Albert Tatlock Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 As mentioned above though, you cite identity theft as a major concern yet dismiss biometric identification with the same shake of your tinfoil hat. Surely you must see the inconsistency there. Simple probability dicates that the more people that have potential access to your data, the more likely it is that your data will be compromised. Hiding behind cheap 'tinfoil' insults is hardly dealing with the issue. I have a legitimate concern about the interconnectivity, control and security of data - if you can't see that and address those worries in your responses, and so far you have not, then we'll just have to agree to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I can't see a problem with what the school are trying to achieve. I am assuming that the fingerprint is being stored to identify the child on the computer. Scenario A Child goes into the library, chooses a book and takes it to the desk. Gets out their swipe card issued by the school which has the person's name written on the card. Hands it to the member of staff who swipes it through a machine. This pulls the unique card ID off the card. The computer looks up the Card ID against it's database and pulls the Child's name up. Allocates the book against that person. Scenario B Child goes into the library, chooses a book and takes it to the desk. Child puts their finger on the fingerprint reader and it gets scanned. The computer looks up the scanned fingerprint against it's database and pulls the Child's name up. Allocates the book against that person. I can't see a problem with either - apart from the fact that the fingerprint reading will be a lot easier in case the child looses/forgets the card. This could be expanded to get a fingerprint reader in every classroom and when the child enters the room for a lesson, it scans them in and marks it down in the attendance record. Oh - some schools already do this but others don't as all the "Civil Liberties" groups got upset over it.......... Just think how much data is stored on the Govt Computer Systems about you: Driving Licences Car Tax Passport details Income Tax (where you work, how much you earn, pension details) Health Records - Hospital and GP's Police Records - Criminal Records, if you've ever been involved in an RTA, or a crime (witness etc), ever got a parking ticket etc. These will all be on different databases, but I doubt it would be hard to combine them all together to make one big database.......... I personally don't have a problem with having my fingerprints and DNA put on computer - DNA could be taken from every child born. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 There's no difference if you think about it. However, in this particular case the issues allegedly revolve around - collecting data without the parents permission, encouraging children to hand over their information without thought, and who has access to the data. Data? What data? They're identifying them is all. Same as when they right their name at the top of a book, or when they take the register every day. Again, as I stated in my post, the difference with electronic data is interconnectivity, control and security of the data. Just think about the difference between your buildings security database to let you in (and who has access to it) - and where your data will be stored if you chose to travel somewhere in the world (and who has access to it). Again, it's not personal data, it's almost public domain. I leave my fingerprint in coffee shops, on money that gets passed around, everywhere. Why get uptight because it's being used to identify me? Data transfer is restricted and in your control, held (minimally) with the democratically elected government where you live, and minimal data only passed to others outside when required for legitimate purposes of identification etc. when required (or for law enforcement purposes, with countries with which we have agreements). Records of people's movements should not be kept at all, and certainly DNA should not be kept at all (unless convicted), the storage of both which assume guilt before innocence - versus innocent before guilt, a concept enshrined in our 'free society' for 1000 years. I can't even be arsed with this. There's a neat technological solution that means kids can be identified by their fingerprint, and you want written approval from every parent because you're worred about international trade in fingerprint data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Data? What data? They're identifying them is all. Same as when they right their name at the top of a book, or when they take the register every day. So what will they be camparing it against? Where will the data be stored? Who has access to it now? Who has access to it in the future? Again, it's not personal data, it's almost public domain. I leave my fingerprint in coffee shops, on money that gets passed around, everywhere. Why get uptight because it's being used to identify me? It is already against the law for me to not be registered and hold information that can personally identify you and things about you - heard of data protection? I can't even be arsed with this. There's a neat technological solution that means kids can be identified by their fingerprint, and you want written approval from every parent because you're worred about international trade in fingerprint data? Again, what will they be camparing it against? - and who gave them permission to hold the data? Can't you see that I'm not worried about people collecting my thumb print from a coffee shop - only their access to the data associated with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I personally don't have a problem with having my fingerprints and DNA put on computer - DNA could be taken from every child born. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about....... Not that one again... That argument is a false dichotomy i.e. you are presented with a simple either/or choice - either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice - in other words think about the other options, such as why in a free society should anyone have to have constant proof that I am innocent, and why should I have to go about proving it to them all the time? Jeez - by these replies it seems many people actually do want to live in a police state. Why not go and live in Russia and leave the rest of us with our 1000 year old free society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 So what will they be camparing it against? Where will the data be stored? Who has access to it now? Who has access to it in the future? It is already against the law for me to not be registered and hold information that can personally identify you and things about you - heard of data protection? Again, what will they be camparing it against? - and who gave them permission to hold the data? Can't you see that I'm not worried about people collecting my thumb print from a coffee shop - only their access to the data associated with it. Yes, I've heard about data protection, it's part of my job. It's also very broad and practically useless. Please let me know how it applies in this case? You seem to be worred because it's biometric. What you don't understand is, that this data your concerned about is going to be collected anyway. The kids will have swipe cards, dinner money envelopes, lists, whatever. The data exists, its on computer, that horse has bolted. The stink is linking it with biometrics, but so what? That's just an identifier, the data's already there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Jeez - by these replies it seems many people actually do want to live in a police state. Why not go and live in Russia and leave the rest of us with our 1000 year old free society? I think you just don't understand data and it's necessity in the way we live. Youv'e always left fingerprints, the police have always used these to identify you, and can cross ref this with other data. Why the sudden excitement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I personally don't have a problem with having my fingerprints and DNA put on computer - DNA could be taken from every child born. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about....... Not that one again... That argument is a false dichotomy i.e. you are presented with a simple either/or choice - either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice - in other words think about the other options, such as why in a free society should anyone have to have constant proof that I am innocent, and why should I have to go about proving it to them all the time? Jeez - by these replies it seems many people actually do want to live in a police state. Why not go and live in Russia and leave the rest of us with our 1000 year old free society? we do not live in a free society, it is just touted as such. ID cards or fingerprints etc are not about proving your innocence constantly, its about proving your not guilty.( same but different i know ) you can't even change currency anymore without a photo id. you can also be arrested for not giving your name to certain warrented officers. where is this freedom you speak of? the days of i don't have to tell you are long gone, if they ever existed. and don't forget that you are only asked in most cases to prove who you are claiming to be in situations of your own making. if you don't want to prove who you are to anyone, you won't ever fly on a commercial flight or obtain a drivers licence. i would think faking a finger print would be a lot harder than forging a signature or using a pin number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Jeez - by these replies it seems many people actually do want to live in a police state. Why not go and live in Russia and leave the rest of us with our 1000 year old free society? I think you just don't understand data and it's necessity in the way we live. Youv'e always left fingerprints, the police have always used these to identify you, and can cross ref this with other data. Why the sudden excitement? I'm not biting - read my posts again - I've already covered these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I'm sure people know this already, but of course the actual fingerprint isn't stored anywhere. A digital scan of the image, uses computery stuff to generate a unique identifier. At no point is an actual image of the finger taken. I would much rather this system in schools than a swipe card etc. It's really difficult for even the meanest of bullies to steal a finger! Are you saying that this identifier isn't backward translatable - ie you can't get from the number stored on the school database or whereever back to a fingerprint description which could then be manipulated by a third party for their own means? That surprises me! I am concerned about biometric data being miss-used. If these systems become universal they'll be a hackers dream! Its down to the security of the readers and the data going down that reader. Say they replace pin numbers with a finger print scanner. If the Pin machine and the library use compatable systems and someone can hack into the school then all they have to do is break into the reader on the teller machine, by pass it and feed the digital code down the wire and they are in. I'm simplifying but the idea this is impossible seems too Panglossian! Even if the systems aren't compatable but the identifier is backwards translatable (i'll leave it to VinnieK to go into the algorithm theory, but I think this is nearly always so - though we may be into encription level difficulty I suppose) then if you know how the two systems translate the image you can just put the stolen library card identify though a detranslate algorithm to get the original data and then translate that into a string which is compatable with the Pin machine. Yes people loose swipe cards and bullys nick them, but if I loose it all it means is that someone will be able to borrow a book in my name. IF biometrics are used everywhere and someone gets hold of that data then they can hack into all elements of my life. Am I totally out on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 A similar discussion here... http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...c=9827&st=0 I agree with the person who says "personally the day every person can be uniquely identifiable, accountable and recognised will be a good day for humanity" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I agree with the person who says "personally the day every person can be uniquely identifiable, accountable and recognised will be a good day for humanity" ...but to whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I agree with the person who says "personally the day every person can be uniquely identifiable, accountable and recognised will be a good day for humanity" ...but to whom? Duh ! To King David/President Declan of course. Do keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Douglas Corporation Bylaw 2007...which fails the "town square test" IMO: 4. Processions (1) No person shall hold a procession in any street, open area or foreshore unless they have given notice in writing to the local authority not less than 7 days before it is held, specifying Gosh, that's appaling. Just the same as the UK. If you want to demonstrate you have to get permission from the police. I was accross a few months ago and saw Taking Liberites. It shows what happens when the state starts monitoring you and places restrictions on protest. I.e. demonstrating outside Parliament. It's a real eye opener. There is no way I would let any school take my kids biometrics. It's just too risky. I don't believe anyone in who says it's a safe thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I know a considerable amount about databases. However, this topic is nothing to do with that. It's a shame your raving paranoia can't see that none of your concerns really apply here specifically. As mentioned above though, you cite identity theft as a major concern yet dismiss biometric identification with the same shake of your tinfoil hat. Surely you must see the inconsistency there. I don't buy that argument. Its fine for those used to processing information and using cutting edge technology to claim that its just raving paranoia - but it isn't. We do not know how these companies are storing the data, how this data will be used in future (I'm talking decades down the line when industries rise and fall in very short lifespans these days), and how government agencies will use this data years from now. Say a private company "owns" your fingerprint they then get taken over years from now. Your prints get subsumed into even bigger databanks holding other data (credit card records, mortgage details etc) and may eventually get listed with police agencies, or government agencies, it could even be stolen and a print or record might appear somewhere years from now and be used improperly. You simply cannot say its paranoia because you simply do not know what government will be in place 20 years from now, or what big corporations will be trying to extract profits from in 10 years time. In the US people are getting fined hundreds of thousands of pounds for just downloading a few songs that might breach big corporations copyright, and personal data is being bought and sold in less well regulated countries all the time. Its not enough to say that this sort of thing is "ok". They're even trying to patent the human genome for christs sake. Some time soon someone might own the copyright on your DNA. That argument therefore does not wash with me. I'm happy not to trust anyone and pay for cash if i want to pay for cash and i certainly would refuse to have my childs prints stored electronically because i think is a gross abuse of their basic human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.