Radio frequency identification (RFID) is back in the news again this month, with legislators in California moving to ban the embedding of tracking chips in humans.

While RFID holds the promise of making it easier to manage workers, and restrict access to sensitive areas, privacy and human rights concerns have raised the hackles of unions, legislators and the public.

The tags can either be on devices they are required to carry at work, or imbedded just below the skin.

If you spend too much time on a smoke break, your supervisor would be able to track you down.

You think this is too sci-fi to be real? According to the Los Angeles Times, about 2,000 workers in the US have had these chips implanted in their bodies.

In previous columns I have described RFID as a technological breakthrough that is transforming the way business is being done worldwide.

In brief RFID uses a wireless system that helps enterprises track products, parts, expensive items, temperature-and time-sensitive goods and even humans.

Transponders, or RFID tags, are attached to objects. Each RFID tag can carry information such as a serial number, model number, colour, place of assembly or other types of data about a specific product.

When the tags pass through a radio frequency field generated by a compatible reader, the information is collected, thereby identifying the particular object.

In contrast the commonly used barcode can reveal that an object is part of a type of good, such as a packaging of a specific brand of cornflakes.

Using RFID allows manufacturers to additionally tell where the particular item was made and when, giving them a way immediately trace and track it along the supply chain. Thus recalls could presumably be made immediately, without having to pull every one from the market.

RFID could also ensure a product is fresh when you buy it.

Consumer protests over perceived breeches of privacy have mostly kept supermarkets from using RFID on the goods they have on sale. However, behind the scenes manufacturers have been readily using the technology on pallets of goods, or specific expensive items.

Recently some started tagging their workers, allowing them to track their efficiency, or grant access to specified areas.

In California legislators last week passed a bill that would ban the practice of embedding tags. The bill must be signed by the state governor for signing before it becomes law.

The new bill, SB 362, would prohibit the "forced, compelled, or coerced" implantation of a "subdermal identification device"-including the standard, chipped RFID tags, and new, chipless, invisible RFID tattoos.

Other states are moving in the same direction. Wisconsin has already moved to ban the practice under a bill signed in 2005. A similar measure, SB 2220, has also been introduced by a Republican lawmaker in Florida and is making its way through the legislature there.

Importantly, the bill does not ban the voluntary implantation, leaving the way open for a more rational development of the technology.

US company VeriChip has already been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration to sell human tracking devices.

These are about the size or a grain of rice that are put under the skin via a quick "outpatient" procedure, the company claims on its web site.

The RFID tag can be used to hold the individual's identification number, which can be scanned with a handheld or wall-mounted reader.

"This number can then be used for such purposes as accessing personal medical information in a password-protected database or assessing whether somebody has authority to enter into a high-security area," VeriChip said.

The encroachment into our private lives and bodies is not unique to the US. In 2005, several of the warehouses supplying UK supermarkets decided to make employees wear portable tracking devices on their clothing.

The tags, they claimed, would provide reliable inventory numbers, improve the workers' efficiency in filling orders, reduce in-transit theft and help track goods accurately.

Their decision infuriated the British Trade Union (GMB), which accused the warehouses of creating "battery farm" style workplaces. GMB was not protesting against any use of the technology, instead taking a very reasonable stance - one I hope managers will listen to.

"The GMB is no Luddite organisation but we will not stand idly by to see our members reduced to automatons," said Paul Kenny, GMB acting general secretary. "The use of this technology needs to be redesigned to be an aide to the worker rather than making the worker its slave."

The US Federal Trade Commission reports that two-thirds of the consumers familiar with RFID rank privacy as their top fear about the technology.

To make any comments on this or any other topic contact Ahmed at elamin.ahmed@gmail.com