Editorial: 2006 -- the Year of RFID Legislation?

Thursday, January 05, 2006 - AIM Global by Bert Moore:
For those familiar with the general political sentiments of residents of New Hampshire (which has the state motto "Live Free or Die"), it's not surprising that privacy concerns prompted legislation restricting RFID use. What is significant, however, is that the wording of the original draft of the bill (HB 203) has been replaced by amended text that is specific to tracking and takes a more measured view of RFID in general.

According to an article in the Manchester, NH ”Union Leader," Curtis J. Barry, who lobbies for the Retail Merchants Association of New Hampshire, said, “Many of the proposals made in the (original) bill that were onerous and burdensome on retailers were not included in the bill as it now reads, but we still have some concerns about the wording and continue to question the necessity” for the bill.

With all the prognostications about the coming year, perhaps what will be the hallmark of 2006 will be a flurry of state legislation pertaining to RFID.

The original HB 203 wording seemed to be based on some of the more fantastical assertions about the potential for RFID to covertly identify and track people. In fact, one of the primary issues seemed to have been a concern that RFID chips might be surreptitiously implanted in people for tracking purposes. This provision still exists in the current wording and there are few, if any, who would argue in favor of individuals being implanted with an RFID chip without prior consent.

Many of the news articles about the legislation -- which clearly influenced public perception -- cited the now-familiar myths about RFID's potential as well as some of the now-discredited assertions of previous corporate "spying."

What is important, however, is that the revised wording of the bill came about from public hearings -- ones in which manufacturers and retailers were heard fairly.

According to the "Union Leader," the current wording of the legislation focuses on notification. Specifically, the bill:

· Stipulates that no consumer product or identification document (such as a credit card or ATM card) to which a tracking device has been affixed, may be sold without a label containing a universally accepted symbol. The requirement also applies to packaging of the product.

· Requires that identifying labels be affixed to the product or document or its packaging by the entity that implants the tracking device in the product or by the entity that imports products that contain tracking devices.

· Prohibits anyone from implanting tracking devices into human beings without the informed consent of either the individual or a legal guardian.

· Prohibits the state or any of its political subdivisions from issuing any radio frequency devices to track individuals, with exceptions such as incarcerated prisoners or residents of nursing or assisted-living facilities.

· Establishes a commission on the use of tracking devices to study their usage in government and business and monitor their effect on the economy and society.

· Puts clout in the law by setting penalties for violations, ranging from misdemeanors to felonies.

Compared to the wording of the pending California legislation, the New Hampshire bill is focused on specific instances of RFID tagging and, for the most part, simply requires notification. The provision for the use of a "universally accepted symbol" does point the way towards full use of the AIM Global RFID Emblem as well as the need to educate the public on its meaning and use.

The lesson to be learned from the New Hampshire legislation is that it's important to not only monitor and communicate legislative initiatives at the local level but that active participation in the legislative processes -- through ongoing education, public hearings, and other venues -- can have positive results.

Bert Moore

Director, Communications & Media Relations

AIM Global

http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/templates/rfidinsights.asp?articleid=586&zoneid=24