to sensationalism and scandal, not everyone approves of the media's focus on such matters. Moreover, isn't a blanket indictment such as this the same kind of paranoia that you complain about? If it is wrong to see government conspiracies everywhere, isn't it equally wrong to blame the whole of society for one problem? Furthermore, whether deserved or not, an apology from "ALL" of us does about as much good as everyone apologizing for world hunger, the crisis in Sudan, or other difficult to solve issues. Yes, I suppose as inhabitants of this earth, we all should do more to help people who are victims of one thing or another. But we are human and have limitations. We have to pick our battles and work to change the things we have some hope of changing.

You write, "We can make paranoid fools of ourselves paying attention to all of the things that COULD happen in this world. " By this standard, the Patriot Act itself can be easily challenged. After all, isn't that precisely what the Patriot Act is concerned with--"paying attention to all of the things that COULD happen" in regard to terrorism?

Again, I submit there is nothing paranoid or "knee-jerk" about scrutinizing the Patriot Act and making sure the government does not abuse its power. The thing that sets us apart from dictatorships is that our government is accountable to the citizenry. Call us depraved scandal mongers if you will, but our emphasis on individual liberty is one thing we have gotten right. It cannot hurt to pay attention to how this Act could affect our civil liberties.

By the way, I am not necessarily opposed to the Patriot Act myself. I do, however, have concerns about some elements of it.

In my opinion I think using RFID chips at libraries and stores would make things a lot more simpler and easier. It can also be use as a safety device to track things easily.

Althought some people think that brings some privacy issues with it. They strongly disagree with the convineint factor. They simply think that the chips would be misused to invade people's privacy.

It would definitelty speed up the checking out process but can also be invading people's private lives. Now we have to make an important decision to pick convenince over privacy.

I also think that RFID tags are good for society. They provide an accurate inventory of books at the library, less time in customer check out and in employee stocking, and yet still has room for improvement.

Many people state that RFID tags can be used to invaid personal privacy, but there is much more to the tags than that. I agree with Syeda when she said that the tags are a matter of convenience over privacy. Also, many other things can lead to an invasion of privacy, such as perchasing items online, yet people still do that.

RFID tags are not an overall bad piece of technology. Since the invention is still farely new, if there is ever any problems, it can still be improved on. I can tell you one thing, you have not seen the last of the RFID tags.

RFID tags will make our lives more comfortable. However, I don't think it is the best idea to adopt it into our society. Since, it might threaten peoples' privacy.

According to Jennifer L. Fabbi, director of the curriculum-materials library at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, "The more information libraries store on the chip, the more risk," (Carlson 2004). Since, libraries won't require high-risky information, such as, credit card number and bank account. However, what about in the stores where you have to pay for items that you buy? I am pretty sure that they will ask for your credit card or bank accont information. There is a possibility of important information being spread world-wide.

I know that the RFID tags will save both the stores' or libraries', and customers' time. However, I don't think it worth it when you are giving out all your private information.

This helpful tool could eventually turn into a huge privacy risk. More people need to be informed about this. Someone should have this information sent to the news.

Do you think RFID system is the best solution of tracking a book from library? I don't think so...
It might help to find or lost books, also it will make our lives comfortable my ways. However, what if some people keep track of your location or direction, do you still want to use RFID system?

Also, RFID system have a possibility of other use like surveillance, and steal personal privacy. i think RFID system will bring a distrust between people and people.

So, i think RFID system is not good for our society.

Tracking readers through high-tech book tags