The RFID industry is fortunate to have several columnists willing to "tell it like it is." One of those columnists is Mark Roberti, Editor of RFID Journal.

His column usually is a must-read, and his latest column is no exception. He takes on no less venerable a publication than Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports, for our readers outside the U.S. who may not be familiar with it, has held a revered place in public opinion as being an independent product testing agency that accepts no advertising money. Consumers typically rely on the magazine to research purchases before they buy, especially large-ticket goods such as automobiles and appliances.

But as Mark points out, Consumer Reports recently joined the passel of print publications writing about RFID without understanding it. The result is a distorted article resorting to scare tactics. In an opinion column entitled Consumer Distorts, Mark notes:

Of course, the story doesn't mention that consumers have overwhelmingly embraced RFID for toll collection, electronic payments and other applications, nor does it mention that tens of millions of consumers around the world use radio frequency identification technologies every single day. The author also does not bother to point out that in all that time, not a single incident of privacy invasion has ever been reported (at least, not that I'm aware of).

In addition, some of the information in the story is factually inaccurate. The writer says all tags in clothes, shoes and so on would be "capable of broadcasting to a database that can be linked to your credit card." As a result, the article claims, "the potential for corporate and government snooping rises to a new level." Sounds pretty scary, but don't believe the hype -- passive tags don't broadcast information, and there is no big database in the sky with everyone's information in it. Furthermore, it's just not true that "a high-tech thief [could] break into the tags and cull your banking and medical information." (Such sensitive data is rarely ever stored on RFID tags.)

One of my favorite sections of Consumer Reports magazine is a section where they point out manufacturer and retailer nonsensical blunders in advertising copy. I wonder if they will be open and honest enough to point out their own nonsensical factual blunders with their story?