RFID for Students and Game Theory
Radio frequency identification device (RFID) chips are an electronic numbering system, with unique codes for identification. The implementation of RFID technology is becoming more common; for instance, it is used in passports, cards, and livestock monitoring, and perhaps will even replace barcodes on consumer products. Now it has become a way to monitor students in school. The company InCom markets the InClass RFID system, which was developed by two California high school teachers. The RIFD system includes a card with photo identification attached to a lanyard and worn around the students’ necks, mandatory to be worn at all times. Inside the card is a RIFD chip, and as students pass by doorway scanners, their ID numbers are recorded and set to the school administration.
In state-funded schools, whose budgets corresponded to daily attendance, the RFID system is advantageous. Tracked students who are on campus, but not necessarily in class, are counted to have attended school that day. Thus, the school district still receives their funding allotment for these students. RFID also has security purposes; for instance, the badges can be used to time stamp when students board and leave the school buses, to prevent kidnappings. Also, it will be easier to identify intruders on campus, mainly those who are not wearing an RIFD card.
Schools have their reasons to implement RIFD, but parents and privacy groups are against the system. They compare the tagged students to cattle, drawing the line that RFID should not be used on people. Position papers have been signed by ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation. Assertions of privacy invasion and dehumanization are included with claims of potential health risks of RFID, such as emission of electromagnetic radiation. There is also the possibility of abusing the system, or not protecting stored data well enough or for the right amount of time.
In regards to game theory, with the implementation of RFID systems, school districts receive payoff by receiving their daily allotted funding for students’ attendance. For example, a Texas school district stated that the state could fund them $2 million by improving its school attendance. Students will have more protection in regards to security. However, parents and students could oppose RFID due to personal invasion of being tracked, and students would continue to skip school despite the consequences. The outcome of the school districts’ decision to implement the RFID system also depends on the choices made by its students, which include protests or truancy. If the school installs the RFID system and the parents and students agree, they both gain payoff in terms of money and security. Else, if the parents and students do not agree, the school gains payoff while they suffer. The happiness of both parties depends on both their decisions.
Sources:
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/02/66554
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/rfid-chip-student-monitoring/
– yzyzyz