Never before in history has George Orwell’s dire futuristic vision of a technologically advanced society in his novel, “1984” seemed so much like non-fiction.   We belong to a surveillance society (Whitaker, 1999) in which we are under constant purview of a variety of groups and institutions.   The cause of this newfound voyeurism is the “networked infrastructure,” which in part is pushed by the ability of information and communication technologies to “create multifaceted and integrated databases and hypertextual modes of information” (Shade, 1999: 308).    Recently, firms, governments, and individuals have been tapping into the data that has been collected and manipulating it in various ways to serve their interests (Caudill and Murphy, 2000).  In order to ensure our physical and economic security, individuals now find their lives open to the public through the use of video surveillance, CCTV, spyware, and data encryption.   In the free market system, many members of global society find themselves being watched and their behavior tracked in order to determine spending patters and preferences of consumers.   Marketing dataveillance has recently generated serious concerns among ethicists and the public in general, as privacy issues abound (Ashworth and Free, 2006).   This accumulated knowledge has also been utilized by the medical fields in the name of better patient care and advancement of treatment methods, which in turn has laid bare personal medical record information.  

            Of particular interest lately is the development of another data collection and storage method—Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tags.   An RFID system incorporates a series of antennas within an access point (e.g., a card) that transmits a serial number related to a certain individual or object.   This identification number is transferred through radio waves and can be stored and tracked over time.   “…RFID, is a technology based on the need for remote recognition of objects…allowing both the presence and identity of a tagged object to be determined without requiring line of sight or physical contact” (Lockton & Rosenberg, 2006: 221).  The RFID silicon chips are capable of storing all kinds of information beyond the serial number as well, which can lead to additional loss of personal privacy.   Individuals’ names and personal information are easily stored and accessed from these antennae creating a wealth of ethical issues (Perrin, 2006).

            For business, the use of this technology has lead to a policy setting dilemma in that a balance between individuals’ privacy concerns and business interests must be drawn.   Businesses must discover the proper use of this technology so as to not violate basic individual human rights.   According to a recent report by the RAND Corporation, “proposed retail uses of Radio Frequency Identification tags have generated privacy concerns, which, in turn have spurred legislative proposals to limit their use in six states” (Rand Research Brief, RB-9107-RC: 2005).   These privacy concerns are mainly regarding instances when individuals are not made aware that their personal information has been linked to the tag and for what purpose the information is being gathered.   The regulatory proposals are being fueled by ethical concerns related to the breaches in individual’s privacy and loss of human rights.  

            Our paper addresses this topical area of the use of RFID technology.   Specifically, we discuss and analyze a seeming paradox with RFID tags.   While ethical issues related to privacy concerns of RFID data collection are well-documented (Harper, 2004; Lockton & Rosenberg, 2006; Weinberg, 2006), we take the unique position that the proliferation of RFID technology honors ethical principles at the same time.   For instance, RFID has been shown to be quite instrumental in the healthcare field for assisting medical personnel in the treatment of their patients (Fishkin & Lundell, 2006).   Concurrently, this information is seen to violate various patients’ rights and the rights of their families.  

To support our view, we will first discuss RFID technology and describe how it works and for what purposes it serves.   Then, we will document the plethora of ethical issues that have been generated from the various fields and institutions using these devices.   Our survey will touch on the rights principles which have been violated by the abuse of this technology.    But we will also identify and discuss the rights principles which are being upheld with the various uses of this technology en route to arguing why this technology should be embraced.  

We will then discuss the current controls being implemented to address the main ethical issues.   Our discussion of the controls will use Lessig’s (1999) components as a framework through which to break down how the technology is regulated—code, market, standards, and legislation.   This analysis will be broken down by some of the major controls being used currently on this technology.   Of particular relevance are the Fair Information Practices Principles, which outline how information should be retrieved and used.   Even more specific to RFID, we will examine the Guidelines for Privacy Protection on Electronic Tags as specified by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) as well as the RFID Consumer Bill of Rights.  

Finally, we will provide an ethical analysis of the current controls using justice and fairness principles to determine an ethical mode of addressing the issues and discovering a balance for the proper use of RFID.   Our analysis and subsequent conclusions will indicate that RFID technology at once honors and violates ethical principles across different stakeholder groups.   Specifically, using Rawlsian justice theory (Rawls, 1999) and building on work conducted on the identification of legitimate stakeholders (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1999; Phillips, 2003), we will attempt to determine practical ways in which stakeholder needs of this issue can be balanced.   Ultimately, we posit that while the current controls are useful to discourage and curb RFID uses which violate certain human rights, we feel that these command-and-control measures are not the ultimate answer to resolving the paradox.   Rather, we argue that abiding by distributive and procedural justice principles, RFID tags can be utilized in a manner which is non-detrimental and useful.  

Selected References

Ashworth, L., & Free, C. 2006. Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67: 107-123.

Caudill, E.M., & Murphy, P.E. 2000. Consumer online privacy: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(1): 7-19.

Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. 2006. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 5 th edition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Fishkin, K., and Lundell, J. 2006. RFID in healthcare.   In Simon Garfinkel and Beth Rosenberg’s (Eds.) RFID: Applications, Security, and Privacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 211-228.

Harper, J. 2004. RFID tags and privacy: How bar-codes-on-steroids are really a 98-lb. weakling.  Competitive Enterprise Institute Position Paper No. 89.

Lessig, L. 1999. Code and other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

Lockton, V., and Rosenberg, R.S. 2006. RFID: The next serious threat to privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4): 221-231.

Perrin, S. 2006. RFID and global privacy policy.   In Simon Garfinkel and Beth Rosenberg’s (Eds.) RFID: Applications, Security, and Privacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 57-82

Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Rand Research Brief. 2005. Privacy in the workplace, RB-9107-RC, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/2005/RAND_RB9107.pdf

Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Sarathy, R., & Robertson, C.J. 2003. Strategic and ethical considerations in managing digital privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 111-126.

Shade, L. R. 1999. Ethical, legal, and policy conundrums of privacy in our knowledge-based society. Ethics and Information Technology, 1: 307-309.

Weinberg, J. 2006. RFID, privacy, and regulation. In Simon Garfinkel and Beth Rosenberg’s (Eds.) RFID: Applications, Security, and Privacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 99-136.

Whitaker, R. 1999. The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality. New York: The New York Press.