Better watch out! Radio frequency identification (RFID) will soon becoming to a store near you. RFID is a tracking technology you are going to hear more about, whether from its advocates or detractors depending on how you view the privacy issues it raises.

An RFID tag can be like a hyperpowered barcode sending and receiving signals. RFID is a way of remotely storing and retrieving data using small tags or transponders containing antennas. They can be attached to or incorporated into a product and can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from an RFID transceiver.

Using RFID products can be tagged with individual, uniquely identifiable numbers, potentially allowing companies to link the particular product. Barcodes only identify the type of product.

Once you buy the product, it can be linked to the credit card you use and to a number of other purchases you made depending on the power of the databases used to track the product.

Scanners can then potentially pick up exactly what products you have in your bag and even in one memorable statement by a US politician, what kind of underwear you are wearing.

After initial trials of its use at a few supermarkets, bungled mainly through a lack of public communication and privacy breaches, companies have generally retreated a bit from placing tags on everything.

For example a few years ago Gillette conducted a test at a Tesco supermarket in the UK in which shoppers were automatically photographed taking RFID-tagged safety razors off the shelf. Tesco got into a lot of trouble from consumers and backed off. After a few other such corporate boo-boos worldwide companies are now concentrating on using RFID to track goods, from manufacturer through to retailer.

Privacy issues still dominate in preventing wider application. The unknown is often what scares people and turns them into early deniers. Privacy was the most significant concern for two-thirds of those consumers familiar with radio frequency identification (RFID) in two separate surveys, according to a report in March by the US Federal Trade Commission.

While the technology is new, the privacy concerns are not. So instead of trying to out-argue the argumentative, companies using RFID should directly address the concerns by being more transparent. They should be busy formulating codes of conduct on privacy and on their security measures to protect all the data they are collecting. Companies should also have an opt out policy, giving consumers the ability to turn off the RFID tags if they so choose.

Then they should publicise and follow those codes.

Such a strategy might not serve to convince the conspiracy theorists, who will continue yelling at the fringes of the debate. Instead it would be targeted at the companies? real constituency ? the consumers at whom RFID will be directed and who, rightly or wrongly, fear the technology with be a further intrusion on their lives.

Because, in the end, a major barrier to the wider introduction of RFID tagging is not whether the tracking of goods and consumer habits will intrude on individual privacy. The barrier is the resulting reaction from the folk who are being tagged.

Sticking with the current strategy could hit companies? bottom lines if their customers are waving placards about RFID outside supermarkets instead of entering to shop. With the increasing use of RFID wearable devices in warehouses and the resulting resistance by workers, the denial strategy could also mean the shelves do not get filled with their products.

Such was the threat from earlier this month from the UK?s GMB workers? union, who said it would call for strike action unless warehouses amended the way they tracked workers through such devices. In the wider context, legislators and data regulators are already reacting to the public concern by putting the brakes on RFID. California?s Senate last month approved the first legislation in the country to block state and local government agencies from issuing identification cards containing RFID tags.

In Europe, the EU?s justice and home affairs department issued a guidance document this year on RFID, stating that the bloc?s data protection directive already places companies under very restrictive obligations.

These include notifying consumers about the presence of RFID tags on products, what information is being gathered and for what purpose. The directive also gives consumers the right to disable the tag and to amend any collected information.

Even with such tough requirements EU consumers are still resistant to the use of even low-level RFID tags on the items they buy. European companies therefore face the same communications problem as their US counterparts. On the positive side there are signs industry is moving to address the concerns. AIM Global, a US RFID trade association, has issued proposals on what its members should do to protect consumers.

These include mostly the same requirements on RFID use as the EU?s directive on data protection. Will consumers believe such policies? Only if business follow through with compliance. Even with low-level RFID use firms have not been very good at protecting privacy and personal data as can be seen by the recent MasterCard security leak that exposed 40 million credit card accounts to possible fraud.

@EDITRULE: