Your Press
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email »
Anger over York schools that fingerprint their five-year-olds
11:00am Monday 8th January 2007
Comments (169) Have your say »
THOUSANDS of children in York are being fingerprinted by their schools, including one without parents' knowledge, The Press can reveal today.
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show 11 schools in the city are using personal biometric data to identify pupils, but one said today they had suspended the practice, after a local politician voiced concerns.
Human rights campaigners have reacted angrily to the news, saying the fingerprinting was unnecessary and an invasion of privacy, and questioning its safety.
They said children were being "conditioned" into thinking it were normal to have to divulge personal information.
But Chris Bridge, head teacher at Huntington Secondary, said the system was preparing pupils for a world in which terrorism was rife, and their privacy would be further invaded.
He said: "These children, frankly, are growing up in a world where identity and being certain about your own identity is increasingly important.
"All the measures to do with ID cards will possibly invade their privacy even further, but the world has no answer to terrorism without using these things and I would see us as getting them ready for the world in which they will have to live."
Schools also said the technology was safe, pupils enjoyed it, and parents had only rarely complained.
The information released by City of York Council shows seven primary and four secondary schools employ library systems that use fingerprint recognition.
The schools are: Archbishop Holgate CE, Huntington Secondary, Joseph Rowntree Secondary, Manor CE, Archbishop of York's Junior, Clifton Green Primary, Knavesmire Primary, St Lawrence's CE Primary, St Wilfrid's RC Primary, Stockton-on-the-Forest Primary and Yearsley Grove Primary. They have a combined roll of about 6,000.
Sheila Audsley, head at Clifton Green, said they stopped using the system, after MEP Godfrey Bloom raised concerns over civil liberties.
All the schools apart from Manor CE informed parents in advance of taking youngsters' prints.
Manor's head, Brian Crosby, said pupils themselves had recommended the system, and it had been introduced before any concerns came to light.
Human rights group Privacy International slammed the practice, which they said was happening in many schools throughout Britain.
Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International, said: "This is the only country in the world that has done this. In every other country in the world, the idea of fingerprinting people is opposed, and the idea of fingerprinting children is abhorrent."
He added: "We are telling kids it is okay to get fingerprinted. They are getting to them while they are young. It does not make sense.
"We were all so shocked when America started fingerprinting foreigners, yet all along we were fingerprinting kids."
Mr Hosein said up to 700,000 children across Britain may have been fingerprinted at school, and added: "Bring this out in to the spotlight. Let's see the politicians stand up and say why this is a good idea, and why we need it. Let's have an open and full debate."
Phil Booth, national co-ordinator of campaign group NO2ID said: "Young kids are being essentially, conditioned to accept that being fingerprinted is a normal, everyday thing, which is worrying and it undervalues what is, and could be, a potentially secure technology when you are doing it for trivial things like taking a book out of a school library."
He added: "It's deeply concerning again that they are accumulating huge amounts of data that seems to be unnecessary."
Your Say YourPress
Barry Bethal, says...
11:27am Mon 8 Jan 07
Sorry but I really don't see the problem with this at all. Big deal they're having their fingerprints taken!
The only reason it's never been used in the past as an identity measure as opposed to a library card for instance is because the technology has never been available so cheap to do it!
These human rights tree huggers are once again up in arms at anything that means better or different ideas of security I'd like to hear their explaination too as to why they "question it's safety"?!! Ridiculous!
The only reason it's never been used in the past as an identity measure as opposed to a library card for instance is because the technology has never been available so cheap to do it!
These human rights tree huggers are once again up in arms at anything that means better or different ideas of security I'd like to hear their explaination too as to why they "question it's safety"?!! Ridiculous!
Bemused, says...
11:31am Mon 8 Jan 07
But Chris Bridge, head teacher at Huntington Secondary, said the system was preparing pupils for a world in which terrorism was rife, and their privacy would be further invaded.
In other words, "brainwashing".
Lesley, says...
11:34am Mon 8 Jan 07
I personally don't see a problem as long as parental consent is requested first. My 5 year old daughter was finger printed without my consent at one of the mentioned schools and I was furious.
Harry, says...
11:34am Mon 8 Jan 07
Perhaps the resourses used to fingerprint schoolkids should be used at ports and airports to keep track of the mass influx of illegal immigrants who wreak havoc on ordinary, decent people. The time it takes to fingerprint one person, could be used to tag three.
Collie, says...
11:43am Mon 8 Jan 07
It`s a fairly sinister move really.getting them into the system early, conditioning in to them that this is "normal". Terrorists win when our freedoms are curtailed. Another problem is the security of the actual data. I mean, the national police computer system may well be secure, but i know for a fact that the vast majority of local gov (and most private) databases are wide open. Or would the council consider selling this info? I`m sure that somewhere out there, there is a market for this stuff. This stinks really.
Worried, says...
11:48am Mon 8 Jan 07
I have to say that all these stories fill me with dread - remember George Orwell's 1984? At the time it was dismissed as unrealistic, but as time goes on it becomes more and more accurate.
Why do the school need fingerprints? WHY??????? To prove that little "Johnny Rotten" is really Jonny Rotten? Do the school not think that parents would realise if their child was an imposter? If it is for library cards, then surely swipe cards given to children would be just as practical.
Who do the schools share the database with? And please don't reply and insult me by saying no-one - no doubt the "scanned" images are kept on databases - it will only be a matter of time before they are sold to a company for "research purposes".
And why would the children need to be "certain about their (own) identity"?? Do they have any doubts in their little minds that they may not be who they think they are?
Be careful - Big Brother is truly watching you and it would appear to be starting in primary schools...................
Why do the school need fingerprints? WHY??????? To prove that little "Johnny Rotten" is really Jonny Rotten? Do the school not think that parents would realise if their child was an imposter? If it is for library cards, then surely swipe cards given to children would be just as practical.
Who do the schools share the database with? And please don't reply and insult me by saying no-one - no doubt the "scanned" images are kept on databases - it will only be a matter of time before they are sold to a company for "research purposes".
And why would the children need to be "certain about their (own) identity"?? Do they have any doubts in their little minds that they may not be who they think they are?
Be careful - Big Brother is truly watching you and it would appear to be starting in primary schools...................
JD, says...
11:50am Mon 8 Jan 07
My son is at Chris Bridges school, and to be honest this is the first I knew about the finger printing, SO WHAT !!! Too many bl**dy do gooders up in arms again !!Get over it, it's a fact of life, personally I dont know why we dont DNA every baby as it is born and be done. If we have noyhing to hide, then why the fuss ??
lacypaperdevil, says...
11:51am Mon 8 Jan 07
I think that this should not be allowed.
I know that people say that if you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about, however it smacks of nanny state wanting to know what everyone is up to.
Have the days gone when teachers used to know their children?
Have the days gone when people knew who everyone one was?
Have the days gone when people were greeted with a welcome rather than with suspicion?
Question: do you trust the schools, local and national government to protect this information? Do you trust them to use this information for nothing more than they state? If they have taken the biometric data without consent then the chances are no.
I know that people say that if you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about, however it smacks of nanny state wanting to know what everyone is up to.
Have the days gone when teachers used to know their children?
Have the days gone when people knew who everyone one was?
Have the days gone when people were greeted with a welcome rather than with suspicion?
Question: do you trust the schools, local and national government to protect this information? Do you trust them to use this information for nothing more than they state? If they have taken the biometric data without consent then the chances are no.
Concerned reader, says...
11:54am Mon 8 Jan 07
Barry Bethal wrote:I wouldn't describe myself as a "human rights tree hugger" particularly but I am still concerned by this kind of thing.
Sorry but I really don't see the problem with this at all. Big deal they're having their fingerprints taken!
The only reason it's never been used in the past as an identity measure as opposed to a library card for instance is because the technology has never been available so cheap to do it!
These human rights tree huggers are once again up in arms at anything that means better or different ideas of security I'd like to hear their explaination too as to why they "question it's safety"?!! Ridiculous!
The problem isn't neccessarily with what systems and social conditions are in place NOW but with what may happen in the future. Once a persons biometric details have been recorded, these records are going to hang around for the rest of their life.
Only 60 years ago in a developed, western country Hitler tried to round up every single Jew/homosexual/communist and kill them. Imagine how much easier his job would have been if he had pictures, DNA samples and fingerprints for every single person that fell into these catagories...
I'm not saying that the UK is heading in this direction, but the point is that nobody can be 100% certain that we won't do at some point in the future.
Jo, says...
11:58am Mon 8 Jan 07
I am fed up of morons trotting out the tired cliche "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear".
I really can't put the counter argument to this any better than Bruce Schneier does in this article:
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70886-0.html
Read it and educate yourself.
I really can't put the counter argument to this any better than Bruce Schneier does in this article:
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70886-0.html
Read it and educate yourself.
lacypaperdevil, says...
12:02pm Mon 8 Jan 07
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70886-0.html
What a fantastic article.
Leo, says...
12:03pm Mon 8 Jan 07
These human rights tree huggers are once again up in arms at anything that means better or different ideas of security I'd like to hear their explaination too as to why they "question it's safety"?!! Ridiculous!
Actually, I think the tree huggers are more likely to be the ones taking the fingerprints than having them taken these days (e.g. the council sifting through your rubbish in order to look for evidence of your violating its environmental policies).
Question: do you trust the schools, local and national government to protect this information? Do you trust them to use this information for nothing more than they state? If they have taken the biometric data without consent then the chances are no.
Absolutely. Once the biometric data has been collected, it's effectively out of your control. They can do what they like with it, and it's only in the unlikely event that you find out exactly what they've done, that you can complain or take action against it. No doubt the primary school will be asked by the high school to which a pupil is transferring for the data. If the police come to the school investigating something or other, I can just see them high-pressuring some underpaid secretary to burn them off a CD-ROM with all the school role fingerprints on it, complete with assurances that the innocent have nothing to fear etc. etc. Then, 20 years later, when one of those pupils puts out a bin bag with a non-approved, non-recyclable substance in it, the council's goons will examine the bag for fingerprints ... and you're nicked, matey - 20 years in the pokey for you!
Why do you think the fuzz keep DNA data from people who are never charged or convicted? Because they prefer to be in a position where they've got something - anything - on you. Yet another example of the Labour authoritarian superstate taking away our freedoms and liberties in a way Orwell would have been proud of.
Rich, says...
12:04pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Jo's reference to Bruce Schneier is important and well timed.
Simply put: do you trust the people and systems that hold your childrens' fingerprints?
Do you trust them to maintain this information securely, guarantee confidentiality, and not sell their details?
Do you trust them to not have little accidents that make the information available to untrusted individuals or parties?
Do you know how the fingerprint information will be used 6 weeks from now? 6 months from now? 6 years from now?
As soon as your childrens' fingerprint information has been taken, you have *lost control* of it. Doesn't that worry you?
Simply put: do you trust the people and systems that hold your childrens' fingerprints?
Do you trust them to maintain this information securely, guarantee confidentiality, and not sell their details?
Do you trust them to not have little accidents that make the information available to untrusted individuals or parties?
Do you know how the fingerprint information will be used 6 weeks from now? 6 months from now? 6 years from now?
As soon as your childrens' fingerprint information has been taken, you have *lost control* of it. Doesn't that worry you?
sam, says...
12:08pm Mon 8 Jan 07
and what can biometric information from fingerprints be used for?
nothing.
nothing.
karen, says...
12:08pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Schools also said the technology was safe, pupils enjoyed it, and parents had only rarely complained.
Parents had rarely complained this maybe is due to the fact this is the first we have heard about it!! My child goes to Huntington and I am not happy about the fact that we were not imformed , if my child had gotten himself into trouble with the Police they couldnt take his fingerprints without contacting us first as he is under 16 . So why did the school not inform us with a letter!!!
Parents had rarely complained this maybe is due to the fact this is the first we have heard about it!! My child goes to Huntington and I am not happy about the fact that we were not imformed , if my child had gotten himself into trouble with the Police they couldnt take his fingerprints without contacting us first as he is under 16 . So why did the school not inform us with a letter!!!
Jimbob, says...
12:11pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Concerned Reader wrote:
OH MY GOD! They can tell if you're gay or communist from your fingerprints!
I'm a jewish, guy, communist!
I'm out a' here!
Only 60 years ago in a developed, western country Hitler tried to round up every single Jew/homosexual/communist and kill them. Imagine how much easier his job would have been if he had pictures, DNA samples and fingerprints for every single person that fell into these catagories...
OH MY GOD! They can tell if you're gay or communist from your fingerprints!
I'm a jewish, guy, communist!
I'm out a' here!
Old Amos, says...
12:23pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Quote from above article:
And from a teacher in another article:
I may be getting on a bit, but even I can read the above article proerly. As I see it, the fingerprints are part of a new biometric security device. If your fingerprint isn't in the system, you can't get access. I've seen them on lap-top computers and all it means is that there can be no unauthorised access. It's almost impossible to cheat the system. What's the problem, apart from the backwater mentality from York residents. Or do Bradford residents adapt better, rather than living in the past.
Human rights campaigners have reacted angrily to the news, saying the fingerprinting was unnecessary and an invasion of privacy, and questioning its safety.
And from a teacher in another article:
She said: "In Bradford this system was introduced in 2001 and we haven't had any problems with it that I'm aware of.
I may be getting on a bit, but even I can read the above article proerly. As I see it, the fingerprints are part of a new biometric security device. If your fingerprint isn't in the system, you can't get access. I've seen them on lap-top computers and all it means is that there can be no unauthorised access. It's almost impossible to cheat the system. What's the problem, apart from the backwater mentality from York residents. Or do Bradford residents adapt better, rather than living in the past.
Ex-teacher, says...
12:25pm Mon 8 Jan 07
What is the big deal? The press has misreported the story for the purpose of making headlines. I used to work in school where pupils fingerprints were used instead of them having to carry a library card. The system does not record an image of the fingerprint, it only produces a number which corresponds to features of the fingerprint. A picture of the fingerprint cannot be obtained from the number. All this hysteria about fingerprinting 5 year olds comes from the paranoia and ignorance endorsed by the press. Personally I think the use of biometric data should be used more frequently as a way of reducing identity fraud, what have you got to hide?
Leo, says...
12:26pm Mon 8 Jan 07
They can tell if you're gay or communist from your fingerprints!
No; but if they suspect that you are communist, Jewish and/or gay and decide that they don't like such people, then having your fingerprint makes it a lot easier for them to track you down.
But I wouldn't worry. Most members of the current cabinet are either communist, gay or both; and I'm sure Lord 'Cashpoint' Levy is flying the flag for Judaism. It's motorists, people who are employed and paying taxes and members of any political party other than Labour who are most likely to be on the receiving end of the surveillance state.
Fred, says...
12:26pm Mon 8 Jan 07
sam wrote:Rubbish. It can be used to prevent you from entering the US, to begin with. And when the government's brilliant ID card scheme comes online (ha ha), biometric information will be used to uniquely identify you and your children and provide/prevent access to services.
and what can biometric information from fingerprints be used for? nothing.
Just because Joe Consumer can't see an obvious use for biometric information now doesn't mean there won't be many dangerous applications a couple of years from now.
Try thinking long term.
Perk, says...
12:29pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Funny how many people who use the argument "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to be worried about" are reluctant to reveal their real names on forums like this.
Could it be that you just want to protect your privacy perchance? If so, who the **** do you think your are to tell me that my children don't have the same right?
Could it be that you just want to protect your privacy perchance? If so, who the **** do you think your are to tell me that my children don't have the same right?
anono, says...
12:32pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I work in a school and can 100% say that all childrens info is kept secure. The fingerprint system is a simple and fast way of using a library system. Nothing more and nothing less.
It benefits younger children who cant use complex library databses and benfits larger schools by saving time.
It benefits younger children who cant use complex library databses and benfits larger schools by saving time.
Ronnie, says...
12:33pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Ex-teacher wrote:You've missed the point.
What is the big deal? The press has misreported the story for the purpose of making headlines. I used to work in school where pupils fingerprints were used instead of them having to carry a library card. The system does not record an image of the fingerprint, it only produces a number which corresponds to features of the fingerprint. A picture of the fingerprint cannot be obtained from the number. All this hysteria about fingerprinting 5 year olds comes from the paranoia and ignorance endorsed by the press. Personally I think the use of biometric data should be used more frequently as a way of reducing identity fraud, what have you got to hide?
1) The "number" is used to uniquely identify people (in this case, children). You can't predict how the school, council, government, police, and nefarious criminals will use this number should they acquire it.
2) The "what have you got to hide" argument has been countered many, many times -- see the Bruce Schneier article above. It's a worthless tired argument.
3) Reliance on biometric data comes with substantial risks. There are too many to list here, but what about: does the technology work? What do you do about false positives (ie, little Jimmy is accidentally identified as Abu Hamza)? What if the technology is interfered with or acquired by criminals (which it will be)? What if the database is compromised, or sold, or accidentally left on a laptop that an employee takes home, and which is stolen by criminals (thank you, Nationwide)?
Using biometrics *may* add value in terms of decreasing fraud, but the case hasn't been made yet.
Susie, says...
12:36pm Mon 8 Jan 07
anono wrote:Oh, give me a break!
I work in a school and can 100% say that all childrens info is kept secure. The fingerprint system is a simple and fast way of using a library system. Nothing more and nothing less. It benefits younger children who cant use complex library databses and benfits larger schools by saving time.
There is no such thing as 100% security.
Do people use the system? Yes. Then it's insecure. Someone can go into your school and steal the hardware. Or kidnap the system maintainer. Or, better yet - bribe the system maintainers to sell the information in the database.
Sure, maybe there are benefits for the kids who can't use complex library databases, but you have to consider the risks, vulnerabilities, and loss of control of information as well.
Take the blinkers off, for crying out loud.
An American, says...
12:37pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Fred wrote:Currently the US does not officially use its fingerprint data for anything.
sam wrote: and what can biometric information from fingerprints be used for? nothing.Rubbish. It can be used to prevent you from entering the US, to begin with. And when the government's brilliant ID card scheme comes online (ha ha), biometric information will be used to uniquely identify you and your children and provide/prevent access to services. Just because Joe Consumer can't see an obvious use for biometric information now doesn't mean there won't be many dangerous applications a couple of years from now. Try thinking long term.
I would assume that once countries begin issuing biometric passports, the US will use the carrier's fingerprint to match him/her to the data on the passport. I don't have a problem with this; growing up in the southern U.S. I had a front row seat for an illegal immigration explosion that has threatened the economic stability of the state of California, has turned southern Arizona into a war zone, and has stretched public health and education services in Texas to breaking point. Florida, New York, and Illinois are also suffering badly. A lot of our illegals simply jump the fence so fingerprinting won't help us there; but a lot of our more well-heeled illegals come in with fake papers. Hopefully fingerprinting will enable us to send more of them back where they came from.
Currently, American citizens do not have to give fingerprints at the border...but it would not surprise me if one day we were. I would not mind having to prove my identity; fake and stolen American passports abound on the black market.
julie, says...
12:42pm Mon 8 Jan 07
i think schools should send a letter out asking which parents want this doing and not just take it upon themselfs ,the quick enough to waste paper to say your child has 4got there gym kit
Facts, says...
12:43pm Mon 8 Jan 07
The fingerprint information only relates to a number on the library system. This is not linked to any other systems so the only information that can be extracted is a number. You are all very paranoid. Lets face facts, this information could be taken at any point, and probably will be in the future. I do think the "what have you got to hide" argument is valid. Someone mentioned that your finger print info can stop you getting into the US. ONLY IF YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! ***king idiots.
Fred, says...
12:46pm Mon 8 Jan 07
An American wrote:The US does officially accumulate fingerprint data, and they have been conducting numerous trials.
Fred wrote:Currently the US does not officially use its fingerprint data for anything. I would assume that once countries begin issuing biometric passports, the US will use the carrier's fingerprint to match him/her to the data on the passport. I don't have a problem with this; growing up in the southern U.S. I had a front row seat for an illegal immigration explosion that has threatened the economic stability of the state of California, has turned southern Arizona into a war zone, and has stretched public health and education services in Texas to breaking point. Florida, New York, and Illinois are also suffering badly. A lot of our illegals simply jump the fence so fingerprinting won't help us there; but a lot of our more well-heeled illegals come in with fake papers. Hopefully fingerprinting will enable us to send more of them back where they came from. Currently, American citizens do not have to give fingerprints at the border...but it would not surprise me if one day we were. I would not mind having to prove my identity; fake and stolen American passports abound on the black market.sam wrote: and what can biometric information from fingerprints be used for? nothing.Rubbish. It can be used to prevent you from entering the US, to begin with. And when the government's brilliant ID card scheme comes online (ha ha), biometric information will be used to uniquely identify you and your children and provide/prevent access to services. Just because Joe Consumer can't see an obvious use for biometric information now doesn't mean there won't be many dangerous applications a couple of years from now. Try thinking long term.
I do not mind having to prove my identity when entering or leaving a country. What I object to is not knowing what my biometric data is being used for, and how it will be used in the future. I also object to use of biometrics when no-one has clearly presented an argument that they are better (ie, more accurate and more cost effective) than the alternatives.
IanP, says...
12:46pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I do hope that each and every one of these schools is registered under the Data Protection Act as a Data Controller, and has Retentions and Privacy Policy in place.
If not, I seriously suggest that each and every parent prosecute for acting outside of the law.
If not, I seriously suggest that each and every parent prosecute for acting outside of the law.
John M, says...
12:47pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Currently the US does not officially use its fingerprint data for anything.
'officially' maybe but don't forget the Bush administration doesn't condone torture either and never armed the Contras in the '80s. And I read only yesterday that there are plans for US immigration to seek 10 fingerprints from the autumn. We need to be careful out there!
Leo, says...
12:50pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I don't have a problem with this; growing up in the southern U.S. I had a front row seat for an illegal immigration explosion that has threatened the economic stability of the state of California, has turned southern Arizona into a war zone, and has stretched public health and education services in Texas to breaking point.
I don't have a problem with this either: when I visit the US I choose to do so voluntarily, and if your democratically elected government wishes to collect biometric data from visitors, then it has the right to do so.
I am far more concerned about our government's willingness to extradite people to the US who are not suspected of having committed any offence on US soil, and to pass on personal data about us to the US government without our consent. But collecting data from visitors on arrival is fine by me - for those who don't like it, just don't go there.
The problem in this case is with fingerprint scanning five year-old kids (who are not old enough to even begin to engage with the civil liberties debate) without, it seems, asking their parents first. Informed consent is one thing, but this type of data collection is quite another.
An American, says...
12:51pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:Facts, that's currently not true. The US government doesn't use fingerprint data to identify foreign nationals; it still relies on their passports and the information presented on their landing card. There are lots of foreign felons who travel to the US frequently who, if they told the truth about their convictions, would not be allowed to enter the country on the VWP. Their fingerprints don't keep them out.
The fingerprint information only relates to a number on the library system. This is not linked to any other systems so the only information that can be extracted is a number. You are all very paranoid. Lets face facts, this information could be taken at any point, and probably will be in the future. I do think the \"what have you got to hide\" argument is valid. Someone mentioned that your finger print info can stop you getting into the US. ONLY IF YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! ***king idiots.
Naively, the USCIS still expects those on tourist visas to tell the truth about their criminal backgrounds. Luckily they require background checks for immigrant visas. People who get turned away at immigration are usually those whose names are on a watch list and those names aren't connected to fingerprints; that match usually occurs when the passport is scanned. The fingerprint isn't taken until after the passport is scanned, ergo it's unlikely that they're using fingerprints to identify people.
karen, says...
12:52pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:We have nothing to hide the point I have is we should be informed as a parent when this was to be done and why and if we did not want our child to participate then that is our CHOICE.As you read one head teacher as stopped this due to infringing our civil rights . WE SHOULD OF BEEN INFORMED it doesnt take much for a school to send a letter to us!!
The fingerprint information only relates to a number on the library system. This is not linked to any other systems so the only information that can be extracted is a number. You are all very paranoid. Lets face facts, this information could be taken at any point, and probably will be in the future. I do think the "what have you got to hide" argument is valid. Someone mentioned that your finger print info can stop you getting into the US. ONLY IF YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! ***king idiots.
Fred, says...
12:53pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:Ronnie answered the "number" point above.
The fingerprint information only relates to a number on the library system. This is not linked to any other systems so the only information that can be extracted is a number. You are all very paranoid. Lets face facts, this information could be taken at any point, and probably will be in the future. I do think the "what have you got to hide" argument is valid. Someone mentioned that your finger print info can stop you getting into the US. ONLY IF YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! ***king idiots.
I answered the "what have you got to hide" point above. If you trust your government, and all governments that follow it, and all the police and security forces, and all the criminals, then ... and only then, does this point make sense.
And even if you aren't a criminal, your fingerprint can stop you getting in to the US. Biometric systems are imperfect, and people make mistakes. You can be mis-identified. Enjoy that if it happens to you. There's a chap from Canada who was mis-identified and has had a **** of a time.
An American, says...
12:53pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:Facts, that's currently not true. The US government doesn't use fingerprint data to identify foreign nationals; it still relies on their passports and the information presented on their landing card. There are lots of foreign felons who travel to the US frequently who, if they told the truth about their convictions, would not be allowed to enter the country on the VWP. Their fingerprints don't keep them out.
The fingerprint information only relates to a number on the library system. This is not linked to any other systems so the only information that can be extracted is a number. You are all very paranoid. Lets face facts, this information could be taken at any point, and probably will be in the future. I do think the "what have you got to hide" argument is valid. Someone mentioned that your finger print info can stop you getting into the US. ONLY IF YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! ***king idiots.
Naively, the USCIS still expects those on tourist visas to tell the truth about their criminal backgrounds. Luckily they require background checks for immigrant visas.
Here's something that will keep some of you up at night: as an immigrant in the UK I was never subjected to a background check nor did I ever have to be screened for tuberculosis or other infectious diseases. You should be more annoyed by that than by fingerprinting; your government is contributing to a public health crisis by leaving TB screening up to immigration officials with no medical training.
Sun, says...
12:54pm Mon 8 Jan 07
But where does it all end? You all mostly say its no problem, don't be paranoid. But what happens when you are taken away against your will and held without charge? Its ok using the phrase 'do gooder' - but without our civil liberty protection we are all going to face tough regimes in the future without being allowed to defend ourselves
Ex-teacher, says...
12:55pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Ronnie wrote:Ronnie,
Ex-teacher wrote: What is the big deal? The press has misreported the story for the purpose of making headlines. I used to work in school where pupils fingerprints were used instead of them having to carry a library card. The system does not record an image of the fingerprint, it only produces a number which corresponds to features of the fingerprint. A picture of the fingerprint cannot be obtained from the number. All this hysteria about fingerprinting 5 year olds comes from the paranoia and ignorance endorsed by the press. Personally I think the use of biometric data should be used more frequently as a way of reducing identity fraud, what have you got to hide?You've missed the point. 1) The "number" is used to uniquely identify people (in this case, children). You can't predict how the school, council, government, police, and nefarious criminals will use this number should they acquire it. 2) The "what have you got to hide" argument has been countered many, many times -- see the Bruce Schneier article above. It's a worthless tired argument. 3) Reliance on biometric data comes with substantial risks. There are too many to list here, but what about: does the technology work? What do you do about false positives (ie, little Jimmy is accidentally identified as Abu Hamza)? What if the technology is interfered with or acquired by criminals (which it will be)? What if the database is compromised, or sold, or accidentally left on a laptop that an employee takes home, and which is stolen by criminals (thank you, Nationwide)? Using biometrics *may* add value in terms of decreasing fraud, but the case hasn't been made yet.
1) If someone did obtain the number, what possible use would it be? Short of chopping of little Jonnys thumb how would you be able to reproduce it? (a bit drastic for the sake of a library book Im sure youll agree)
2) Its a worthless tired argument because opinion is polarised Ill agree to disagree.
3) Who said anything about reliance on biometric data? More frequently is what I said. Theres far less chance of getting a false negative when using biometric data in conjunction with existing methods. Currently your identity can be stolen with just an old bank statement and your date of birth. At least with some kind of biometric data in place (in ADDITION to existing safeguards) it makes the criminals job harder.
An American, says...
12:59pm Mon 8 Jan 07
John M wrote:
Currently the US does not officially use its fingerprint data for anything.\'officially\' maybe but don\'t forget the Bush administration doesn\'t condone torture either and never armed the Contras in the \'80s. And I read only yesterday that there are plans for US immigration to seek 10 fingerprints from the autumn. We need to be careful out there!
quoteI don't suppose I have to remind you that the Bush administration had nothing to do with arming the Contras in the 1980s...that was the REAGAN administration. They did so illegally and trials were due to start in 1993, but Bush Sr. pardoned some of the key players on his way out of the White House, burying the story over the 1992 Christmas period. If we're going to point fingers at the Bush administration, let's criticize them for things they actually are responsible for. The list is too long to print here.
Scone, says...
1:00pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:It's not paranoia - it's a mixture of valuing one's privacy, not wanting to be labelled as a potential suspect, and ensuring children are not being persuaded to forfeit their basic human rights.
The fingerprint information only relates to a number on the library system. This is not linked to any other systems so the only information that can be extracted is a number. You are all very paranoid. Lets face facts, this information could be taken at any point, and probably will be in the future. I do think the "what have you got to hide" argument is valid. Someone mentioned that your finger print info can stop you getting into the US. ONLY IF YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! ***king idiots.
While your comments above may be true, children are being conditioned to believe that giving away your biometric information is a trivial thing to do and is fine so long as an authority figure says it is ok. The authority figures controlling the lives of our children (and future society) seem to be teachers in this case, backed by LEAs, governors etc. Can we really be sure the data will never be passed on for other use? Can we be sure the data is secure? Can we be sure that in future, the data collection and storage method isn't altered to make it possible to store personally identifiable information biometrically?
No, we can't.
I have plenty of things to hide in my life - that's why I value my privacy. None of those things is illegal, but if someone watches me for long enough and collects enough information, I am sure they will find something to attack me with, even when I am doing no harm.
I don't want to live my life in a sanitised, monitored bubble. Nor do I want my children to live like that, nor future generations.
Let's not give society up to these non-elected data gatherers. We can retain our freedoms without being closely monitored. The act of monitoring alone removes our freedoms and is purely about control.
Sinister doesn't quite cover it. Let's rise up and fight this tooth and nail while we still can.
An American, says...
1:04pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Why aren't you all up in arms about CCTV? I'm more irritated by the fact that I'm filmed practically everywhere I go but I don't hear anyone here complaining about it...ever. I'm sure some people here must not like it but they don't seem to mention it. The British are the most surveilled people on earth; it's surprising that you're OK with being caught on tape up to 300 times a day but you're not OK with your kids being fingerprinted. What's the difference? Either they're both wrong or they're not.
Andy, says...
1:04pm Mon 8 Jan 07
the fact is you are being treated as a criminal right from the start, and it wouldn't matter if everyone was finger printed and had the data stored, the fact still remains that the police are only interested in catching motorists, it's easier and there's less leg work and paper work, if they used the finger prints to catch real criminals it wouldn't be so bad but they wont.
BIG BROTHER, says...
1:05pm Mon 8 Jan 07
why not just go the whole hog and tag everyone at birth then they can keep tabs on everyone all the time. a small sleeping agent could be inserted then do anything they dont like and out like a light.
Facts, says...
1:07pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I think you all have been watching too many movies.
Lets say the government does have your biometric info. How does that take away our freedom? Fair enough they can track you down easier if you were on the run. But lets be honest, if the government wanted to find us, most of us would be either at work or at home, so having our finger print wouldn't really make it much easier for them.
Lets say the government does have your biometric info. How does that take away our freedom? Fair enough they can track you down easier if you were on the run. But lets be honest, if the government wanted to find us, most of us would be either at work or at home, so having our finger print wouldn't really make it much easier for them.
Barry Bethal, says...
1:07pm Mon 8 Jan 07
2) The "what have you got to hide" argu
Jack, says...
11:09am Mon 8 Jan 07