Europe adopts RFID privacy framework

For those who volunteer to use it


Europe has adopted a new radio-frequency identification (RFID) privacy framework.

It won't come into effect for six months, and even then will be voluntary, but it does attempt to put the European citizens' privacy onto the RFID agenda.

The "Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment Framework for RFID Applications" was published in January, having been in production for six months, and is now endorsed by the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) as the standard to which RFID deployments in Europe will be held to account – if they wish to be.

The document (24-page PDF/257 KB, and remarkably soporific) was put together by the RFID industry – which recognises that public perception is against it – and the Article 29 Working Group, a committee of national data protection chiefs. Despite being voluntary it will be widely adopted, partly because compliance isn't particularly onerous and partly because public fears need allaying.

The Framework identifies four levels of RFID application, requiring different quantities of scrutiny. Level 3 is where personal data is stored on an RFID tag itself; Level 2 has the tag holding a database key linked to personal data. Level 2 and 3 both require a full audit.

Level 1 systems aren't linked to a person, but might be carried by a person and so require a mini-audit. Finally, Level 0 systems are attached to pallets, crates and so forth and have no privacy implications.

The audits, or Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs), to use the Framework's nomenclature, are carried out by the "RFID Application Operator". The PIA includes such things as checking each stage of transmission is suitably encrypted, thinking about how (and why) a miscreant might attack the system and how the system might be illegitimately utilised – basically the stuff any decent systems architect would do by habit.

The PIA is then presented to "the competent authorities"... perhaps; it is up to member states to decide who is competent and if presentation of a PIA is mandatory or simply has to be held by the deploying company for production on demand (realistically unlikely, until something goes wrong).

The Framework might help large companies focus on the privacy implications of their RFID deployments, and that's useful, but as every phone becomes an RFID Tag reader we can't help wondering if small-scale deployments won't be at greater risk of privacy abuse. Such systems will soon become incredibly cheap and easy to deploy, and will be open to exactly the kind of feature creep that creates security problems.

The EU Framework might prevent a major supermarket tracking the clothes you buy, but it won't stop the local gym recording which exercise machine you've been using, unless the local gym chooses to play along. ®

Similar topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022