13 year old refuses to store fingerprint data for canteen tills.

[catch21]

That's the "media" for you, doing their "best" to peddle the sort of carp the punters want to read.

 

Refusing to give a fingerprint is entirely reasonable but in my view it is a real shame a 13 year old girl has to live with such paranoia in her head, as revealed in her interview.

[Stuclark]

It's quite simple - get the head to write to all parents stating that for the purposes of security of the students; all students will have their fingerprint (one of only) stored on the school's systems.... problem then goes away

[round2it]

cashless systems dont store the fingerprint

 

they store a pattern made up from the fingerprint

 

if they dont want it scanned they can be searched on the systems by name.

 

not a big deal

[Blackshades]

I say good for her. She shouldn't have to submit her fingerprints for something that'll make it "easier on everyone" apparently. I don't get why they even bother with new technology anyway. It causes more drama than solving it, and it wasn't around when I was in school. People just need to relax themselves. Why spoonfeed life?

[TechMonkey]

I don't get why they even bother with new technology anyway. It causes more drama than solving it, and it wasn't around when I was in school.

 

Should this post have had a smiley at the end? If I only used technologies that were around when I was at school on my network then I would be rather limited limited!

[DCUK6]

According to Junior Librarian the prints arnt actually stores. Just a number calculated from it.

Dont ask how though.

 

 

 

The brought a fingerprint system into school when i was there. I refused and just didnt borrow any more books.

[plexer]

@DCUK6 quite an old article now but still has merit, yes the fingerprint is calculated in to a hash and that is what is stored as a method of convenience it's good but there should always be an alternative i.e swipe card, pin number or barcode etc...

 

You have to have consent and in this case it wasn't given so they shouldn't have tried to force her.

 

Ben

[LeMarchand]

So, fair enough she refused to provide prints but the Guy Fawkes/Anonymous thing is a little cringe-worthy when you take in to account how useless the data stored really is - the name, address, telephone contacts, medical details, attendance reports etc. that are returned to central government 3 times per year via census reveal a lot more about the girl.

 

I'm willing to bet that her social media profile is even more revealing, but she won't be making a fuss about the datamining possibilities there. I'm also curious as to how she managed to eat whilst still wearing the mask.

[pcstru]

I'm willing to bet that her social media profile is even more revealing, but she won't be making a fuss about the datamining possibilities there. I'm also curious as to how she managed to eat whilst still wearing the mask.

People don't have to be consistent to be entitled to assert their rights, nor should anyone expect such a thing.

[SovietRussia]

And when she turns 18 or whatever it is, she can use the DPA to get the data removed. My fingerprint was used when I was in school for our library system - I don't even know what happened to it, I assume it got destroyed.

 

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 covers the use and deletion of biometric data

Edited March 2, 2015 by SovietRussia

[LiamH]

If its anything like the bio-metric system at my old place then it wouldn't work half the time anyway..

 

I have a "nothing to hide nothing to worry about" attitude, but that may be due to the fact my dad worked with council CCTV systems since i was young, so used to having big brother (or father) watching me.

 

With the VISA process I had to go to while emigrating to the US i have had my fingerprints taken dozens of times by the US Gov.

[DCUK6]

@DCUK6 quite an old article now but still has merit, yes the fingerprint is calculated in to a hash and that is what is stored as a method of convenience it's good but there should always be an alternative i.e swipe card, pin number or barcode etc...

 

O yeah, didn't even notice the date. Was I really that bored today that I went back to June's postings.

 

 

Got nothing to hide but I don't like the idea of it.

Edited March 2, 2015 by plexer

[truebluesteve]

People don't have to be consistent to be entitled to assert their rights, nor should anyone expect such a thing.

 

Agreed, but I suspect she hasn't even considered what people know about her via social media. I spend quite a bit of time explaining to students and children that once that information (or worse still, images) is out there, you can never remove or retrieve it.

[pcstru]

Agreed, but I suspect she hasn't even considered what people know about her via social media. I spend quite a bit of time explaining to students and children that once that information (or worse still, images) is out there, you can never remove or retrieve it.

I think that is ... slightly inaccurate. People have rights over their information and have legal backing from various pieces of legislation that cannot be superseded by service T&C's. So we have things like Data Protection Act, The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and Data Protection at a European level which enshrines a "right to be forgotten". Rather than say you can never remove data, I'd say it can be very time consuming, difficult and expensive to do so. That said, it may be impossible to undo the effects of a posting, just as it is impossible to un-say something. People may comment on information you make available and they still have a right to truthful comment even after you successfully remove the data from public access.

[LeMarchand]

People don't have to be consistent to be entitled to assert their rights, nor should anyone expect such a thing.

 

Maybe not, but in this case it would make her look somewhat hypocritical. (Of course, she may be even more wary of social networking sites than me for all I know).

[pcstru]

Maybe not, but in this case it would make her look somewhat hypocritical. (Of course, she may be even more wary of social networking sites than me for all I know).

 

I've yet to meet someone who, given a little scrutiny, wouldn't end up looking completely hypocritical over some stated or implied position (I'd obviously include myself in that). Hypocrisy is part of being human.

[truebluesteve]

I think that is ... slightly inaccurate. People have rights over their information and have legal backing from various pieces of legislation that cannot be superseded by service T&C's. So we have things like Data Protection Act, The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and Data Protection at a European level which enshrines a "right to be forgotten". Rather than say you can never remove data, I'd say it can be very time consuming, difficult and expensive to do so. That said, it may be impossible to undo the effects of a posting, just as it is impossible to un-say something. People may comment on information you make available and they still have a right to truthful comment even after you successfully remove the data from public access.

 

I was speaking more generally really - we've all heard of and maybe dealt with situations where someone has posted an inappropriate image and even though it can be taken down from the website etc, you never know if it has been downloaded and shared. Same goes for text messages and so on - so you'll never know when it will suddenly re-appear and although you might be able to do something about that too, the damage has probably already been done

[NikChillin]

We have a cashless catering system, they can have biometric data, swipe card or pay in cash. As it is a private company running the canteen, they are here to make money, not turn it away.

[Sin]

The lunch lady should be fired for assaulting the child and attempting to force her hand onto the scanner after the parent did not consent to the terms. The lunch lady obviously had zero respect for the rights of the parent or the child. That is unacceptable for a person in her position. Don't touch other people's children ever unless you are saving their life by doing so.

[LeMarchand]

The lunch lady should be fired for assaulting the child and attempting to force her hand onto the scanner after the parent did not consent to the terms. The lunch lady obviously had zero respect for the rights of the parent or the child. That is unacceptable for a person in her position. Don't touch other people's children ever unless you are saving their life by doing so.

 

So P.E. teachers, people picking up children who have fallen down and people who a child wants to cuddle (and many more) are all sunk.

[X-13]

So P.E. teachers, people picking up children who have fallen down and people who a child wants to cuddle (and many more) are all sunk.

 

And woe betide anyone who has to restrain a pupil who is likely to injure someone.

[chazzy2501]

Without reading the whole thread, I agree that anyone shouldn't be required to submit a fingerprint, a pin number should be allowed as an alternate.

 

Some people (in various trades) do not have usable fingerprints.

[localzuk]

We switched from fingerprints to RFID cards here. Works just as quickly, and the hassle of scanning everyone in doesn't exist. Plus, the smallest kids fingers simply don't scan properly, so they ended up with the alternative method anyway in the past.

 

Sure, kids lose their cards, but you just put a price on the replacement and don't let them have a normal lunch without it (we provide a jam sandwich for those who don't have their card past a 5 day temporary card). They soon take responsibility for it.

[Sin]

So P.E. teachers, people picking up children who have fallen down and people who a child wants to cuddle (and many more) are all sunk.

 

Look buddy, I see the point you are trying to make, I agree that there are exceptions to my statement. However I think you are intelligent enough to see the point that I was attempting to make. The lunch lady was clearly in the wrong and trying to push her own agenda or just saying that she doesnt care about the parent or the childs rights to refuse. Considering the fact that her sole purpose in that enviroment is to serve food from behind a counter, she grossly exceeded her brief and was way out of bounds with physically touching that child under the circumstances.

[Sin]

And woe betide anyone who has to restrain a pupil who is likely to injure someone.

 

I think we both know that restraining a violent pupil would fall under my exception of saving someones life. Let's all be on the same page here; the lunch lady was grossly out of bounds in touching that child. PERIOD. She was not attempting to benefit the child or the parent with her actions. She had no legitimate reason to touch that little girl and force her hand ANYWHERE. Especially after being informed that the parent refused to give consent. Please by all means feel free to try and play word games with my statements but lets not pretend that you cant see the point I am really trying to make.