Experience with RFID anybody?

[Ben_Stanton]

Looking to implement an RFID staff monitoring (in the interest of fire safety) and wondering if anybody out there has experience?

 

I know the fundementals and think I have it sussed but would rather someone verify...

 

Cheers

 

Ben

[plexer]

You mean rfid tagging all staff to monitor where they are?

 

Even though you are doing with a good reason to make sure everyone is out of the building I think you will face some backlash over invasion of privacy.

 

How are you going to inforce it? do you have backing of head, lea and unions?

 

If not I'd forget about it.

 

Ben

[GrumbleDook]

RFID chips in ID cards, active loops in doorways of key areas and a good lawyer.

 

Theoretically you can also use your Wireless network to track as a number of controllers (Cisco and BlueSocket) have modules that cover this.

 

Failing that you can give everyone a PDA and track them via that.

 

We do not have it ... too expensive to set up and too annoying to maintain (you should hear the stories of 20 people being in the same toilet cubicle!).

[derer1]

I'm sure some kind of painless dart gun could be used, to tag them unawares in the wilds of the staffroom

[Ben_Stanton]

We had an incident last term when the fire alarm was raised after 4.30. Although we rigorously practice the alarm drill during the academic day when students are on site - it has never occured to the 'powers that be' to instigate an drill post 'home time' and the result was that we couldn't be 100% certain who and where staff were.

 

For peripatetic staff we have a signing in/out book. But for full time staff we have nothing. After realising that this had never been thought of, we implimented a simple in/out check sheet for staff as they arrive and depart. The problem with this, is that the sheet needs to be in one location and due to the nature of the school campus - there is no one point where EVERYBODY passes. As pathetic as it seems, there has been a fair amount of hassle that this has caused (which is odd as it in the interest of their safety).

 

For example, main door isn't open until 7.30 - Head of Science gets in before this and goes staright to the science block. For the remainder of the day he is in a seperate building a fair destance from the main door. He stays until 5 for example, he is not going to walk all the way to main door to tick a box for staying what could be only a few more minutes to walk all the way back to where car is parked.

 

Makes no sense really, if it is the interest of his life - you'd think people wouldn't mind walking a few hundred yards and checking a box - but that isn't the case.

 

My idea is simple and non-obtrusive (and still has holes). The tag will only carry a unique identifier linked to a DB. There will only be two RFID readers, one on the entry driveway and one on the exit driveway (its a one way system). Member of staff drives in and swipes (or not depending on proximity distance of reader/tag) as they arrive and same when they leave. Small keyfob does the job, no number to type, no card to swipe.

 

There is no case for invasion of privacy - the system will simply say the member of staff is on the premesis or off the premesis. It will not monitor location in the school, what he is eating, where they wee or what colout their pants are. A simple in or out.

 

The bursar seems interested, not spoken to the head but this is just another option in the pot. One that is no hassle for ther staff as its that part that is causing the trouble.

 

Ben

[webman]

Even though it is a good idea, I think some staff will kick up a fuss, if only just for the hell of it, and possibly get their unions involved. Something along the lines of it may be used to track staff absences and when they should/shouldn't be there - essentially used against them.

[enjay]

I used to work somewhere where all the main doors where swipe-card-controlled, with the system monitoring who was in each building - in the event of fire alarms, the estates management team got a print-out of who was in the building. It was a "fun" introductory period as it wouldn't let you in one building unless you'd swiped out of the other, but people soon enough got used to it though. (This was a much higher security establishment than a school though).

 

If you do it on the main entrance, as you suggest in post #2, consider whether it would pick up ALL occupants of the car, or just the driver, as staff might be sharing lifts.

 

We have the same problem as you with part-time staff, peri's and after school however the view from SMT is that there is no viable solution and there should therefore be NO solution - it is better to acknowledge that you don't know who is on site than it is to have a system which incorrectly records this.

[Ric_]

NEDAP Education could do you a system (we use promiximity cards for registration but they can also be used for access control, locker management, cashless payment and much more).

[Ben_Stanton]

Even though it is a good idea, I think some staff will kick up a fuss, if only just for the hell of it, and possibly get their unions involved. Something along the lines of it may be used to track staff absences and when they should/shouldn't be there - essentially used against them.

 

Surely if a member of staff is somewhere they shouldn't be at a time they shouldn't, then there is an even stronger case to have this system in place?!? If they are in the wrong - then surely we can use it against them?!? Absences are tracked - they are at any establishment surely? Typically a teacher rings in sick, if they do not, then the fact they don't turn up to teach would indicate this? But you're right - people will probably moan (until someone gets burnt to death).

 

Ric_: Thanks, i'll check them out but would probably keep it in house unless prices is good.

 

TO REITERATE, THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED TO MONITOR WHO IS ON SITE IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE

 

NickJones: If you use gen2 tags you can avoid collision. Also, if you go for a close proximity sensor, it would mean wiping over the box with the fob much like 'using the force' and the passengers tagged can also be swiped!

[webman]

Ben, yes, I know... but you know what some staff can be like

[Ben_Stanton]

Ben, yes, I know... but you know what some staff can be like

 

Tell me about it

[Geoff]

I think it's not what you are doing with the data that'll cause a fuss it's the fact that you possess the information at all.

[enjay]

TO REITERATE, THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED TO MONITOR WHO IS ON SITE IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE

That's as may be, the fact of the matter is that you could do more with the information. Look at the vast majority of civil liberties / personal privacy objections - they are not about the act itself but what else could be done with that data if you so desired (not that you would, of course!).

[Ben_Stanton]

I think it's not what you are doing with the data that'll cause a fuss it's the fact that you possess the information at all.

 

 

Effectively, although it is not practicable - it would be no different to going out and looking at what cars are in the car park. For God sake, we wouldn't be keeping bank account numbers, recording phone conversations - we purely want to be able to tell the fire brigade with a high level of probablility that yes there are people in that burning building or no there are not. 'The information' (which would be their name) is not a secret is it? What your saying is a member of staff is going to object to his employer knowing he is at work?!?

[Geoff]

I agree Data Protection isn't an issue here. However I think your standing atop a slippery slope.

[enjay]

we purely want to be able to tell the fire brigade with a high level of probablility that yes there are people in that burning building or no there are not.

Very true, and that is the key point to your idea of having the sensors on the gates and not more localised - you can't identify that people are showing up late for class or what have you, nor can you see that two staff members have sloped off to a "quiet corner" somewhere together. This is why your idea just might work where others have met with civil liberties arguments.

 

It is funny - some people will object regardless of how sensible it ultimately is. I fully agree with your sentiments however the media at present has us all hyped up on this issue at the moment, so you must expect some backlash against even the most sensible of ideas.

 

There are still practical considerations, even if you do get the go ahead. How will you get this data when the fire bells ring? Whose job is it to remain in the burning building while the PC runs the report and then prints out the data?

[Ben_Stanton]

TO REITERATE, THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED TO MONITOR WHO IS ON SITE IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE

That's as may be, the fact of the matter is that you could do more with the information. Look at the vast majority of civil liberties / personal privacy objections - they are not about the act itself but what else could be done with that data if you so desired (not that you would, of course!).

 

I understand completely with what you are saying, but we aren't tesco or walmart! The fob will have a 3 digit number. The DB will have the initials of the member of staff that corresponds to that number. The DB will only have an IN and OUT date/time stamp. What can we, or anybody else do with a bunch of fobs that have only the original (manufacturer encoded) identifier and a DB with a load of initials and times?

 

Unless of course WH Smith managed to get this database and correlate the seemingly random information and open a stationary only store at the end of the mile long driveway in our secluded hamlet of only 100 residents (we don't have street lights let alone a shop)!

 

I agree this technology could be used for ill gain - but so could the school database with a shed load more information, or maybe the payroll system - I don't remember any uproar when these details were being entered?!?!?!?!?!?

 

I didn't want to cause an argument here, I just wanted to see if anybody had any experience in this area - as that is why we are all members surely!

 

I am not stupid, I do know that this concept is in widespread use around the world for targeted marketing, people and asset monitoring. We are not talking about an identity card that is picked up by hidden recievers monitoring your every step (big brother styleeeee) and every purchase. Who you are in close proximity too etc etc. THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY HERE!

 

Unbelievable. People quite happily throw away documents that contain much more information (that people actually do wade through the bins for). People still sign up to things knowing full well their information will spread around the world like wildfire to various advertising comapnies, government agencies etc. People still keep information in their walllets that get lost, still have 'home' plumbed into their satnav, their car keys and home keys on the same chain, home windows open yet people will openly go aginst a simple, basic, yet effective system to ensure that they are not inside a burning 3 storey grade2 listed building!

 

PLEASE NO MORE COMMENTS ON 'INVASION OF PRIVACY'

[enjay]

Having a system which does not keep record but simply gives real-time data could also help to alleviate concerns.

 

Whatever you do, you need a system which is fool-proof otherwise your data could be misleading. Consider the teacher who, for whatever reason, doesn't swipe in; as they are not logged as being on site, you don't tell the fire crews to go looking for them. If you have a system which logs people but can be circumvented (accidentally/carelessly I mean, not deliberately) you could end up having a false sense of security regarding the accuracy of said data. That was the decision here - no data is better than incorrect data. I would therefore look for a system which works without any requirement on the staff members, so proximity sensors on the gates rather than swipe card units would be my preference.

 

Of course, you'll still get the people who leave their cards in school overnight, so are reported as being on site when they're not, meaning the fire crews will go looking for someone who is in fact safely at home 20 miles away.

[Ben_Stanton]

we purely want to be able to tell the fire brigade with a high level of probablility that yes there are people in that burning building or no there are not.

Very true, and that is the key point to your idea of having the sensors on the gates and not more localised - you can't identify that people are showing up late for class or what have you, nor can you see that two staff members have sloped off to a "quiet corner" somewhere together. This is why your idea just might work where others have met with civil liberties arguments.

 

It is funny - some people will object regardless of how sensible it ultimately is. I fully agree with your sentiments however the media at present has us all hyped up on this issue at the moment, so you must expect some backlash against even the most sensible of ideas.

 

There are still practical considerations, even if you do get the go ahead. How will you get this data when the fire bells ring? Whose job is it to remain in the burning building while the PC runs the report and then prints out the data?

 

Central database, access by bursar, secretary, Head, Estates, SMT - a icon in system tray that when clicked will print list to nearest printer. These offices are spread across campus in 3 seperate buildings. It would need to be one hell of a fire to make this a problem.

 

There are obvious flaws in this, yes, you could slope off round the bike sheds for a crafty whatever, but you have not passed the exit sensor so we will act as if you "could possibly" be in the building.

 

You may forget to swipe in way out or maybe walk off site, again, we will act based on the assumption you could possibly still be in the building. Surely it is better to have possibilities than no he isnt there - oh hang on, there he is waving from the 3rd floor smoke filled room!

[srochford]

we purely want to be able to tell the fire brigade with a high level of probablility that yes there are people in that burning building or no there are not. 'The information' (which would be their name) is not a secret is it? What your saying is a member of staff is going to object to his employer knowing he is at work?!?

 

Are you sure that the fire brigade will be interested? I had a passing conversation with our safety officer recently where he told me something like the fire brigade will not enter a building which still has people in it!

[Ben_Stanton]

My understanding, chinease whispers from the Bursar via the Estates Manager - the fire brigade want to know if the buillding has been entirely vacated so that they can just drench the bugger. Or, if there are people in there - appropriate steps need to be taken.

 

Surely they don't turn up, ask if it is empty, we say no and they just shrug and say oh well....?

[Ric_]

Regarding the fire brigade... we were told (by the fire brigade) that they will search ALL rooms in the event of a fire anyway. Our only concern is to get as many people out as possible.

[enjay]

Regarding the fire brigade... we were told (by the fire brigade) that they will search ALL rooms in the event of a fire anyway. Our only concern is to get as many people out as possible.

They probably do search all rooms regardless, but if you know that the teacher in Room 1 is still unaccounted for, then surely you start there rather than Room 7 (as much as is possible, of course).

[GrumbleDook]

Usual procedure is to identify risk areas and at risk personell.

 

Part of this includes asking if people are still in the building before starting searches.

 

The presumption in public buildings is that it is still occupied unless otherwise confirmed, and even they they don't trust you.