GrumbleDook (15th May 2012)
DfE have finally pulled their fingers out and said something (two weeks after Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gained royal assent):
Parents given power of veto on schools
There is a link to consultation docs at the bottom of the page - this is about the DfE's draft advice (Annex A).
GrumbleDook (15th May 2012)
Its all well and good doing that but Biometric helps schools so much with making things easier!
Although when we rolled out ours we gave parents advanced warning on the system three kids parents (out of 1600 kids) complained about the use of the system and where issues swipe cards. Although we clearly stated that we didn't actually store a copy of the fingerprint we stored a digtal signature of it they didn't like that.
One parent allowed the finger to be scanned after the third time of her daughter loosing her card and being sent another bill for a fiver to get a new one
There's also CCTV guidance that will eventually be made via PFA2012.
Big Brother Watch are busy FOIing schools about use of both biometrics and CCTV right now.
The guidance is good for schools, but I think that there are a large number of questions to ask biometric providers... Especially around retention of selected data (eg keep the activity history but not the biometric information).Originally Posted by PiqueABoo
Does Biostore record images of fingers?
No. It is the policy of Biostore never to store images of fingers anywhere on their system. Only mathematical representations of certain points of interest are recorded, typically between ten and forty depending on the characteristics of the finger. This information is encrypted and is called a template. This data is extremely secure in its encrypted form but even if it were not encrypted it is impossible to recreate the original image of the finger from this data.
If the stored string is used to compare against a string generated by a 'reader' then yes, it is biometric information. The consultation documents do clearly cover what is meant by biometric data. If Biostore or others disagree then they should get involved in the consultation ... But it is likely to be too late as the act is pretty clear.
my dismissal of the same claim you made in the thread at the weekend when I said that is what they more or less all do and very definitely is "biometric information" according to PFA 2012.
According to that - saying somebody is 5ft 10" with brown hair a missing a finger is biometric information - you could easily pick somebody out from having that information (as the police do in a similar fashion with there line ups).
The biostore doesn't match it exactly
Simply not true and Biostore happens to be where I got some of the information we weren't getting from the DfE - they certainly know users of their fingerprint-based systems will be subject to PFA 2012 on 1st Sep 2013. You'll find an article about it on their news page.The biostore doesn't match it exactly
and Biostore does not match it exactly - it matches it to be close enough so that the likely hood of two children having the same rough pattern is minimal
I will however withdraw this comment
as having re-read the quote as I previously missed reading the "and" from the end of 2 A.According to that - saying somebody is 5ft 10" with brown hair a missing a finger is biometric information - you could easily pick somebody out from having that information (as the police do in a similar fashion with there line ups).
The reason why PFA2012 is written / structure in the way that it is really does make sure that the digital nature of storage of identifying personal information is dealt with. The store itself does not have to be an exact duplicate of the real world data, or even be directly extractable to form a duplicate to the real world data, but can simply be used in a matching / comparison process ... because that is how the technology tends to work.
Biostore are well and truly covered.
I do have queries about social networking sites which include facial recognition ... because the guidance which is under consultation does make it clear that although the school itself might not be running the technology / system locally but if they provide a solution or insist a child uses a solution which holds biometric information then it is covered under the act.
This will be one of my questions under the consultation but I just need to work out the wording properly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)