Category Archives: Legislation

Missouri bans tracking RFID in schools

Missouri bans tracking RFID in schools.  In the first of its kind legislation, Missouri Senator Ed Emery‘s bill was passed last week.  Ksn.com reports that “The bill will take effect in October after lawmakers overrode Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of the bill this past week, just barely getting the required two-thirds majority in both chambers.

The bill, SB523, simply reads:

1. No school district shall require a student to use an identification device that uses radio frequency identification
technology, or similar technology, to identify the student, transmit information regarding the student, or monitor or track the location of the student.
2. For purposes of this section, “radio frequency identification technology” shall mean a wireless identification system that uses an electromagnetic radio frequency signal to transmit data without physical contact between a card, badge, or tag and another device.

SB523Many schools in the USA track their students using active RFID which is a chip powered by a small battery and emits a regular pulsed radio frequency signal.  Readers then pinpoint the location of chip, thereby identifying the child’s whereabouts.  Wearing such a device is huge invasion of privacy of the children potentially being able to be seen in sensitive areas such as washrooms, school nurse, etc.

The technology is not without controversy.  One student, Andrea Hernandez in San Antonio, refused to wear the chip on religious grounds and was excluded from her high school as a result.  The somewhat extreme action by the school gained international exposure and support from privacy groups.  After a year of running the RFID locator programme the scheme was scrapped.

The excellent ‘Position Paper on the Use of RFID in Schools‘ sets out the concerns with using this technology with children and heartening to see that Missouri have taken this on board and banned tracking RFID in schools.

Yet another bill flipped in favour of tagging kids with RFID?

Missouri HB239 ammended

HB239 was introduced to Missouri senate in January 2013 by Senator Ed Emery stating:
“No school district shall require a student to use an identification device that uses radio frequency identification, or similar technology, to identify the student, transmit information regarding the student, or monitor or track the student” now has an amendment by Senator Curls, in April 2013, that reads:
technology, or similar technology, unless such identification device is used solely for the purposes of student safety or student security.”

Given how Oregon’s HB2386 was flipped from not tagging children with RFID to the bill endorsing the RFID tagging of children, maybe this is how legislature will trend with RFID tracking children in the USA.

On the back of the Sandy Hook massacre, Ekahau, via Rapid Emergency Response, supplies wfif RFID to Skyview High School and is marketing its RFID to schools on the back of this Delaware bill, HB33, requiring each public school to have panic buttons.

RFID in Northside Independent School District, NISD, in San Antonio was scrapped last week as it did not improve attendance – a valuable lesson for the RFID industry.  Dangling the carrot of increased funding for NISD on the back of promised improved student attendance was attractive enough for the school district to buy into RFID but when the technology did not deliver it was rightly scrapped.

The next round of RFID will be marketed at schools selling us increased student safety.  As the Skyview High School RFID vendor’s Rapid Emergency Response website states, “we spend billions as a nation protecting our banks, cars and homes. When will we do the same for our children?”  A good question indeed from a company selling RFID systems to schools.
What is the cost of our children’s privacy, that we are willing to sell for their security?

Green light to RFID track Oregon’s school children?

USA – Oregon Senate passed a bill on 11th June 2013 seemingly giving schools the right to impose RFID tracking on it’s students.  However HB2386 appears to have started life back in January 2013 with exactly the opposite intent, reading that:

HB2386Prohibits school district from requiring student to wear, carry or use any item with radio frequency identification device if device is used for purpose of locating or tracking student or taking attendance.

The original January 2013 wording goes on to say that a school may use RFID to track property, such as instruction manuals and electric items, but if a student takes possession of said property the school must inform the student that the property, therefore the student, is being tracked.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged members of the Oregon Senate to sign the bill stating that this “Common sense proposal is critical to protect the privacy of our students” with information being communicated transparently about the use and option to use RFID

What could possibly go wrong?

By June 2013 the wording and intent of the bill changed substantially, to read:

HB2386 “Directs State Board of Education to adopt standards for school district board to incorporate into any policy that requires student to wear, carry or use item with radio frequency identification device for purpose of locating or tracking student or taking attendance.

This rewriting of HB2386 seems to go on to say that a Oregon school district cannot require a student to wear RFID for tracking unless the Oregon State Board adopts standard rules about the use of RFID with children, as decided upon as in the above statement.  This appears to read that if a school wants to impose RFID tracking on students the State Board has to agree to it under (their own) standards/rules.  Informing a student of the fact they may be carrying a RFID tracked object has also been dropped from the wording of the original text.

…yet point 2 (c) states that the bill would allow for “…a student or a parent of a student to choose not to have the student wear, carry or use an item with a radio frequency identification device.” (?)  Can a student not consent when a school has required it to carry RFID tracking, backed by the State Board?  Is this another court case waiting to happen?

The bill takes effect as of July 2013.  The history of the bill going through the Oregon Senate is here.

Currently Oregon does not use RFID to track students in any of it’s schools, so maybe a little strange they have spent senate time on this bill.  But with other schools in the US introducing RFID for financial (funding according to attendance) and “safety” reasons, perhaps this comes as no surprise in that Oregon does not want a situation similar to the adverse publicity the Hernandez case in Texas brought to school boards RFID tracking students – better to set the ground rules first.

Oregon StateWith over 850,000 children in Oregon, with 550,000 K-12 students, there is a fairly healthy market for RFID systems with perhaps this bill giving a green light to the RFID industry that these schools are good to go.  

How sad that HB2386 has been changed with the potential to destroy children’s rights and civil liberties, when there was a great chance to preserve the next generation’s freedoms and our societies integrity in respecting our children’s privacy.

Three US state lawmakers introduce bills to ban RFID in schools

Northside Independent School District’s expulsion of student, Andrea Hernandez, this month has demonstrated how RFID application might save school dollars but clearly does not work in the fact that it has affected one students education.  Has it really been worth the saving in money the schools district claims will happen in the light of the fact John Jay High school discriminated against a child for refusing to take part in the RFID programme.?

With the religious, privacy and ethical issues involved here we look forward to seeing how the debate goes with the below bills filed in Texas recently that would prohibit RFID in state schools.

We have this technology and we cannot undo the technology but we need to use it responsibly and respectfully – which is why an open and honest debate is required.

TexasHB101 – introduced by Rep. Lois Kolkhorst and Rep. Cindy Burkett in November 2012
– Where a school district may not require a student to use a RFID device or similar technology to transmit information about the student or track the location of the student.
– Where a schools district may allow voluntary use of RFID
– Schools districts must provide an alternative identification

HB102 – introduced by Rep. Lois Kolkhorst and Rep. Cindy Burkett in November 2012
– A school district may not require a student to use a RFID device or similar technology to identify the student, transmit information or track the location of the student.

SB173 – introduced by Senator Craig Estes in January 2013
– A school district may not require a student to use a RFID device or similar technology to identify the student, transmit information or track the location of the student.

From My Antonio – Kolkhorst said she thinks the Legislature needs to debate the appropriateness  of that use, which she hopes will happen now that Northside’s pilot program has  drawn scrutiny.  Kolkhorst said her bills on the issue in the past haven’t been able to make  it out of committee.

I am concerned that this technology can be very dehumanizing,” Kolkhorst  said. “I really don’t like how parents don’t have much input and think it is an  example of government overstepping its bounds.”