RFID: When is RFID Not RFID?
Wednesday, June 02, 2010 - RFID Connections
 |
Bert Moore
Editor
Let's make sure RFID gets credit when credit's due
Apparently, RFID is something else when there's something positive to say about it. In recent articles, RFID tags that are being used to identify panther kittens and identify recycling carts are "computer chips" -- not RFID tags. Sometimes they're even called "bar code chips" which is rather an oxymoron. What would be so hard about saying "RFID tags help identify panther kittens" or "RFID helps recycling effort"? Nothing. Except, perhaps, that it's...RFID.
The transformation of RFID tags into "computer chips" and "electronic bar codes" is a growing phenomenon in news articles that show how RFID can be, or is being, used to benefit society. Is it because writers are afraid to identify RFID tags for what they are for fear of negative publicity? Is it ignorance? Is it both?
[read more]
Admittedly, many articles clearly identify RFID as what it is: radio frequency identification. While some references to RFID appear in newspapers and general web sites, the majority appear in the trade press, news releases or niche technophile publications that don't reach the general public.
The majority of coverage of RFID in the popular media and on the Internet is negative -- whether it's the (spurious) possibility that an RFID tag in your pet can give your computer a "virus", the (justified) debate over RFID passports, the (again spurious) fear that "THEY" will be able to track you from space with "undetectable" RFID tags in your underwear, or the (highly improbable) fear that the use of RFID in healthcare could kill you.
It hardly matters that most of the concerns are fabricated, overblown or even ridiculous. This is the stuff for catchy headlines and high readership numbers. It's no wonder that the term RFID is most often associated with bad things -- real or imagined.
Because of this negative association, a cautious writer or editor might want to avoid using the term RFID when talking about some benign use to avoid causing consternation among readers.
"RFID tags in my recycling bin? They'll be checking what I recycle! I don't want them knowing the type of alcohol bottles in my bin!"
"They're putting cancer-causing RFID tags in helpless panther kittens?"
Some of the misrepresentation of RFID can be attributed to a simple lack of understanding on the part of reporters. But where do reporters and editors in the popular media get their information? Some of the misrepresentation probably comes from RFID vendors themselves. Vendors are aware of the negative connotation so they themselves call their devices "chips" or "electronic bar codes" -- anything but RFID.
The contactless smart card industry started this trend, distancing itself from RFID and avoiding the use of the term. Ironically, this segment of RFID is now suffering the negative publicity when it comes to surreptitious reading of financial transaction card data..
Of course, there are intentional misrepresentations as Mark Roberti points out in his blog where he reports on his experience with mainstream media: ABC Eyewitness News Presents Selective Facts About RFID Credit Cards. But that's another issue all together.
But, intentional sensationalism aside, what the RFID industry faces in the popular media is circular logic which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The media will happily identify RFID when it's a "hot" story that will get the readers' attention. But when it's a dull story about how RFID is providing the average citizen tangible benefits, they sometimes avoid the term because of its negative connotation. Why does it have this negative connotation? Because the positive stories don't call it RFID. Because it has a negative connotation. Because...you get the idea.
Admittedly, in countries like
To help raise awareness, AIM engaged in a year-long RFID Outreach Initiative a few years ago targeted at educating the mainstream media about the consumer uses and benefits of RFID. One outcome was an online interactive map of all the places consumers see and use RFID every day. While this is a very positive effort, it is only one step.
It's up to vendors and end users who talk to the media to continue to properly identify RFID -- and to at least try to define which type of RFID is being used. The reporter may not understand the difference between LF, HF and UHF, might think that all RFID is EPCglobal (and vice versa) or believe that tiny tags can contain your whole life history and be readable from space. But if we can begin to clarify these small details in media reports we might stand a chance of getting the public to understand the differences in the technology and stop having all RFID lumped together -- which would help assuage the fear that "undetectable" chips (which do, in fact, exist) can be read from space. [The 2mm square chips have a read range of no more than 10mm -- hardly within range of orbiting satellites or even cell phone towers.]
Face it, most of the everyday benefits of RFID make for fairly dull reading except for folks in business and industry.
When it comes to popular media, it’s tough to compete with the "hot" headlines that offer misinformation about RFID or even the more mundane mis-identification of RFID. But there's an opportunity to capitalize on these articles.
We -- vendors and end users -- need to respond to these articles and reports. We can post comments that offer accurate information and point people towards sources of good information, write letters, send e-mails and post comments correcting the misidentification and misrepresentation of RFID in the popular media. They're not "electronic bar codes" or "computer chips". If you must, you can append the more popular description such as "RFID tags which serve as sort of an electronic bar code...."
However we do it, it's time to end the circular logic and self-fulfilling prophesy in the popular media. RFID is RFID. Period.
-----
Comments on this column? E-mail me: Bert Moore, Editor.
Share this Story
Digg 
del.icio.us 
Yahoo 
Reddit 
Facebook 
Google
Related Articles
:
No Related Content Found
or 