The recent jihad over the possible use of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags on the collection at the San Francisco Public Library (News , LJ 11/15/03, p. 19) has prompted vendors marketing RFID services to clarify the misconception that installing RFID tags is an invasion of patron privacy. Critics claim that placement of the tags on library items will allow the federal government to track what private citizens are borrowing by clandestinely reading the tags from a distance either via satellite or through other means.

Vinod Chachra, chair and former president of VTLS, insists that these fears are unfounded and essentially the stuff of spy novels. Chachra, a seasoned veteran of library automation, and Daniel McPherson, a VTLS project manager, have authored a white paper titled Personal Privacy and Use of RFID Technology in Libraries, in which they state that although relatively new to libraries, RFID "has been used in other sectors for more than 20 years." The types of RFID tags used in libraries are "powerless," i.e., they don't contain a source of power and they only emit a pulse when a reader containing an antenna is placed within 18 inches of the tag. "Clearly the concept that someone driving by your house with an antenna, or that a satellite passing overhead is going to energize these tags is ignoring the reality."

The amount of information stored in the average library RFID tag is the equivalent of that in a barcode. Libraries wary of RFID can encrypt their tags so that only their own reader "would have the algorithm to turn that encoded number into a meaningful value." Chachra and McPherson suggest that libraries run a far greater risk of infringing upon patron privacy by maintaining circulation transaction logs for any extended period. To maintain privacy, the two contend that "at the time of discharge, the patron ID should be replaced by class (adult/child)."

Although future RFID technology may increase both the distances at which tags can be read and the amount of information they can house, the authors insist that "higher memory can be used to make encryption stronger," enhancing privacy.