Telaeris and Point Loma Nazarene University MBA students teamed up to conduct a research study.
This study sought to evaluate how people weigh the balance between the privacy concerns and potential benefits of using RFID technology to track people.
2. www.telaeris.com
Introduction
Telaeris and Point Loma Nazarene
University MBA students teamed up to
conduct a research study.
This study sought to evaluate how people
weigh the balance between the privacy
concerns and potential benefits of using
RFID technology to track people.
3. www.telaeris.com
Research Objectives
Assess stakeholder perceived benefits and concerns with
respect to selected RFID people tracking applications.
Measure respondent assessments of various methods of
allaying concerns.
Determine whether attitudes vary significantly by key
demographic groups.
4. www.telaeris.com
Methodology
A Qualtrics-hosted web survey was designed with
substantial inputs from Telaeris management.
A solicitation email with a link to the survey was sent out to
a Telaeris-provided email list and the survey was also
posted to LinkedIn to allow for participation by the
followers of the Telaeris CEO.
All data was processed and analyzed using SPSS.
5. www.telaeris.com
Limitations
Small sample size (n = 140) due to limited email lists and
social media reach.
Sample frame was limited to the Telaeris, Inc. contact list
and it may not draw on audiences who aren’t security
related yet still have concerns.
7. www.telaeris.com
Respondents Working in the
Security Industry
• Majority of respondents
do work for a company
that provides services or
solutions that use RFID
• 42% work in industries
outside of security
solutions
16. www.telaeris.com
SURVEY QUESTIONS
KNOWLEDGE
OF RFID:
• TECHNOLOGY
• CAPABILITIES
• STANDARDS
1. How knowledgeable
would you say you are
about RFID?
(Not at all - Extremely)
2. Please list RFID:
• Applications
• Benefits
• Concerns
24. www.telaeris.com
Concerns:
# 1: Management Monitoring
#2: Hackers Skimming Data
#3: Government Tracking
#4: Radiation Risk
#5: Implantable RFID Chips
SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. Which concern with
RFID was most
important?
2. What is the most
effective solution for
each concern?
27. www.telaeris.com
Concern Level for Management
Monitoring
Mean = 3.11
Moderate level of concern.
No significant difference in level of concern by sub-group.
28. www.telaeris.com
Effective Ways to
Address Management Monitoring
Provide educational resources as to how the technology
avoids this problem.
RANK RESPONSE MEAN RANK
1 Educational Resources 2.29
2 Case Histories 2.37
3 Employee Opt-Out Option 2.81
4 Company Policies 3.16
5 Other 4.37
31. www.telaeris.com
Concern Level for Hackers
Skimming Private Data
Mean = 3.86,
High level of concern for hackers skimming data.
Many significant differences in sub-group perceptions.
32. www.telaeris.com
Concerns about Hackers
Skimming Data by Sub-Groups
• Respondents from companies involved with RFID technology
applications were significantly less concerned about hacking than other
respondents.
• Respondents from small companies (1-50 employees) were significantly
less concerned than respondents from large companies (500+
employees).
• Younger respondents (18-30) were significantly less concerned than
older employees (40-65).
• Respondents with less than a Bachelor’s degree were significantly less
concerned than respondents with a Bachelor’s or advanced degrees.
33. www.telaeris.com
Effective Ways to Address
Hackers Skimming Data
Provide educational resources as to how the technology
avoids this problem.
RANK RESPONSE MEAN
Rank
1 Educational Resources 1.99
2 Case Histories 2.70
3 Employee Opt-Out Option 2.70
4 Company Policies 3.09
5 Other 4.54
34. www.telaeris.com
Verbatim: Other Ways to
Address Hackers Skimming Data
The industry needs to support the equivalent of CERT
(Community Emergency Response Team) to fix issues
Do not put private data on the card
Show the data up front so they are informed & not
speculating
Provide two factor authentication required to read the tags.
40. www.telaeris.com
Concern Level
Significantly Lower for:
RFID involved respondents
Caucasians (vs non-caucasians)
Respondents from large companies (vs. mid sized
companies)
Respondents with more than Bachelor’s degree
46. www.telaeris.com
Case 1: School Children
Privacy vs. Concerns
Mean = 4.64; Non-Caucasians (mean 3.53) significantly more concerned
about the privacy issues than Caucasians (mean 5.07).
Support = 71% , Don’t Support = 29%
48. www.telaeris.com
Case 2: Employee Tracking
Privacy vs. Concerns
Mean = 4.42. Non-Caucasians (Mean = 3.71) significantly more concerned
about the privacy issues than Caucasians (Mean 4.76).
Respondents from small firms (50-200) are more positive about the benefits
than respondents from larger companies.
52. www.telaeris.com
Benefit vs Privacy
Tradeoffs by Demographic Groups
Respondents in RFID related services rate the security benefit of
RFID significantly higher than respondents who work for non-RFID
related firms.
Respondents in larger companies (e.g., > 500 employees) are
significantly less impressed by the safety benefit than respondents
from smaller companies (e.g., 50 employees or less)
Respondents in mid-sized companies (e.g., 50-200; 201-500
employees) are significantly less impressed by the convenience
benefit than respondents from smaller companies (e.g., 50 employees
or less)
54. www.telaeris.com
Conclusions
Hackers skimming data is the largest concern of
respondents and must be addressed by security
solutions companies.
This is less of an issue for respondents who come from the industry, are younger,
are from smaller companies, or have less education
Radiation risks are not a significant concern for
this sample.
55. www.telaeris.com
Conclusions cont’d
The most highly ranked interventions are education,
case histories, and employee opt out options.
• Non-Caucasians are significantly more concerned
about both the student- and the employee-tracking
application cases than Caucasians.
• Respondents are generally strongly positive
towards the security, safety, and convenience
benefits of RFID but are more neutral about the
efficiency benefit.
56. www.telaeris.com
Recommendations
The survey worked well. The main limitation for the
study were:
1. the limited number of respondents
2. the limited sample frame from which
respondents were drawn, i.e., contacts and
social media followers of Telaeris.
57. www.telaeris.com
Recommendations Cont’d
We recommend:
• Pursuing other sample frames such as the
Security Industry Association, and other, non-
security related associations.
• Continuing the collection of responses so as to
“increase the power of the test” of differences
among demographic groups concerning RFID
benefits and concerns.
• In particular, the attitudinal differences we
uncovered based on ethnicity should be
explored further.
Editor's Notes
Revise
- Slide is confusing
Cannot tell what its purpose is – is this a question page for the slides that proceeds this?
What about question 2? Is this what the person answering thinks RFID is?
Could someone select multiple options?
The point of this slide is unclear
Same concern, can people select multiple options?
Same concern, can people select multiple options?
Re format – font, formatting, etc.
Delete
What is Case Histories mentioned in Rank 2?
Can’t understand what this slide is trying to say
Have we not sent out the surveys to Security Industry Associated contacts?
Have we not sent out the surveys to Security Industry Associated contacts?
