Schakowsky said that some trials have already taken place without adequate consumer consent.  “Wal-Mart and Procter and Gamble conducted a trial with lipstick that had RFID tags.  As the Chicago Sun Times reported last year, every time a consumer would pick up a lipstick off the shelf in the Broken Arrow, Oklahoma Wal-Mart, a video monitor would be triggered and images of the consumer would be sent to Procter and Gamble researchers in Cincinnati.”

“Soon, we could have Big Brother and Big Business tuning to the same frequency, where not only will they know where you are, but they’ll know what you’re wearing,” Schakowsky added during a hearing of the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee. 

Below is Schakowsky’s prepared opening statement for today’s Subcommittee hearing:

 Thank you, Chairman Stearns for holding today’s hearing on Radio Frequency Identification, or RFID, an old technology with new applications being discovered each day.  Once again, our subcommittee is contending with issues that arise at the intersection of technological innovation and consumer privacy.  How we choose to respond to the potential uses and threats of RFID will be pivotal to consumers, civil liberties, and commerce.

 Although around since World War II, we are hearing about RFID – a microchip that can transmit unique information easily – more today than ever.  Most often, RFID is being touted as the technological solution to inventory and supply tracking.  Using RFID tags to inventory items will allow for real-time supply-chain tracking and we will never have to see an “out of stock” sign again.  What we are also hearing about, however, are the serious Orwellian possibilities of RFID technology.  

 Because of the flexibility of RFID, suppliers and retailers are exploring the possibility of using RFID chips not only on shipping crates and pallets, but on individual items as well.  It is possible to have RFID tags in everything from individual pieces of clothing, as Benetton proposed, to tanks, as the Defense Department is already doing.   It is also being quietly suggested, as Mr. Steinhardt from the ACLU will detail in his testimony, that RFID tags could be used in travel documents like passports.  Soon, we could have Big Brother and Big Business tuning to the same frequency, where not only will they know where you are, but they’ll know what you’re wearing.  

 RFID tags can be as small as a grain of sand.  They can be hidden in products and documents without one’s knowledge.  This raises serious privacy concerns.  Trials have already taken place, some without adequate consumer consent.  Two companies represented here today – Wal-Mart and Procter and Gamble – conducted such a trial with lipstick that had RFID tags.  As the Chicago Sun Times reported last year, every time a consumer would pick up a lipstick off the shelf in the Broken Arrow, Oklahoma Wal-Mart, a video monitor would be triggered and images of the consumer would be sent to Procter and Gamble researchers in Cincinnati.  Despite this, many attempt to downplay the threats to privacy and civil liberties.  We are also told that the technology to do the kind of tracking that privacy and civil liberties advocates discuss does not exist.  We are told that suppliers and retailers aren’t interested in doing the kind of surveillance about which I am concerned.  Yet, the example at Wal-Mart leads me to believe there may be interest.  We cannot dismiss these concerns. 

 As with so many of the technologies that we have discussed in our subcommittee, there are amazing and positive uses for RFID.  I do believe that RFID could be quite useful to follow products from manufacturer to point of sale.  I also believe that it could help ensure that pharmaceuticals are not counterfeit and have been handled properly en route from production to the point where they are dispensed.  I appreciate the “E-Z passes” and “Smartcards” for public transportation.  As one who has been fighting to end waste and abuse in the Department of Defense, I am pleased to hear the DoD is using RFID to keep better track of its purchases.  However, I believe that we must not turn a blind eye to the potential for the abuse of this technology.  I am not willing to sacrifice personal privacy and civil liberties.  I believe that we can look into ways to regulate the use of RFID so that we can help the industries that could benefit from this technology while protecting rights and liberties that are fundamental to our democracy.

 Again, thank you Chairman Stearns, for convening today’s hearing, with witnesses covering a broad range of the different stakeholders.  I look forward to hearing from all of them.