Advertisement

Privacy Enhancing Technologies for RFID in Retail- An Empirical Investigation

  • Sarah Spiekermann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4717)

Abstract

This article investigates the conflicting area of user benefits arising through item level RFID tagging and a desire for privacy. It distinguishes between three approaches feasible to address consumer privacy concerns. One is to kill RFID tags at store exits. The second is to lock tags and have user unlock them if they want to initiate reader communication (user scheme). The third is to let the network access users’ RFID tags while adhering to a privacy protocol (agent scheme). The perception and reactions of future users to these three privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) are compared in the present article and an attempt is made to understand the reasoning behind their preferences. The main conclusion is that users don’t trust complex PETs as they are envisioned today. Instead they prefer to kill RFID chips at store exits even if they appreciate after sales services. Enhancing trust through security and privacy ‘visibility’ as well as PET simplicity may be the road to take for PET engineers in UbiComp.

Keywords

RFID privacy security privacy enhancing technology RFID killfunction authentication identification user behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

978-3-540-74853-3_4_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (320 kb)
Film Stimulus. The Future World of Shopping (Film Pictures and Audio Script) (320 KB)
978-3-540-74853-3_4_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Items Used for Measuring the Constructs Tested (Free Translation) (80 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Fusaro, R.: None of Our Business. Harvard Business Review, 33–44 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith, J.H., Milberg, J., Burke, S.: Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns About Organizational Practices. MIS Quarterly 20(2), 167–196 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jannasch, U., Spiekermann, S.: RFID: Technologie im Einzelhandel der Zukunft: Datenentstehung, Marketing Potentiale und Auswirkungen auf die Privatheit des Kunden, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin: Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berthold, O., Guenther, Spiekermann, S.: RFID Verbraucherängste und Verbraucherschutz. Wirtschaftsinformatik, Heft 6 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    FoeBuD e.V. (ed.): Positionspapier über den Gebrauch von RFID auf und in Konsumgütern, FoeBuD e.V.: Bielefeld (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duce, H.: Public Policy: Understanding Public Opinion, A.-I. Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT, Cambridge, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Auto-ID Center (ed.): 860 MHz – 930 MHz Class 1 Radio Frequency (RF) Identification Tag Radio Frequency & Logical Communication Interface Specification, EPCGlobal, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarma, S., Weis, S., Engels, D.: RFID Systems, Security & Privacy Implications, A.-I. Center. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT, Cambridge, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Auto-ID Center, (ed.): Technology Guide. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, Cambridge, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    GCI (ed.): Global Commerce Initiative EPC Roadmap, G.C. Initiative and IBM (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Auto-ID Center (ed.): EPC-256: The 256-bit Electronic Product Code Representation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, Cambridge, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Auto-ID Center (ed.): EPC Information Service - Data Model and Queries. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, Cambridge, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Auto-ID Center (ed.): Auto-ID Object Name Service (ONS) 1.0. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, Cambridge, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engels, D.: Security and Privacy Aspects of Low-Cost Radio Frequency Identification Systems. In: Hutter, D., Müller, G., Stephan, W., Ullmann, M. (eds.) Security in Pervasive Computing. LNCS, vol. 2802, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Engberg, S., Harning, M., Damsgaard, C.: Zero-knowledge Device Authentication: Privacy & Security Enhanced RFID preserving Business Value and Consumer Convenience. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, New Brunswick, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spiekermann, S., Berthold, O.: Maintaining privacy in RFID enabled environments - Proposal for a disable-model. In: Robinson, P., Vogt, H. (eds.) Privacy, Security and Trust within the Context of Pervasive Computing, Springer Verlag, Vienna, Austria (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Inoue, Y.: RFID Privacy Using User-controllable Uniqueness. In: Proceedings of the RFID Privacy Workshop, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Floerkemeier, C., Schneider, R., Langheinrich, M.: Scanning with a Purpose - Supporting the Fair Information Principles in RFID Protocols. In: Murakami, H., Nakashima, H., Tokuda, H., Yasumura, M. (eds.) UCS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3598, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langheinrich, M.: A Privacy Awareness System for Ubiquitous Computing Environments. In: Borriello, G., Holmquist, L.E. (eds.) UbiComp 2002. LNCS, vol. 2498, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Christian, M., Floerkemeier, C.: Making Radio Frequency Identification Visible – A Watchdog Tag. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stajano, F.: Security for Ubiquitous Computing. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) Project, W3C (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Juels, A., Rivest, R., Szydlo, M.: The Blocker Tag: Selective Blocking of RFID Tags for Consumer Privacy. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM CCS, ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karjoth, G., Moskowitz, P.A.: Disabling RFID Tags with Visible Confirmation: Clipped Tags are Silenced. In: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, ACM Press, Alexandria, VA, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spiekermann, S.: Perceived Control: Scales for Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing. In: Acquisti, A., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Gritzalis, S., Lambrinoudakis, C. (eds.) Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies and Practices, Taylor and Francis, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA (1975)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ajzen, I.: From intentions to actions: A theory of planne behavior. In: Kuhi, J., Beckmann, J. (eds.) Action - control: From cognition to behavior, pp. 11–39. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: The Influence of Attitudes on Behavir. In: Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P. (eds.) The Handbook of Attitudes on Behavior, pp. 173–221. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogers, E.: Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kassarjian, H.H.: Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 4(1), 8–18 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    W3C, (ed.): Web Security Experience, Indicators and Trust: Scope and Use Cases, W3C Working Draft (25 May 2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Adams, A., Sasse, A.: Users are not the enemy - Why users compromise computer security mechanisms and how to take remedial measures. Communications of the ACM 42(12), 40–46 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berendt, B., Guenther, O., Spiekermann, S.: Privacy in E-Commerce: Stated Preferences vs. Actual Behavior. Communications of the ACM 48(4) (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheeran, P.: Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In: Stroebe, W., Hewstone, M. (eds.) European Review of Social Psychology, pp. 1–36. Wiley, Chichester, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trafimow, D.: Evidence that perceived behavioural control is a multidimensional construct: Perceived control and perceived difficulty. British Journal of Social Psychology 41, 101–121 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Spiekermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information Systems, Humboldt University Berlin, Spandauer Strasse 1, 10178 BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations