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 YourYork Press
Barry Bethal, says...
11:27am Mon 8 Jan 07
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
Harry, says...
11:34am Mon 8 Jan 07
Collie, says...
11:43am Mon 8 Jan 07
Worried, says...
11:48am Mon 8 Jan 07
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
lacypaperdevil, says...
11:51am Mon 8 Jan 07
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 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
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
nothing.
karen, says...
12:08pm Mon 8 Jan 07
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
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
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
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
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
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 pupil’s 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
Facts, says...
12:43pm Mon 8 Jan 07
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
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
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 pupil’s 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 JonnyÂ’s thumb how would you be able to reproduce it? (a bit drastic for the sake of a library book IÂ’m sure youÂ’ll agree)
2) It’s a worthless tired argument because opinion is polarised – I’ll agree to disagree.
3) Who said anything about ‘reliance’ on biometric data? ‘More frequently’ is what I said. There’s 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 criminal’s 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
Andy, says...
1:04pm Mon 8 Jan 07
BIG BROTHER, says...
1:05pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts, says...
1:07pm Mon 8 Jan 07
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" argument has been countered many, many times -- see the Bruce Schneier article above. It's a worthless tired argument.
Just as the worthless tired arguments against the countered argument
Rational, says...
1:08pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts, says...
1:11pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Before you all go on, i know Manor was the expection.
Scone, says...
1:13pm Mon 8 Jan 07
An American wrote:I, for one, am not ok with CCTV. It seems to have three effects:
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.
a) push crime into areas where there is no CCTV
b) encourages people to cover their identities with hoodies/scarves etc if they are about to perpetrate a crime in a CCTV area.
c) encourage idiots who just don't care to cause trouble and flaunt their defiance to the cameras
Does it stop drunks kicking off? No
Does it make me feel safer in a surveilled area? No
Is it any use? No
Get rid of it now - useless waste of time and money.
The trend is to watch more rather than less, as technology allows. This will not end here. Total control is the logical endpoint.
As a human being, if you try to squeeze me into a box and close the lid, my natural instinct is to fight you. Is it really worth it? Why make enemies of ordinary members of society?
Still, if you can persuade children today that being watched all the time somehow relates to being a good member of society and makes you safer whilst safeguarding your freedoms, then you have already realised that your surveillance culture is wrong and will stop at nothing to introduce it into daily life.
Duh, says...
1:19pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I admit this also depends on on the children actually passing the letter to their parents in the first place.
A 100% consensus would never to reached and if so should the school implement 2 seperate systems; one for fingerprintable students and one longwinded manual system for the children whose parents do not agree?? Or should the other students not be permitted to use the library facilities??
And for goodness sake the system is only used for the purposes of borrowing books not documenting students as they enter/leave the school. The only data being stored and utilised is this generated number. I am unsure but i'm guessing that the systems which use this data will be made as secure as possible, with a certain key or software device that makes it hard/impossible to trace the number back to the actual fingerprint.
Tommy Quinn, says...
1:19pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:It is not enough to inform parents.
Parents were informaed in most cases. Its their own fault if they don't take enough interest in their kids to read letters that come home from school. Before you all go on, i know Manor was the expection.
Active consent should be required rather than passive consent.
In other council areas - parents are required to "actively consent" by filling in a form specifically agreeing for fingerprints/biometric data to be taken.
The fact that the schools claim to have informed the parents (I presume by a letter carried home by little Johnny that may or may not have made it home) is not good enough.
The Headteacher who has implemented this without making any effort to inform parents at all is quite simply beyond the pale and should consider his position.
Duh, says...
1:22pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I admit this also depends on on the children actually passing the letter to their parents in the first place.
A 100% consensus would never to reached and if so should the school implement 2 seperate systems; one for fingerprintable students and one longwinded manual system for the children whose parents do not agree?? Or should the other students not be permitted to use the library facilities??
And for goodness sake the system is only used for the purposes of borrowing books not documenting students as they enter/leave the school. The only data being stored and utilised is this generated number. I am unsure but i'm guessing that the systems which use this data will be made as secure as possible, with a certain key or software device that makes it hard/impossible to trace the number back to the actual fingerprint.
kaz, says...
1:26pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:Really
Parents were informaed in most cases. Its their own fault if they don't take enough interest in their kids to read letters that come home from school. Before you all go on, i know Manor was the expection.
I read every letter my child brings home and I ask if they have any , and i read his school diary to as I do like to know what my child is upto.So get you facts straight and dont just presume that we are all ignorant parents who dont check .
Huntington school is the school I am questioning
Alex, says...
1:36pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Barry Bethal wrote:So you don't value your own privacy, and you don't care what other people do with your biometric data (or other personal data)?
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.Just as the worthless tired arguments against the countered argument
An American, says...
1:37pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Scone wrote:I'm relieved to hear this; I was starting to wonder what had happened to the civil libertarians. Used to be more of them, I think....
An American wrote: 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.I, for one, am not ok with CCTV. It seems to have three effects: a) push crime into areas where there is no CCTV b) encourages people to cover their identities with hoodies/scarves etc if they are about to perpetrate a crime in a CCTV area. c) encourage idiots who just don\'t care to cause trouble and flaunt their defiance to the cameras Does it stop drunks kicking off? No Does it make me feel safer in a surveilled area? No Is it any use? No Get rid of it now - useless waste of time and money. The trend is to watch more rather than less, as technology allows. This will not end here. Total control is the logical endpoint. As a human being, if you try to squeeze me into a box and close the lid, my natural instinct is to fight you. Is it really worth it? Why make enemies of ordinary members of society? Still, if you can persuade children today that being watched all the time somehow relates to being a good member of society and makes you safer whilst safeguarding your freedoms, then you have already realised that your surveillance culture is wrong and will stop at nothing to introduce it into daily life.
Alex, says...
1:42pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Facts wrote:The point has been made above (better than I can make it, I'm sure): what will the government -- or any other official body -- do with the information, both now, and in the future?
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.
Do *you* know what they will do with it? No, of course not. Maybe they'll shred it all once the kids have graduated. Maybe not. Once they've taken the data, you have *NO CONTROL* of it. Sure there are things like the Data Protection Act that place restrictions on what the government does with it, but the government and police will ignore that when they choose (when they think they won't be caught!). But criminals have no restrictions.
Jimbob, says...
1:47pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Anybody heard of a National Insurance Number? (I know they don't give them to 5 year olds). We are all already numbers to the Government. How much has your freedom been restricted due to your N.I. number or did you refuse to accept it at 16?
Lesley, says...
1:52pm Mon 8 Jan 07
BIG BROTHER wrote:I couldn't agree more, this is the start of the slippery slope towards the Orwellian nightmare becoming reality.
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.
RG, says...
2:03pm Mon 8 Jan 07
What underhand purpose are they going to use them for?
Maybe if they use them for catching criminals, it could be a good thing.
Eric, says...
2:13pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Once I can fake your fingerprints I can take over your life now that they are being used as your badge of identity. And your only way of repudiating the actions of the fake you that I have created is to cut your fingers off.
Jo, says...
2:35pm Mon 8 Jan 07
"Fake fingers made out of common household ingredients can fool security systems that use fingerprints to identify people."
You morons who would have your privacy taken away from you for no good reason deserve all you get.
A, says...
2:47pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Jo wrote:Of course a scientist can fake a fingerprint after taking a cast from the original finger. How the **** would someone tryin to copy you get you to make them a cast of your finger?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1991517.stm \"Fake fingers made out of common household ingredients can fool security systems that use fingerprints to identify people.\" You morons who would have your privacy taken away from you for no good reason deserve all you get.
Anyone who is willing to put in the effort it would take to make a duplicate from a fingerprint can get around any systems with the right resouces.
Either way it's more secure than a normal passport with just a photo.
Anon, says...
2:52pm Mon 8 Jan 07
wildthing, says...
2:53pm Mon 8 Jan 07
A, says...
2:57pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Why?
Jo, says...
2:59pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Leo, says...
3:01pm Mon 8 Jan 07
If so, there's a crucial difference between this and the school fingerprinting. Having a Tesco clubcard is voluntary. If you didn't bother to read the small print (which details what Tesco can do with the data they gather through the scheme) before signing on the line, that's your lookout. That's a very different scenario from fingerprinting five year-old kids without consulting parents or doing it on the basis of a formal, legally binding agreement which sets out how the resulting data can be used and how it cannot.
Malc, says...
3:10pm Mon 8 Jan 07
A, says...
3:12pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I really can't see a bad point that is anywhere near as important as the good points i.e. identifying illegal immigrants.
And before all you idiots start...you can't easily fake them, edit them or duplicate them. It's extremely difficult.
Cosmic Hero, says...
3:25pm Mon 8 Jan 07
A Parent, says...
3:27pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Anon, says...
3:31pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Leo wrote:Leo is right - my point was that supermarkets use loyalty cards as a means of monitoring what you buy. Indeed, when it comes to sending you money off vouchers, the value and what they are for is derived from your shopping habits.
I think Anon's point is that the supermarkets use data about what loyalty card scheme members buy for marketing purposes. If so, there's a crucial difference between this and the school fingerprinting. Having a Tesco clubcard is voluntary. If you didn't bother to read the small print (which details what Tesco can do with the data they gather through the scheme) before signing on the line, that's your lookout. That's a very different scenario from fingerprinting five year-old kids without consulting parents or doing it on the basis of a formal, legally binding agreement which sets out how the resulting data can be used and how it cannot.
Leo is also correct about the optional aspect of a store loyalty card. However, not everyone is aware that this sort of thing goes on with loyalty cards. As far as Jo Public is concerned, its simply a way to get money off your shopping with points.
Jo, says...
3:39pm Mon 8 Jan 07
A wrote:The BBC News article I linked to (just one of many on the net - do some research FFS) shows how you can quite easily fake biometric data - you don't have to be a rocket scientist or rich to do do.
Your right on that parents should have to give consent when it comes to kids but why not fingerprint the whole country.
I really can\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t see a bad point that is anywhere near as important as the good points i.e. identifying illegal immigrants.
And before all you idiots start...you can\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t easily fake them, edit them or duplicate them. It\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s extremely difficult.
As for fingerprinting the whole country, let me end with a couple of quotes:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
and finally:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" --- Benjamin Franklin
Hecko, says...
3:43pm Mon 8 Jan 07
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with this practise. I have seen precisely how it works - the images of prints are not stored on a database, they are not added to the children's records. They are stored in internal program files that can only be read by the library program. All of this was explained to parents in a detailed letter, and the whole thing was optional anyway. It means kids as young as nursery age can get books out themselves without having a card with them all the time. If anyone, but anyone tries to kick up a fuss about this then they are just too bluddy stupid to have kids in the first place. All you conspiracy theorists, just find a new hobby.
Dick Turpin, says...
3:46pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I fully welcome biometric profiling and don't see it as an invasion of privacy as suggested by the slightly paranoid Bruce Schneier in the weblink submitted earlier. An invasion of privacy would be having a camera in my shower - not the security services monitoring which books I'm borrowing, or where I've been on my holidays!
I know it's already been said, but if it helps protect our children's futures by making it harder for the criminals and terrorists to operate effectively, then it has to be a good thing - doesn't it?
Schneier wrote: "Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide." but thanks to Dubya and Osama, those who would harm indiscriminately are able to exploit this statement.
Jack, says...
3:48pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Lancastrian, says...
3:48pm Mon 8 Jan 07
No wonder York is so behind the times. I mean, Bradford, not that far away, had this in 2001... well, these forums tell me one thing... a lot ( by no means all) Of Yorkies say NO for the sake of it...
Dick Turpin, says...
3:56pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Ronnie, says...
3:58pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Hecko wrote:Certainly I agree on the first point: I guess they're desperate to sell papers.
The paranoid, Daily Mail style of this article is absurd. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with this practise. I have seen precisely how it works - the images of prints are not stored on a database, they are not added to the children's records. They are stored in internal program files that can only be read by the library program. All of this was explained to parents in a detailed letter, and the whole thing was optional anyway. It means kids as young as nursery age can get books out themselves without having a card with them all the time. If anyone, but anyone tries to kick up a fuss about this then they are just too bluddy stupid to have kids in the first place. All you conspiracy theorists, just find a new hobby.
But I strongly disagree with your technical assessment of the security of this technology. There's no difference from a security perspective between a database and "internal program files". A database has a standard format for storing information; but a proprietary format can certainly be hacked apart - it happens all the time (e.g., with the new passports).
The fact that it is optional is, of course, essential -- wish we had that for ID cards.
I will continue to kick up a fuss about this. I don't want to lose control of my privacy, or that of my kids, and I certainly don't trust this government (or you, for that matter) to manage it. I also fail to see an argument that this solution is cheaper and more cost effective than other solutions.
Biometrics aren't cheap. Is this money well spent? I'd prefer the schools spent it on books.
Scone, says...
4:07pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Well clearly Yorkites have the answer - get rid of all technology then you will be safe.
That's not the argument - it's about softening up easy targets into giving away their civil liberties at a later date.
CCTV? No, rely on old Mrs Bloggs being a curtain twitcher
Hmmm, well, there aren't many residential properties to house curtain twitchers where CCTV is.
because clearly that is the sole use of all these advancements is to net you in some future time
Missing the point again. Technological advances can be used for good or bad - we need to ensure they are only used for the common good.
keeping DNA etc is not a bad thing
It is a bad thing if it is harvested from every person in the country, even when they have done no wrong. If you have been convicted of a crime, fine, but if not you have the right to be left alone.
No wonder York is so behind the times. I mean, Bradford, not that far away, had this in 2001... well, these forums tell me one thing... a lot ( by no means all) Of Yorkies say NO for the sake of it...
Well, I'm a Bradfordian and all this proves is that my fellow Bradfordians are not as on the ball as Yorkies! Also, don't forget, the date of introduction in Bradford was 2001 - maybe opinions have changed a little since that time.
A, says...
4:14pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Jimbob, says...
4:28pm Mon 8 Jan 07
keeping DNA etc is not a bad thing
It is a bad thing if it is harvested from every person in the country, even when they have done no wrong. If you have been convicted of a crime, fine, but if not you have the right to be left alone.
I've already heard the phrase "closing the barn door after the horse has bolted" today. If everyone was on a DNA database then half of the crimes we see every day would not occur because potential criminals would know that it would be a doddle for the bobbies to catch 'em.
And as I'm not a criminal, why would they want to bother me? They can have my DNA, I don't feel I'll be losing anything.
Leo, says...
4:30pm Mon 8 Jan 07
OK, we can all have a laugh at it (especially the 4x4 driver who actually accelerates into the rising bollard); but that footage is clearly from official CCTV cameras, and whoever decided to edit it into a joke piece and put it on the Internet must have got it from whatever agency operates those cameras.
If CCTV footage can be leaked and used in a joke video like this, heaven knows what sinister purposes a criminal might be able to use it for.
Alf, says...
4:30pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Ronnie, says...
4:31pm Mon 8 Jan 07
A wrote:A,
If your not breaking the law or planning to in the future then what have you got against fingerprinting the whole country or CCTV? These things are there to catch criminals. All these people who are against the idea would soon change their mind if the technology helped catch the murderer of a loved one.
Can you tell me exactly what "not breaking the law" will mean in the future?
Can you tell me exactly what it will mean to be considered a criminal in the future?
Of course you can't. Until we all can, we had better be cautious about how much information is made available to our beloved government.
Scone, says...
4:35pm Mon 8 Jan 07
If everyone was on a DNA database then half of the crimes we see every day would not occur because potential criminals would know that it would be a doddle for the bobbies to catch 'em.
I don't agree - they would take more care to ensure their DNA wasn't left behind or they would plant someone else's DNA at the crime scene.
As for shutting the barn door, that doesn't really apply does it when harvesting DNA is no disincentive to committing criminal acts. It would however be a better use of the technology to keep an eye on proven criminals.
I'm not a criminal either, but it would bother me if my DNA was routinely taken. I consider it to be dehumanising.
Scone, says...
4:37pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Alf wrote:That's rich - accusing others of paranoia by raising the paranoid idea that their children might be snatched. Nice try.
Paranoia everywhere! I agree that parents should be informed, but what if your child goes 'missing' or is kidnapped, can't you agree tyhat this technology would help get them back to their parents a lot sooner.
How would this technology help if a child is kidnapped exactly?
C Elliott, says...
4:38pm Mon 8 Jan 07
C Elliott, says...
4:38pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Jo, says...
4:41pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Let me remind everyone that the Saudis who hijacked the planes on 9/11 didn't need fake ID (some used their own genuine ID and some faked ID - it made no difference). Nor did they have any weapons on them, other than surprise, brovado and intent.
The banning of milk, hair products and even lipsticks on planes recently is an example of bad security - almost everyone is negatively affected in some way, and for zero gain.
They should put the money into real policing and not this wholesale surveillance which the terrorists can circumvent anyway.
There are more people die from road traffic accidents in the uk each year than died in 9/11.
Remember the bombing of Madrid airport? Two people died and 47 were injured as terrorists bombed an airport car park. It's not even on the news any more... now imagine if Muslims had bombed the airport killing 2 people... it would still be on the news and barmy people would be giving up yet more liberties for no reason.
Scotty, beam me up.
Barry Bethal, says...
4:48pm Mon 8 Jan 07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1991517.stm
"Fake fingers made out of common household ingredients can fool security systems that use fingerprints to identify people."
You morons who would have your privacy taken away from you for no good reason deserve all you get.
If that's the case . . . bring on the iris biometric identification system then!
In response to a comment above where someone says fair enough, have your DNA on a system if you've committed a crime but if not no way, then how do you intend to catch the murdering nutters who've no previous convictions?
Spilling the argument into CCTV too? Don't talk such b*ll*cks. If it wasn't for CCTV then how would the vast majority of criminals have been caught identified? CCTV footage is used to retrace steps in many a missing person case.
Also I do care what people do with my biometric data but you could argue that about anything with your name and address on it. The government don't use your passport details and NI number for no good do they?!
Jimbob, says...
4:48pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I don't agree - they would take more care to ensure their DNA wasn't left behind or they would plant someone else's DNA at the crime scene.
Are you having a laugh! They haven't even tried that on CSI Miami yet! Your average car thief would retire before going to that effort (even fire does not ensure you have removed all your DNA traces). And your average murderer would have to spend 2 days cleaning up (probably get caught at the scene). Or maybe they'll stalk their victim in a full, bright yellow NBC suit.
As for:
As for shutting the barn door, that doesn't really apply does it when harvesting DNA is no disincentive to committing criminal acts. It would however be a better use of the technology to keep an eye on proven criminals.
You're wrong because your first point is complete fiction.
No offence.
Jo, says...
4:51pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Tk, says...
5:05pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave, says...
5:10pm Mon 8 Jan 07
All schools are registered under the data protection act and it is their duty to ensure that all data on their students is kept securely.
The thumbprints are not taken. The thumbscanners take measurements of the print and convert it to a series of numbers. These numbers cannot be made sense of at all.
On top of this the numbers are stored in encrypted databases within the secure school network!
students are not forced to have their prints taken and have the option of using a PIN and password if they feel that they are not up to scanning there thumb for any reason.
I dont see what all the big fuss is about.
schools are not doing anything wrong by using thumbscanners.
they are quick, easy and students enjoy using them.
may i reinstate that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the data regarding the thumbprints to be interpreted by anyone other than the school.
honestly! the press blowing things out of proportion again!
Simon Weisenthal, says...
5:32pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Scone, says...
5:33pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Jimbob wrote:No offence taken Jimbob. I can think of dozens of ways of contaminating a scene with another's DNA, whether it has appeared on a fictional TV series or not.
Scone wrote:I don't agree - they would take more care to ensure their DNA wasn't left behind or they would plant someone else's DNA at the crime scene.Are you having a laugh! They haven't even tried that on CSI Miami yet! Your average car thief would retire before going to that effort (even fire does not ensure you have removed all your DNA traces). And your average murderer would have to spend 2 days cleaning up (probably get caught at the scene). Or maybe they'll stalk their victim in a full, bright yellow NBC suit. As for:As for shutting the barn door, that doesn't really apply does it when harvesting DNA is no disincentive to committing criminal acts. It would however be a better use of the technology to keep an eye on proven criminals.You're wrong because your first point is complete fiction. No offence.
If DNA was so easy to detect, it would be routinely picked up at all crime scenes. In reality, it isn't because of the contamination of the site. Maybe you should spend less time watching CSI and more in the real world?
So, therefore, the barn door comment is reinstated.
Terry of York, says...
5:52pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:It is ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE for the data to be interpreted by anyone other than school authorities.
I work in the libary at one of the schools mentioned in the aticle.
All schools are registered under the data protection act and it is their duty to ensure that all data on their students is kept securely.
The thumbprints are not taken. The thumbscanners take measurements of the print and convert it to a series of numbers. These numbers cannot be made sense of at all.
On top of this the numbers are stored in encrypted databases within the secure school network!
students are not forced to have their prints taken and have the option of using a PIN and password if they feel that they are not up to scanning there thumb for any reason.
I dont see what all the big fuss is about.
schools are not doing anything wrong by using thumbscanners.
they are quick, easy and students enjoy using them.
may i reinstate that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the data regarding the thumbprints to be interpreted by anyone other than the school.
honestly! the press blowing things out of proportion again!
Encryption can be broken, in some cases without difficulty.
People *use* this system, therefore it is not free from failure or vulnerabilities.
There are no certainties with computer security. Believing that a system is 100% secure is the first step towards disaster. Any system can be compromised if it can be used.
As far as your description of the fingerprint encoding process: I fail to see the point. Every biometric system encodes biological data using numbers or strings. These are meant to uniquely identify someone. That a photograph or image of the fingerprint is not stored is beside the point: a numerical representation is all that is needed to introduce vulnerabilities.
Honestly! Naive people blowing things out of proportion again.
Jimbob, says...
5:52pm Mon 8 Jan 07
If DNA was so easy to detect, it would be routinely picked up at all crime scenes. In reality, it isn't because of the contamination of the site. Maybe you should spend less time watching CSI and more in the real world?
By contamination I assume you mean everybody else's DNA. Therefore causing plod a lot of trouble, time and expense in discovering who it all belongs to. How simple it would be if you took 50 DNA samples from a crime scene and ran it through a database, instantly giving you 50 suspects (of which most will be eliminated very quickly from enquiries).
As a criminal, you're only likely to worry about leaving your own DNA and this might be enough to discourage the crime.
Barn Door comment UNreinstated.
dapps, says...
6:11pm Mon 8 Jan 07
A bit of an over reaction in my opinion. What can you ascertain from a fingerprint, your ethnic origin? Your sexual tendancies or religion?, oh maybe your name. So unless you commit a crime later on its no real relevance.
Terry of York, says...
6:22pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dapps wrote:This is a naive statement.
Its a fingerprint, so what? Its not a DNA sample.
A bit of an over reaction in my opinion. What can you ascertain from a fingerprint, your ethnic origin? Your sexual tendancies or religion?, oh maybe your name. So unless you commit a crime later on its no real relevance.
Fingerprint scans are being used to identify people. Because they are not 100% accurate they can also be used to incorrectly identify people.
Suppose, dapps, that you were misidentified as a terrorist, or someone with 150 unpaid parking tickets, or someone with a criminal record. So sorry, we'll sort it out as soon as we can, but for now you'll have to rot in jail.
"Unless you commit a crime later on its no real relevance." For Goodness sake, people -- read some history books!
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids, says...
6:23pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Scone, says...
6:27pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Jimbob wrote:**barn door reinstation attempt alert**
Scone wrote:If DNA was so easy to detect, it would be routinely picked up at all crime scenes. In reality, it isn't because of the contamination of the site. Maybe you should spend less time watching CSI and more in the real world?By contamination I assume you mean everybody else's DNA. Therefore causing plod a lot of trouble, time and expense in discovering who it all belongs to. How simple it would be if you took 50 DNA samples from a crime scene and ran it through a database, instantly giving you 50 suspects (of which most will be eliminated very quickly from enquiries). As a criminal, you're only likely to worry about leaving your own DNA and this might be enough to discourage the crime. Barn Door comment UNreinstated.
Not only that, but also the quality of the sample. Human DNA is not as stable as you assume. Advances come not only in the analysis of the DNA but also in the statistical interpretation of it. Yes, smaller samples can be analysed but how much do you trust the statistical analysis of the results?
I think the barn door might be open again, but to wedge it open, the argument is whether or not it is right to take DNA from everyone.
To go back even further, is it right to persuade children to give "informed consent" to something which the teachers as authority figures are pushing down their throats with no mention of alternative arguments.
Whilst the schools' attempts to inform parents about fingerprinting are laudable, it is not legally required for parents to give consent if it can be proved that children understand the implications of what has been said to them in class.
So, why is this? If my child needed an operation, my consent is required. So why is it not required when my children are fingerprinted at school - whatever the supposed reasons. It's taking in loco parentis a little bit too far. I have to give my permission in triplicate for them to have their photo taken or have a sticking plaster applied, so why on earth can fingerprints be taken, in any format, without my permission?
So many times I hear the phrase "I blame the parents" when a child is out of control. Well, let's have control given back to the parents rather than selectively taken by teachers et al. I take full responsibility for my children but it would be nice to be allowed to have some input into their futures.
Susie, says...
6:33pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids wrote:The point, Parent, is not what we think the schools will use them for. We cannot completely control how this information will be used.
I don't see anything wrong with the idea of using the fingerprints for the library. St Wilfrids sent out a letter asking parents permission. If the parents said no the name of the child was written along side a barcode. For Gods sake what do you people think that the schools are going to use the childrens fingerprints for, sell them? They can't. It's only for library use.
"It's only for library use". Now, perhaps. But what will happen in the future? Now that our kids have their fingerprints digitally encoded, it's oh-so-easy to pass that data along to their next school, or their college, or anyone else.
Do I trust the schools? Possibly. But I don't know, and therefore don't trust, everyone who interacts with the school. Nor should you.
This is just one example of a bigger problem: loss of privacy. We should challenge EVERY occurrence of it, or it becomes too easy for authorities to do it.
Even more of a concern for this incident: why on Earth did this Chris Bridge character think that it was a good idea to get the kids used to having their privacy invaded? Yes, line up, good little drones.
TonyB, says...
6:38pm Mon 8 Jan 07
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,1984650,00.html
Oh, look - now the Department of Transport is planning to pass along fingerprint information to the FBI. Gee, I trusted the Department of Transport. But now the FBI has them. Can the FBI guarantee that no-one I don't trust has access to them? NO? Wow! I'd better ask the FBI to give the data back, then.
Once the data is out there, it's way too easy for it to get used, abused, and passed around. Not everyone is as trustworthy as our kids' schools.
dave, says...
7:08pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Mandy, says...
7:18pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:Just because you can't imagine a use doesn't mean someone else can't.
wtf would anyone want with the fingerprints of 6000 innocent school children?
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids, says...
7:27pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave, says...
7:27pm Mon 8 Jan 07
what can we use un decipherable code that we cant even access for?
Susie, says...
7:46pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids wrote:Parent,
Susie. I don't think St Wilfrids are going to use my daughters thumb print for anything illegal. How do you think how this thumb print is go to be used? I would be willing to have my finger prints taken. I have nothing to hide. Do you? Is that why your against it?
I suggest you read my post again.
I doubt that St Wilfrids are going to use your daughter's thumb print for anything illegal.
But I don't know what else they might do with it. And I don't know who they may pass her thumb print on to. Moreover, I don't know what will happen to that thumb print six months from now, or a year from now. That worries me, and it should worry you too. Blind trust in organisations or authorities cannot be a good idea.
Whether or not you have nothing to hide is not the point: you cannot know how your fingerprints will be used or misused. Suppose you happily had your fingerprints taken by the police, or the NHS, or someone you trust, and then, purely accidentally, your fingerprints were lost, or stolen.
And you may have nothing to hide now, but you may want to hide things in the future, especially when the government changes, and laws change. You cannot predict what will happen in the future. Minimising your exposure to risk is the only safe way to proceed.
Asking if I have something to hide is a weak and childish argument, Parent, and does not address the problem in the slightest.
Dave2, says...
7:47pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:Like Mandy says above, just because you can't think of a way to use and access these indecipherable codes doesn't mean that no-one else can.
come on then.
what can we use un decipherable code that we cant even access for?
dave, says...
7:49pm Mon 8 Jan 07
someone on here must be able to think of one?
no?
thats because nobody is interested in 6000 pieces of code!
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids, says...
7:54pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave, says...
8:00pm Mon 8 Jan 07
you, me and the rest of the country all know that a random series of numbers 9which is what the thumbprint is stored as) cannot be used for anything.
long may the use of biometric thumbscanners continue in our school libraries!
Geoff, says...
8:00pm Mon 8 Jan 07
The only data that needs to be kept is that list of numbers. It does not need to be crosslinked to any other data that could provide an identity.
Can someone from the schools/libraries confirm that the only data being kept is the numeric representation of the scan?
If you can, then parents and peeps alike have nothing to fear! You cannot be identified from the data file!
dave, says...
8:02pm Mon 8 Jan 07
im the assistant librarian at one of the schools in question!
Susie, says...
8:04pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids wrote:Parent,
Susie. I have read what you wrote and to be honest I don't give a toss. Upto now the school hasn't passed it on to amyone else. Can anyone predict whats going to happen tomorrow let alone in the future. Move with the times. Information is taken from us everyday and I know sometimes it gets passed into the wrong hands. This is a school. Nobody can use the thumb print for anything else. Tell me how can they use my child finger print?
You may not give a toss, but I certainly do, and I don't want to live in a society where nobody seems to care about loss of privacy, or how government bodies treat us.
This may be a minor incident, overall, and it's likely that the kids' fingerprints won't be misused. But we must treat these incidents carefully, and monitor how organisations use our information. If St Wilfrids comes out and says that they have passed on your child's prints to someone else, then maybe you'll worry.
I worry about the cavalier attitude many people have towards information loss. "Sometimes it gets into the wrong hands." True. So minimise your risk. Falling victim to identity fraud is no fun at all.
Geoff, says...
8:05pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:And that it cannot be cross-linked to any other file that could lead to a postive identification?
I can confirm it geoff!! im the assistant librarian at one of the schools in question!
dave, says...
8:10pm Mon 8 Jan 07
im not aware of your knowledge of databases so i'll try and put this in laymans terms.
There are two key fields in the main database. The code that represents the fingerprint and a PIN number. these are both unique to the data subject.
The data subject can not be identified from either the PIN or fingerprint code.
Dave2, says...
8:12pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:Great, so you can provide guarantees to all parents that the system is 100% secure?
I can confirm it geoff!!
im the assistant librarian at one of the schools in question!
And perhaps while you're at it, you can convince us that this system is actually cheaper to run than what you had previously? Oh, but I forgot: the kids love it. Great, that's the most important thing.
And do you ever misidentify a student? Of course, because these systems aren't perfect. How do you resolve that? The old fashioned way, I bet.
I think this is a really stupid idea, and has many more negatives than positives. Whoever decided on this either had a political motive, or didn't think enough.
Geoff, says...
8:14pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Does the PIN appear in any other part of the database?
In other words could I use the PIN number to identify a single person?
dave, says...
8:23pm Mon 8 Jan 07
its very similar to the system your credit card company uses.
if people are worrying about this petty thing then u shud be panicking about all the info banks hold on u!
Geoff, says...
8:28pm Mon 8 Jan 07
People will worry about the things THEY perceive to be important to them.
Quite frankly, no database is ever 100% secure.
Terry of York, says...
8:28pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:Hmm ... so if PINs associate with student names in the database, and individuals know their PINs, and PINs can be compromised .... that's a vulnerability. Uh oh.
yes geoff, the PIN number links to the students name and tutor group.
its very similar to the system your credit card company uses.
if people are worrying about this petty thing then u shud be panicking about all the info banks hold on u!
Absolutely, you should be worrying about the info that your banks hold on you! Look at Nationwide, losing that laptop with confidential info on it! Aagh!
But I'm sure everything that the government builds for ID cards will work perfectly. Won't it? Aagh!
Too radical for York, says...
8:30pm Mon 8 Jan 07
It's WHY they are doing it that matters.
The point is children are being brainwashed. That's the point of school - to teach you how to become a subservient non-deviant consumer. Learn who the bully is and learn who is weaker than you. Learn how to do as you are told by the bully and then bully the weaker in order to feed the economy. Nobody is interested in a load of kids fingerprints or identities, the idea is to train the children to accept such practices. In years to come - hey presto! Compliant consumers! Threatened with imaginary danger like "terrorism" (which let's face it, all of us experience for real every day of our normal lives, don't we? Don't we?) they will gladly give up whatever they are asked for in return for small graces. I mean come on, Chris Bridge claiming the world has no answer to terrorism but to take children's fingerprints!!! If I had children at Huntington I would take them away tomorrow.
Terry of York, says...
8:31pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Geoff wrote:Agree completely, Geoff. The only secure system is one that can't be used and that's locked away on the moon.
Thank you for your frankness Dave!
People will worry about the things THEY perceive to be important to them.
Quite frankly, no database is ever 100% secure.
Now let's convince Labour about this, and maybe they'll dump their ID card plans. (Yeah, right...)
Dave, says...
8:34pm Mon 8 Jan 07
e.g. u r captured on CCTV so many times a day! anyone could trace your route if they wanted to!
you are a hypocrite if your only against this one small aspect of the whole technological world.
adair, says...
8:43pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Borrowing a book from the school library is not, and never has been, rocket science! Anyone can do it, and anyone can set up a simple inexpensive, non-technical system required to manage it, even in quite a large school/community, especially one where the members are a discreet and known group.
As far as I can see the business of scanning children's finger prints is a ridiculous and totally unnecessary bit of technological overkill for something that doesn't even really require computerisation. Presumably this is really about pushy sales reps convincing schools that this will make them look `high tech' and efficient, when really it's just about making a buck for the companies trying to flog the systems.
Conditioning to be thoughtless about giving away biometric information is a real worry. Here it seems to be the result of the thoughtless use of inappropriate solutions rather than part of some grand conspiracy.
Our civil 'freedoms' were hard one by previoius generations. We should not take them for granted.
dave, says...
8:45pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Susie, says...
8:46pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Too radical for York wrote:Thank goodness someone else raised this point, Too Radical.
I can't believe you're all going so wild with comment and missing the point entirely. Whether someone mislays our records isn't the issue. Whether we have something to hide from the CCTV isn't the issue. Nobody wants to steal a childs chuffin fingerprints! Who cares what the schools do with the info?? Ever seen the film Gattaca?
It's WHY they are doing it that matters.
The point is children are being brainwashed. That's the point of school - to teach you how to become a subservient non-deviant consumer. Learn who the bully is and learn who is weaker than you. Learn how to do as you are told by the bully and then bully the weaker in order to feed the economy. Nobody is interested in a load of kids fingerprints or identities, the idea is to train the children to accept such practices. In years to come - hey presto! Compliant consumers! Threatened with imaginary danger like "terrorism" (which let's face it, all of us experience for real every day of our normal lives, don't we? Don't we?) they will gladly give up whatever they are asked for in return for small graces. I mean come on, Chris Bridge claiming the world has no answer to terrorism but to take children's fingerprints!!! If I had children at Huntington I would take them away tomorrow.
Training our kids to be good little compliant drones, indeed!
Terry of York, says...
8:50pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Dave wrote:Well, I wouldn't use the phrase "everyday life", but there's some room for agreement on the risks associated with CCTV and thumbprint scanners.
can we all maybe agree that there the threat from schools using thumbprint scanners in libraries is no greater than the theats already posed by everyday life.
e.g. u r captured on CCTV so many times a day! anyone could trace your route if they wanted to!
you are a hypocrite if your only against this one small aspect of the whole technological world.
The additional risk with the thumbprints is that once they're digitised, they're easily repackaged and moved about. It's not quite as easy with CCTV footage (but admittedly that's still possible).
I'm against any technology that's applied blindly or stupidly, without thinking about the risks, new vulnerabilities and threats. As another poster says, this looks like a solution looking for a problem -- and a bad solution, at that.
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids, says...
9:08pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Lez, says...
9:11pm Mon 8 Jan 07
You can even remove a fingerprint off it with tape.
Buy your own on ebay for 20 quid, how secure do you think 20 quid is?
That does not worry me, its the fact this has taken place behind closed doors.....
dave, says...
9:13pm Mon 8 Jan 07
pahh.
Terry, says...
9:47pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Susie, says...
9:48pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Parent of a girl at St Wilfrids wrote:Parent,
Susie I thank you for worrying. You will grow old before your time. As it has been pointed out if you read other comments. The image is turned into numbers. The only information the school has is the childs name and class. St Wilfrids have always asked parents permission for everything. We get letters asking about if we want our childs pictures to be used on their website or in the paper. You still haven\\\'t told me how they can use my daughters fingerprint? They only fingerprint the thumb. Do you have children? I hope not. You would be afaird to let them have a life.
The more worrisome issue here is the prevailing attitude of the school, and some parents (yourself included) that this kind of practice is acceptable. If schools train kids (and parents) to accept biometric data harvesting as "no big deal", it will become incredibly easy for us to lose our liberties.
I *don't care* how others can use my kids fingerprints. I don't want anyone to have them in the first place (though if the kids commit crimes, they're on their own), simply because I *don't know* how they'll use them.
I believe in making my kids aware, in a sensible way, of risks -- any good parent does.
I'm not afraid of my kids having a life - but I don't want them to accept loss of privacy. You seem to be happy accepting that for your kids. I hope it doesn't come back to haunt you, I really do. But since you don't seem to worry about this at all, you probably won't realise there's a problem until it's too late.
Unfortunately, that's a problem for all of us as this cavalier attitude towards privacy will hurt society as a whole in the end. It already has with the substantial increase in identity fraud over the web, and it will only get worse.
And thank you for patronising me.
dave, says...
9:54pm Mon 8 Jan 07
and Terry, believe it or not mate, we're not in the 1950s anymore. times change. you're gonna have to accept that.
your traditionalism will get you nowhere in the modern world. nor will your ignorant attitude.
thumbscanners are here to stay. whether you guys like it or not!
Luddite, says...
10:40pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:Ah, that's great then. I can rest easy tonight in the firm assurance that technology has the answers to keep the world spinning.
its hard not to patronize you sheila!!! and Terry, believe it or not mate, we\'re not in the 1950s anymore. times change. you\'re gonna have to accept that. your traditionalism will get you nowhere in the modern world. nor will your ignorant attitude. thumbscanners are here to stay. whether you guys like it or not!
Pretty arrogant to say that the scanners are here to stay whether we like it or not. It would appear a great many people do not like the scanners.
Good to see you flying in the face of public opinion.
They should bring back tweed suits and horn rimmed glasses for all librarians now - make the world a safer place before they take over with their thumb scanners and other unnecessary gadgetry.
Someone, says...
10:54pm Mon 8 Jan 07
The way a thumbprint is stored is as a 128-bit numerical key value which is encrypted in the system and cannot be retrieved once recorded. We tried it, and failed, miserably may I add. The numerical figure cannot be used in any shape or form to recreate an identical image/replica of a thumbprint, and therefore provides no security risk whatsoever. All the number is used as is a form of recall identification of a thumb print which then recalls name and minimal details (such as name, and form/class, not whether they have a freaking criminal record).
Remember, this is LIBRARIES we're talking about here. Not police forces, not government intervention, LIBRARIES. It's where you take out books, not sell state secrets about thumb prints...
Point finished.
dave, says...
11:04pm Mon 8 Jan 07
another guy who knows what hes talking about!
the data stored is practically useless!
WD, says...
11:09pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Someone wrote:Point missed.
My god, you people who think this is a national issue are pathetic. I am a student attending one of the schools listed in today's article, and was originally trained in a group of selected students on the controversial thumb-print equipment and software. We were told exactly what the system does, and exactly how it records its identification data - and no, this wasn't from any old teacher, this was from the guys who originally developed the software and hardware. The way a thumbprint is stored is as a 128-bit numerical key value which is encrypted in the system and cannot be retrieved once recorded. We tried it, and failed, miserably may I add. The numerical figure cannot be used in any shape or form to recreate an identical image/replica of a thumbprint, and therefore provides no security risk whatsoever. All the number is used as is a form of recall identification of a thumb print which then recalls name and minimal details (such as name, and form/class, not whether they have a freaking criminal record). Remember, this is LIBRARIES we're talking about here. Not police forces, not government intervention, LIBRARIES. It's where you take out books, not sell state secrets about thumb prints... Point finished.
Barry Bethal, says...
11:22pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I have a great idea! Stop taking children's fingerprints (as you would a criminal) and issue each child with a library ticket! It worked perfectly during my childhood in the 1950's.
As did cars what you used to wind up at the front but bet you don't bez round in one now?!
dave, says...
11:26pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Barry Bethal, says...
11:27pm Mon 8 Jan 07
They should bring back tweed suits and horn rimmed glasses for all librarians now - make the world a safer place before they take over with their thumb scanners and other unnecessary gadgetry.
Yeah right, sod unnecessary gadgetry. Bring back the abacus, papyrus and quill too!
Barry Bethal, says...
11:30pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave, says...
11:33pm Mon 8 Jan 07
I am an assistant librarian. I know that fingerprint scanning is safe for the time being!
tk, says...
11:33pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Luddite, says...
11:34pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave wrote:Could we use your checkout scanners to scan the kids if we barcoded them all?
ha ha fooled you all,i dont work in the library,i really work at homebase, sorry.
dave, says...
11:35pm Mon 8 Jan 07
robert the builder, says...
11:42pm Mon 8 Jan 07
Luddite wrote:it must make your job easier in homebase dave using barcodes.
dave wrote: ha ha fooled you all,i dont work in the library,i really work at homebase, sorry.Could we use your checkout scanners to scan the kids if we barcoded them all?
ps could you let me know if there is any decent drills in the sale please,thanks
dave, says...
11:45pm Mon 8 Jan 07
i'll give u one for free to drill some sense into some of the people on here's heads!
robert the builder, says...
11:50pm Mon 8 Jan 07
dave, says...
11:53pm Mon 8 Jan 07
robert the builder, says...
12:00am Tue 9 Jan 07
Susan Smith, says...
12:26am Tue 9 Jan 07
sam wrote:Fool
and what can biometric information from fingerprints be used for?
nothing.
Chris, says...
2:02am Tue 9 Jan 07
Mike, says...
12:15pm Tue 9 Jan 07
Chris, says...
3:11pm Tue 9 Jan 07
My my you are an angry chap and very insulting. I dont read the so called journalists oppinions in our beloved daily Mail. I have however spent many years actually taking the time to research the subjects in MY website. I guess you have maybe just accepted everything the TV tells you and of course the news and government wouldnt lie would they. It seems you are a repeater! The reality of fingerprinting for passports is REALITY, so is the future for ID and of course you KNOW what info will be stored on you as the government will tell you (yeh?) Microchipping under the skin is already happening in health and even now nightclubs in the UK to gain access and pay for drinks. Anyway unlike you I say that you are welcome to your oppinion and of course you can volunteer and get micro-chipped now or at least be first in the queue when it is imposed on the whole population. Maybe educating yourself from other sources than the governments and media you trust so much may open your eyes to the real future. Just look into what peak oil is going to mean for ALL of mankind and what it will bring.
Have a nice day Mike and enjoy reading the Sun. ;)
Chris.
www.protect-your-freedom.co.uk
Someone, says...
4:28pm Tue 9 Jan 07
Chris wrote:What a pathetic and sad attempt at a response and form of self publicity.
Hi Mike,
My my you are an angry chap and very insulting. I dont read the so called journalists oppinions in our beloved daily Mail. I have however spent many years actually taking the time to research the subjects in MY website. I guess you have maybe just accepted everything the TV tells you and of course the news and government wouldnt lie would they. It seems you are a repeater! The reality of fingerprinting for passports is REALITY, so is the future for ID and of course you KNOW what info will be stored on you as the government will tell you (yeh?) Microchipping under the skin is already happening in health and even now nightclubs in the UK to gain access and pay for drinks. Anyway unlike you I say that you are welcome to your oppinion and of course you can volunteer and get micro-chipped now or at least be first in the queue when it is imposed on the whole population. Maybe educating yourself from other sources than the governments and media you trust so much may open your eyes to the real future. Just look into what peak oil is going to mean for ALL of mankind and what it will bring.
Have a nice day Mike and enjoy reading the Sun. ;)
Chris.
www.protect-your-freedom.co.uk
sanbikinoraion, says...
4:30pm Tue 9 Jan 07
---
However, this should not distract from the larger issue of the surveillance culture we are living in, and does seem to be potentially very damaging to privacy and liberty. It's not clear to me that, for instance, the government's ID cards scheme will store hashes of fingerprints, or whether they will store the original image. The biggest problem with this is that once you've had your identity stolen, you can't change it - essentially, it's a really complicated password that's attached to you forever, and even if someone hacks it you can't change it. Imagine if access to your banking details were controlled by a complex password that, even if you left it on a bit of paper on the bus, you would never be able to change.
Chris, says...
7:04pm Tue 9 Jan 07
www.protect-your-freedom.co.uk
Someone, says...
8:29pm Tue 9 Jan 07
The main point here is this. People who have got nothing better to do barge into a form of technology which has a BIG BAD SCARY NAME LIKE THUMBPRINT SCANNING and start ranting off about something which they have no form of knowledge or expertise in. I don't care how much 'personal research' you've done, unless you've been trained on/developed the software and hardware yourself, you have no idea of its internal systems.
And it's always the adults...sigh
The problem here,
Sally, says...
10:36pm Tue 9 Jan 07
CARY G DEAN, says...
9:24am Wed 10 Jan 07
MR, says...
10:35am Wed 10 Jan 07
JD wrote:Wow, what a wonderfull world that would be. 1984 anyone?
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 ??
The Nazis could only dream of stuff like that.
Bloke in the next field to the sheeple, says...
5:28pm Wed 10 Jan 07
sam wrote:Errrrrr, to frame 'suspected terrorists' in false flag operations. What's a false flag operation I hear you say? Google Operation Northwoods.
and what can biometric information from fingerprints be used for? nothing.
Rob, says...
4:57pm Mon 15 Jan 07
Today the targets of the state are simple: terrorists, who they shoot when they can; smokers, whose lives they make a misery; and fat people, who they blame for everything that is wrong with the NHS. Easy targets, disagree with the treatment terrorists get then you must be a supporter. Say people have the right to smoke and you want to condemn all the children to horrific deaths from second-hand smoking. Fat people are an easy target too, itÂ’s too easy to laugh at fat people without any worry of retaliation or murmurs of discontent. A simplistic list today, but perhaps tomorrows list includes: drivers; the self-employed; people who fly on holiday; and so on.
You may not have something to hide today, but who can tell what needs to be hidden tomorrow, or what you thought was your own business suddenly becomes the interest of the State.
Even if youÂ’re against the establishment of a super-state there is nothing you can do. Voting makes no difference, the trough is long enough for those nominally elected to represent the people to feed their insatiable appetites. Stand up in public and protest perhaps? Why? YouÂ’ll be subjected to a barrage of abuse and insults through the media, anything to obscure the message, everything to objectify and denigrate anyone with a dissenting viewpoint. Whether you ever agreed with the Miners Strike or not, one thing was clear from the outset, Scargill said if a stand wasnÂ’t made then in 20 years there would be no coal industry in this country. But he was ridiculed, attacted, labelled a troublemaker, but look at the reality. In a country that sits on massive reserves of coal, a country that was a coal exporting nation, there is a handful of small pits left, communities and lifestyles destroyed forever, and a man with whom I could agree with on little was left an object of ridicule and abuse.
The one thing I don't understand is why they want to establish this kind of state. Who are they protecting and from whom are they protecting them? The gap between rich and poor is now a gulf.
Anyway, enough for now, answers on a postcard, in invisible ink please!!! You never know who might be reading.
mary joyce, says...
11:08pm Mon 15 Jan 07
dave wrote:why is it absolutely impossible for any one other than the school to interpet date, the problems with our schools are there are too many people like you working in them, wanting to control our children unnesessarily, but oh we are expected to trust people like you. no thanks.
I work in the libary at one of the schools mentioned in the aticle. All schools are registered under the data protection act and it is their duty to ensure that all data on their students is kept securely. The thumbprints are not taken. The thumbscanners take measurements of the print and convert it to a series of numbers. These numbers cannot be made sense of at all. On top of this the numbers are stored in encrypted databases within the secure school network! students are not forced to have their prints taken and have the option of using a PIN and password if they feel that they are not up to scanning there thumb for any reason. I dont see what all the big fuss is about. schools are not doing anything wrong by using thumbscanners. they are quick, easy and students enjoy using them. may i reinstate that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the data regarding the thumbprints to be interpreted by anyone other than the school. honestly! the press blowing things out of proportion again!
zorro, says...
4:23pm Wed 17 Jan 07
JD wrote:"So what?"
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 ??
"If you have nothing to hide then why the fuss?"
Okay if you have nothing to hide, please post your full name and address, date of birth, bank account number, sort code, your current bank balance, your wife's vital statistics, the last ten telephone numbers you called, your credit card balances, the balances on any outstanding loans, your children's names and dates of birth...
Oh and does your wife spit or swallow?
Thanks for the info!
Ray, Coventry, England says...
9:35pm Sat 10 Feb 07
We all have something to hide (don't we!) Look into your innermost mind!. Once we were all citizens.. Now we are all suspects.
A child's fingerprint is scanned before they can borrow a library book
In this section
- York Minster fire remembered
- Violence victim demands former York prison officer be sent to jail
- Two new cases of swine flu in York
- Council defends fitness record as study reveals number of obese youngsters has risen
- Muggers attack woman in Monkbar car park
- Heston Blumenthal draws up menu for revamped A64 Little Chef
- Royal Mail urged to keep York postmark
- York civic leaders in council house rent subsidy cash plea
- Father Christmas spotted in York – 168 days before December 25
- Service of thanksgiving to mark York Minster fire
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Jack, says...
11:09am Mon 8 Jan 07