It's bad enough that some California libraries are moving forward with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tracking systems regardless of the implications for patrons' privacy. Now the Berkeley Public Library is considering laying off valued employees and cutting needed library services -- while implementing a $650,000 RFID system purchased with money borrowed from the city of Berkeley.
EFF is strongly opposed to RFID in libraries. It's appalling that Berkeley residents are being asked to pay for this costly experiment, especially when jobs are in jeopardy. We urge residents to attend the Berkeley City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 8, and the Board of Library Trustees meeting on Wednesday, February 9, where community members will demand an investigation of the Berkeley Public Library restructuring plan and the budgetary implications of the RFID system purchase. For details, download this flyer -- and don't forget to pass the word along.
San Francisco
Thanks to the efforts of EFF supporters, the ACLU, the Library Users Association, San Francisco City Supervisor Chris Daly and others, the San Francisco Public Library has decided not to pursue $300,000 provisionally appropriated for Year One of the RFID implementation in progress at the library. This is great news, but we can't stop now -- the library hasn't abandoned the plan entirely and may seek two years' worth of RFID funding for fiscal year 2005-2006. Stay tuned to EFFector and EFF's Action Center for updates.
San Jose
The most promising news out of San Jose was a recent RFID seminar at the California Library Association that made it obvious to participants that the vendor-touted benefits of RFID tagging in libraries remain speculative.
Peter Warfield, executive director of the Library Users Association, reports that when asked about evidence on the return on investment, Oleg Boyarsky of Library Automation Technologies (LAT) said, "The answers are somewhat loosey goosey." Boyarsky added that the best RFID implementations are carefully designed and limited in scope, and that it would be "foolish" to convert completely to RFID at a library. Instead, he recommended starting small with any RFID conversion.
Warfield also reports that when the vendors were asked whether there was any evidence that RFID would lessen repetitive stress injury at libraries (a reason cited by the Berkeley and San Francisco libraries for using RFID), one vendor said, "We don't have any studies per se." Frank Musssche of Libramation said that reduced handling of library materials by staff is key, adding that "We have several libraries where the circulation desk has been eliminated."
Finally, the vendors disagreed about the privacy risks of RFID. Mussche suggested that the concerns were overblown, but Boyarsky said that they needed to be addressed, citing issues raised by Berkeley Ph.D. student David Molnar.
Panel moderator Lori Bowen Ayre also reported on the seminar on her blog:
"In closing the panel, I decided to ask what seemed to be to be the obvious question: why would ANYONE get into RFID at this stage? I asked this question because throughout the discussion, it became clear that the technology is so new that many of those 'tough questions' couldn't be answered authoritatively.
- Standards are still being developed (data communication)
- Some standards (data model) haven't even BEGUN to be developed
- Health effects (radio exposure, RSI) studies haven't been done
- The [return on investment] isn't documented
- The cost is very high to get started and once you commit to a vendor (at this point), you are really committed to the vendor."
For more information about the privacy risks RFID poses, see our RFID resources page.