Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 27–40 | Cite as

An enquiry into the ethical efficacy of the use of radio frequency identification technology

Article

Abstract

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the privacy rights dilemma surrounding radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. As one example of ubiquitous information system, RFID has multitudinous applications in various industries and businesses across society. The use of this technology will have to lead to a policy setting dilemma in that a balance between individuals’ privacy concerns and the benefits that they derive from it must be drawn. After describing the basic RFID technology some of its most prevalent uses, a definition of privacy is derived in the context of information systems. To illustrate current attempts at controlling the undesirable side effects of RFID, Lessig’s cyberspace framework is presented. It is found that each of Lessig’s components is inadequate at preventing individual privacy violations in RFID. The main focus within this framework is on the norms of society. The social norm mechanism that addresses privacy issues in cyberspace is the Fair Information Practices Principles (FIPP). After an analysis of these principles, it is posited that the FIPP only deal with procedural justice issues related to data collection and omit distributive and interactional justice reasoning related to the actual beneficial and detrimental outcomes to the individuals whose data is being obtained. Thus, RFID is presented in the context of the tension between the many benefits that are provided by the technology in social exchanges, and the risk it carries of the loss of privacy. The new, expanded framework recognizes both sides of the issue with the ultimate goal of providing a greater understanding of how privacy issues can be addressed with RFID technology.

Keywords

ethics justice theories Lessig framework privacy RFID technology ubiquitous computing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J.S. Adams. Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 2, pp. 267–299. Academic Press, New York, 1965Google Scholar
  2. I. Altman, The Environment and Social Behavior. Brooks Cole Publishing, New York, 1975Google Scholar
  3. L. Ashworth and C. Free. Marketing Dataveillance and Digital Privacy: Using Theories of Justice to Understand Consumers’ Online Privacy Concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67: 107–123, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1992Google Scholar
  5. R.J. Bies and J.S. Moag. Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria of Fairness. In R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard and M. Bazerman, (eds), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, pp. 43–55. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1986Google Scholar
  6. W. Bonner. Locating a Space for Ethics to Appear in Decision-making: Privacy as an Exemplar. Journal of Business Ethics, 70: 221–234, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. P. Brey. Freedom and Privacy in Ambient Intelligence. Ethics and Information Technology, 7: 157–166, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. P. Brey. Computer Ethics and the Right of the Good. In the Proceedings of Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiry 7th Annual Conference, pp. 46–48, 2007Google Scholar
  9. CASPIAN. Position Statement on the Use of RFID on Consumer Products, 2003. Available at: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/RFID/RFID_Position_Statement.pdf
  10. F.H. Cate. Privacy in the Information Age. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1997. Google Scholar
  11. F.H. Cate. The Failure of Fair Information Practice Principles. Consumer Protection in the Age of the ‹Information Economy, 2006. Available at: http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details/FileUpload265/1248/Failure_of_Fair_Information_Practice_Principles.pdf
  12. E.M. Caudill, P.E. Murphy. Consumer Online Privacy: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(1): 7–19, 2000. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Cropanzano, C.A. Prehart, P.Y. Chen. Using Social Exchange Theory to Distinguish Procedural from Interactional Justice. Group and Organization Management, 27(3): 324–351, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. M.J. Culnan, P.K. Armstrong. Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation. Organization Science, 10(1): 104–115, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. G. de Graaf. The Autonomy of the Contracting Partners: An Argument for Heuristic Contractarian Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68: 347–361, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. T. Donaldson, T. Dunfee. Ties That Bind. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999Google Scholar
  17. G. Eschet. FIPs and PETs for RFID: Protecting Privacy in the Web of Radio Frequency Identification. Jurimetrics, The Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 45: 1–53, 2005Google Scholar
  18. K. Fishkin, J. Lundell. RFID in Healthcare. In S. Garfinkel, B. Rosenberg’s (Eds.) RFID: Applications, Security, and Privacy, pp. 211–228. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006Google Scholar
  19. C. Floerkemeier and M. Lampe. Issues with RFID Usage in Ubiquitous Computing Applications, 2004. Available at: http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/RFIDIssues.pdf
  20. R. Folger, M. Konovsky. Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1): 115–130, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. F. Fukiyama. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1995Google Scholar
  22. S.L. Garfinkel, A. Juels and R. Pappu. RFID Privacy: An Overview of Problems and Proposed Solutions. IEEE Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society, 2005Google Scholar
  23. J. Greenberg. The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice. In R. Cropanzano (ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, pp. 70–103. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1993Google Scholar
  24. J. Harper. RFID Tags and Privacy: How Bar-Codes-on-Steroids are Really a 98-lb. Weakling. Competitive Enterprise Institute Position Paper No. 89, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. L. J. Hoffman and K.A. Metivier Carreiro. Computer Technology to Balance Accountability and Anonymity in Self-regulatory Privacy Regimes, Chapter 5. In Daley, Irving Daley and Irving, editors, 1997. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/privacy/privacy_rpt.htm
  26. J. I. Hong, J.D. Ng, S. Lederer and J. A. Landay. Privacy Risk Models for Designing Privacy-Sensitive Ubiquitous Computing Systems. DIS 2004, ACM 1-58113-787-7/04/0008, 2004.Google Scholar
  27. A. Juels. The Blocker Tag: Selective Blocking of RFID Tags for Consumer Privacy. In V. Atluri, editor, 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 103–111. ACM Press, 2003Google Scholar
  28. S. Konomi. Personal Privacy Assistants for RFID Users. Paper Presented at International Workshop Series on RFID, Tokyo, November 10, 2004. Available at: http://www.slrc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/rfid-workshop/konomi-paper.pdf
  29. L. Lessig. Code and other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books, New York, 1999Google Scholar
  30. G.S. Leventhal. What Should be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. In M. Greenberg, R. Willis (eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 27–55. Plenum, New York, 1980Google Scholar
  31. J.D. Lilly, M. Virick. The Effect of Personality on Perceptions of Justice. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 21(5): 438–458, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. E. Lind, T. Tyler. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum, New York, 1988Google Scholar
  33. V. Lockton, R.S. Rosenberg. RFID: The Next Serious Threat to Privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4): 221–231, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. P. Maclagan. Hierarchical Control or Individuals’ Moral Autonomy? Addressing a Fundamental Tension in the Management of Business Ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1): 48–61, 2007CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. R. Marens. Social Contracting, Social Justice, and Transcending the Limitations of Locke. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1): 63–76, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. K. Marshall. Has Technology Introduced New Ethical Problems? Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 81–90, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. D. Mele. Organizational Humanizing Cultures: Do They Generate Social Capital? Journal of Business Ethics, 45 (1): 3–14, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. M. McGinity. RFID: Is This Game of Tag Fair Play? Communications of the ACM, 47(1): 15–18, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. M. Ohkubo, K. Suzuki, S. Kinoshita. RFID Privacy Issues and Technical Challenges. Communications of the ACM, 48(9): 66–71, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. A.R. Peslak. An Ethical Exploration of Privacy and Radio Frequency Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4): 327–345, 2005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rand Research Brief. 2005. Privacy in the workplace, RB-9107-RC, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/2005/RAND_RB9107.pdf
  42. J. Rawls. 1999. A Theory of Justice Revised Edition. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999Google Scholar
  43. L.R. Shade. Ethical, Legal, and Policy Conundrums of Privacy in our Knowledge-Based Society. Ethics and Information Technology, 1: 307–309, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R. A. Spinello. Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace (2nd ed). Jones and Bartlett Computer Science, Boston, 2003. Google Scholar
  45. J. Weinberg. RFID, Privacy, and Regulation. In S. Garfinkel, B. Rosenberg’s (Eds.) RFID: Applications, Security, and Privacy, pp. 99–136. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006Google Scholar
  46. A.F. Westin. Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York, 1967Google Scholar
  47. R. Whitaker. The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality. The New York Press, New York, 1999. http://www.rfidnews.org/weblog/2003/10/21/prada-pulls-rfid-because-of-privacy-concerns.php Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations