My four year old has been fingerprinted?

ParentsforPlay · #21 (**permalink**) 30-08-2008, 11:27

It was explained to us on the open evening and I have a leaflet explaining it:

'The software we use turns your child's fingerprint into a mathematical algorithm. The image of the fingerprint is then discarded. The information that is stored can not be used to recreate an image of your child's fingerprint and when the student leaves the school all data is deleted'

It has a load of techie stuff about it and a bit that says ' within the next year mobile phones and PC's will all have optional fingerprint scanners and in the long term biometrics will replace credit cards and passports'.

Sarah

boxby · #22 (**permalink**) 30-08-2008, 15:50

Now wouldn't it have been a lot more sensible to do that at our school!!!

HuggyBear · #23 (**permalink**) 30-08-2008, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brino39

DNA samples routinely taken by police, the highest level of cctv camera surveillance in the world, number-plate recognition cameras at Manchester airport, 4-year olds being fingerprinted, etc etc - it's beyond a joke. The UK is now a Police State!

And I feel alot safer with all of this...

If you have not done anything wrong what is there to worry about?

CCTV images are only recorded over 7 or 28 days later. ANPR is only used for drive offs in petrol stations and for catching tax/insurance dodgers.

Having a credit card style method defeats the object... rather than being bullied for money you have your card stolen...

So many things sound brilliant, but only in theory; in practice they could actually make the situation worse.

Dymo King · #24 (**permalink**) 31-08-2008, 09:18

trying really hard to stay calm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuggyBear

If you have not done anything wrong what is there to worry about?

...but that phrase really winds me up...

So, if...

council workers were given the power to view your bank account details, tax returns, medical records etc
council employees were allowed to roam the streets, take your photograph and demand your name and address because of some minor infringement (if you're a young attractive woman living alone would you feel safe letting some random guy with a council badge do this?)
Police were given powers to speculatively enter and search your property without a search warrant, whether you're there or not, to search for any evidence of any crime you might have committed; to rumage through your underwear drawer looking for drugs; to sift through you bank statements looking for unexplained deposits; to check your video collection to make sure you haven't taped something off TV and kept it for more than the allowed time limit etc etc
Police, security services, and council workers were given powers to intercept and read all of your inbound and outbound personal mail, and email, and texts, and messenger messages to that cute girl/guy you've been flirting with
Your car was tracked 24/7 by roadside ANPR and/or satellite
You were tracked when ever you stepped out of the house by iris scanners placed everywhere (think 'minority report')
The government placed cameras inside your house to make sure you weren't getting up to anything you shouldn't (think 1984)

...then you would be fine with all that - because "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"???

And in case you think I'm some kind of nut... some of those have actually been implemented, some suggested as possibilities by the government, and some no doubt will be suggested/implemented in the future.

Think 'minority report' is just so absurd it would never happen? why? we know the government is big on biometrics and always mentions fingerprints and iris scans as it's preferred method... we know that technology will continue to improve... we know that the government is more than willing to roll out a huge survailance network without consultation with the public (Uk is the most spied on nation on the earth already)... so if iris scanners reached the stage where they were a) accurate, and b) could scan at a distance then there is no reason we wouldn't go the minority report route. First it would just be at train/plane/tube/bus stations (to 'stop terrorists'), then it would roll out to government buildings & schools, then companies would roll it in at their offices, then the government would start rolling them out at high population targets (eg. football stadiums, theatres, etc; then they'd put them in public places such as shopping centres and so on and so on until they were everywhere (so the bad people have 'nowhere to hide')... oh and then, as per minority report, you'd have advertisers jumping on the bandwagon (you just know they would) and you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without billboards talking to you and trying to sell you stuff.

And it seems they are already indoctrinating the young (and apparently some of their parents!) to think that biometrics scanning is both normal and desirable.

And are you really so sure you've got nothing to hide? The government has brought in so many thousands of new laws (laws that we managed to survive with for decades without) - and do you know what they all are? I read a report quite a few years ago now that suggested the average person broke the law at leat once per day - often without knowing it - and that was before the current goverment went on it's record breaking law making spree...

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", Benjamin Franklin

HuggyBear · #25 (**permalink**) 31-08-2008, 11:06

I'm sorry, but I feel that I must laugh at what is an obsurd conspiracy...

Biometrics/fingerprints etc are only used as they are the most "secure" method of truely identifying a person...

Camera's in the home would never happen; and if it did then both me and about 5 generations of family below me would be safely 6 feet under anyway.

Councils etc wouldn't be able to view details etc unless they have a valid reason to...

I'm sorry but this whole minority report thing is just a load of tosh...

Dymo King · #26 (**permalink**) 31-08-2008, 11:40

I'm not claiming a conspiracy or predicting the future, I was using them as examples of "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" is just a ludicrous argument.

I don't expect we'll ever have cameras in the home, I'm just using extreme examples it shows what a silly argument it is. I mean, would you accept cameras in your home? no? why not? you did say "if you've got nothing to hide...". Would you want police to have the power to enter and search your house without any good reason? no? why not? you did say "if you've got nothing to hide..."

Do you see what I'm trying to say? There may be plenty of good arguments to support the use of biometrics, but "nothing to hide nothing to fear" is not one of them.

Quote:

Councils etc wouldn't be able to view details etc unless they have a valid reason to...

Really? and you think that all council employees with authorisation to access this data for 'legitimate' reasons are all honest, trustworthy people who can be relied upon not to be nosey and look up details of their neighbours or people they don't like just because they're 'not allowed' to? Do you think that the goverment who are completely inept when it comes to computers and computer security, would develop a system that would prevent unauthorised access to the data? Do you think that these low paid employees can't be bribed to look up some information by a private detective?

And would a 'valid reason' for using snooping powers deigned to investigate terrorists and major criminals be to track dog owners who might not be clearing up after their pets? or to spy on families to make sure that they live in the catchment area of the school they have applied to...? The government has a long track record of bringing in laws for 'serious criminals' and then using them for minor offences.

And the only reason I don't think we'd go the 'minority report' route is I don't think they'd get the technology to work. If it worked, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be rolled out in the way I suggested, unless there was a big backlash from the public.

Things like these don't happen over night - because the public wouldn't accept such a radical change - instead they are introduced gradually, like the frog in the proverbial hot water.

HuggyBear · #27 (**permalink**) 31-08-2008, 14:43

I understand what you say... but IMHO it would never happen.

And i'm sure that if it did it would be under the assumption that data would be highly guarded... am sure the government will learn from it's mistakes with regard to loosing and protecting sensitive data.

But i suppose as the technology gets smarter... so would the criminals...

Dymo King · #28 (**permalink**) 31-08-2008, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuggyBear

And i'm sure that if it did it would be under the assumption that data would be highly guarded... am sure the government will learn from it's mistakes with regard to loosing and protecting sensitive data.

victoriaK · #29 (**permalink**) 31-08-2008, 15:11

I can't believe the school would do that, why can't they just bill you at the end/start of the week thats what they do at my sons school.

victoriaK · #30 (**permalink**) 31-08-2008, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuggyBear

I understand what you say... but IMHO it would never happen.

And i'm sure that if it did it would be under the assumption that data would be highly guarded... am sure the government will learn from it's mistakes with regard to loosing and protecting sensitive data.

But i suppose as the technology gets smarter... so would the criminals...

Thats awesome