Angered parents considering lawsuit over unconsented fingerprinting
By Darren Murph 
posted October 9th 2006 3:06AM
posted October 9th 2006 3:06AM
Although it still seems a bit dodgy, we can understand the need for biometric identification in governmental positions and (to a lesser extent) the chaotic lines of Walt Disney World. But when a school system starts swiping fingerprints from students without so much as prior notification to the guardians, thoughts of a lawsuit are imminent. Janine Fletcher, a "solicitor and concerned parent who instigated the legal response," found the actions of 70 schools in Cumbia County downright disturbing, and has apparently rounded up a group of sue-happy supporters to back the cause. Institutions in the area reportedly acquired the unsuspecting students' fingerprints without so much as asking the parents for their consent, and once the prints are on file, local police have a "huge database" of potential crime lords to sift through without the need to arrest them first. While the schools did muster the courage to drop each parent a note in the mail regarding their recent deeds, alerting the cautious mums after invading their kids' privacy indeed seems a bit backwards. Anyways, if you've got nothing to hide (at the moment, of course), then there's no need to fret -- the classic argument -- but having the biometrics already on tap should make prosecuting those students-turned-thieves a much easier process should it become necessary.
Eff that. They did that too me in Boy Scouts, then year later I was at
a party but left once I found out the house was broken into. They had
my prints on file and they charged ME with breaking and entering.
wow, what injustice. You commited a crime and got caught. Man maybe they should rethink the fingerprinting thing.
Seriously though. I know many people say that its an intrusion of privacy. But its not like they're taking them from A students who don't act out. These are probably kids who misbehave commonly and a handful of them will commit crimes in the future. Now we can catch them easier. We need to stop being so protective of peoples right to anonymously commit crime in this country. We can't even take DNA samples from Death row inmates to try and solve some other crimes they may have commited. It drives me insane. If you screw up once I have no issue with DNA and fingerprints being taken. If anything it might make you think twice before you do something again.
I find it hard to believe that you got charged only because your fingerprints were there. Fingerprints are considered circumstantial and cannot alone be basis for criminal charge. They are an investigative tool that leads detectives to a suspect, but additional evidence is needed to prosecute someone. However, if you admitted you were in the house, or they had other evidence (like statements) that said you were there, then THAT is why you got charged.
Perfect example of the stupidity of "I have nothing to hide" argument!! People can get into a lot of trouble even if innocent!
This whole story is outragous. Now I have to be careful with my sons schools :/ Thanks for the headsup engadget.
According to one article, they're fingerprinting everyone so they can implement biometric class registers. It's in the UK, incidentally, not the US.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/11/porth_county_kiddyprinting/
The upside to the school fingerprinting students is that it can help in the case of a missing child/abduction, however I'm not sure that I agree with taking them without the consent of the parents. Still, if my child told me this, I wouldn't be upset that his/her fingerprints were taken.
get used to it. UK is loosing rights by the minute. It started when you let them take your guns away. good luck!
Hmm, these guys are taking it too far. Check out this page for more on fingerprint biometrics.
http://www.biometrics.co.uk/fingerprint_biometrics/
Here's a classic argument. Let's say, just for example's sake, that some government is corrupt. Do I even need to list the possibilities?
The reason no one wants all this data stored on them isn't because they're criminals and don't want to be caught. Most of the people reading this right now are thinking "I don't want my fingerprints, and DNA, and eye scan, and... on file". Most of the people reading this right now aren't, and will probably never be, criminals. So then what is their motive? The motive is that it has too much potential for abuse. A corrupt government, a hacker, any number of reasons to keep this information secure.
You thought you had to be careful with your social security number? What about your DNA?
Shame on Engadget for perpetuating such mis-understandings about new technology - you should be enlightening us!
The vast majority of these systems - including many used for border security etc. - do NOT store your fingerprint. Rather an algorithm creates a data string for comparison purposes. You CANNOT re-create the fingerprint from this data. Plus the level of data stored is FAR less than that required for proof in courts.
It's the same with many face-recognition technologies - they store key dimensions of your face - but not a photograph. You can't re-create a picture of someones face from the data.
Here is an article from the "National Center for State Courts":
http://ctl.ncsc.dni.us/biomet%20web/BMFingerprint.html
" In most cases no image of the fingerprint is actually created, only a set of data that can be used for comparison. This method was meant to alleviate the public's fear of their fingerprint being recorded or stolen, but most people still do not understand or believe the actual method used."
to all the parents who are complaining - will you still be complaining after your child gets abducted someday, and the school is the only one who has your child's fingerprints on file because you never bothered to do it yourself? after you win your lawsuit, it will be that much harder to locate your children if they are abducted or lost. but at least no one can spy on your dead child's every move, right? (like anyone would really want to...) on a less dramatic note, what if someone at school steals your child's $4000 musical instrument and the fingerprints on file help to track down the kid at school who stole it? when there are no witnesses to a crime (as is often the case) fingerprints can be like our silent witnesses.
a few people have said that they didn't need to go back over all the reasons why this is so intrusive. the following is an honest request and i'm not being flippant: could someone list some of these reasons why it is so bad to have a child's (or anyone's) fingerprints on file?
when i worked for a school, i had to undergo a background check - so my fingerprints are now in the fbi database. and i don't have a problem with that. admittedly, the fbi's database is probably more secure than the average school's database. are people worried that someone will compromise the school's database, steal it, and then plant their fingerprints at a crime scene? if any criminal had the time to be that theatrical and inventive, they could just as easily steal your fingerprints from a drinking glass or a credit card.
what's wrong with being accountable for one's actions and whereabouts, if it aids in solving a crime someday? the chances are that you will never, ever come up on any search if you are never involved in a crime. and if you do, you'll have a chance to help law enforcement zero in on the real perpetrator. so many people these days seem to think that the government wants to spy on them, and i find that a little bit egocentric. the government is not interested in spying on phone sex or affairs or petty drug deals or whatever else might be considered sensitive to most people. who has time for that when they can barely keep track of the actual hits for more relevant information on terrorism?
i can imagine a scenario where someone is running for political office and the opposing party has illicit access to a surveillance database. they might be able to pull some info off of it in order to blackmail you. but that is a pretty outlandish scenario and most of the people who worry most about it will never be running for political office and will never have any reason for anyone to ever want to spy on them. but maybe a better answer is for all of us to work towards being a more honest and accepting society. so that we don't have to be so embarrassed about who we really are (as opposed to the fake personae most people proudly display to the world.) i'm as guilty as anyone of having things in my personal life that embarrass me a little, but as time goes by i work more and more towards accepting myself and trying to show the real me instead of hiding it.
this sounds like a rant, but i'm absolutely willing to change my mind. if there are good reasons to be against the fingerprinting of children, please enlighten me. but at the moment, i can't understand why it is so bad to have some form of absolute identification in place. i'll read the answers and change my opinion if it's wrong. thanks!
I have to bite on this one:
before we play the "when your kid's been kidnapped you'll know I'm right" card can someone explain a) how having a fingerprint will help track/recover the child apart from ID'ing the finger in the mail and b) if a) is the case then why can't we just lift the prints from one of the 100 favourite toys in the house? Sorry to be so pragmatic but...
Emma says it below.'"no one should ever be required to preemptively submit evidence against themselves on the basis that they 'might' commit crimes at some point in the future"
What you're arguing for in effect is a future in which everyone must prove their innocence. I hope I don't need to explain why this is just a bad idea.
"to all the parents who are complaining - will you still be complaining after your child gets abducted someday, and the school is the only one who has your child's fingerprints on file because you never bothered to do it yourself?"
How does fingerprinting help search for missing kids right away. AAre the police going to check my kid's fingerprint with another kid to check if they are the same person? No. When a kid is missing, they want description of the kid (clothes, height, hair color) and a description of the kidnapper or car. It's only like decades later when the kid is older and the appearance change that fingerprints play a role in identifying the abducted kid.
"can someone explain a) how having a fingerprint will help track/recover the child apart from ID'ing the finger in the mail and b) if a) is the case then why can't we just lift the prints from one of the 100 favourite toys in the house? Sorry to be so pragmatic but..."
I'm not in support of this program when it is done without consent, but to answer your question, if the child is unfortunately found dead in another state, he or she can be identified immediately if the fingerprints are on a national database. If the child is alive, but traumatized and unresponsive, the same thing, the prints will identify the child and the parents would be immediately notified.
Print scans are far more accurate than taking the many overlapping, smeared and partial prints you would find on a childs toys. Those prints may be used to match to an accurately taken one, but are not enough to be a template.
This is ridiculous, no one should ever be required to preemptively submit evidence against themselves on the basis that they 'might' commit crimes at some point in the future. As for tracking down 'kidnapped' kids, believe it or not most kids are not kidnapped, ever in their entire life and Danny is right, having a fingerprint is fairly useless, why not just lo-jack them with a high powered GPS transmitter and be done with it?
Wait, forget I said that........ damn, just you wait www.lojackmykid.com will be online by the end of the day looking for venture capital.
Don't stop now but some of you sound like the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales Co.
(yes I know it was in the UK)
Sue-happy? Come on, engadget, that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen ANYWHERE, not just the "sue-happys".
Danny you're absolutely right on this one. I was just thinking when perusing through that last post, "how is having a finger print going to help locate a child." Good point also on being able to get that print from one of the kid's belongings.
This must have happened int he UK because I don't think that's even legal to do in the US. -TT- I don't accept this argument of "if you're not doing something wrong what are you scared of" because the US law system isn't based on the fundamental principle of "if you're not doing somethign wrong you have nothing to worry about." It is based on "innocent until proven gulty," the only rational and reasonable system in existence. Under this system the government stays the fuck out of your business unless they have proof you did something. That's how it should be.
If they want to monitor phone calls of suspected terrorists-by all means, go for it-but fingerprinting 14 year olds? Invasion of privacy homeslice.
Hello Dave,
I live in the U.S. and as of Aug 2005 our school of less than 500 students decided to deny children the ability to purchase a hot lunch unless they scanned (finger impression) I objected and they scanned my 7 year old anyway. There is pending legislation here in Illinois right now. We are praying for a pass. I have been telling the story whenever I can,in hopes of educating parents. I have yet to see an Illinois law that says a school district that power. The pending legislation is HB 1559 & Illinois SB 1702. As far if it is illegal or not. I am still speaking with Privacy groups & looking to file suit.
Joy Robinson-Van Gilder
P.S. CBN aired a story regarding our situation on Nov.7,06. check it out for verification.
This shit is just like DRM.
The only people it hurts are the ones adhering to the system.
I have to wonder about how fingerprints are a great help to finding kidnapped children. If you can get close enough to a child to check his fingerprints, and have enough cause to do so, then you probably already have enough info to identify the kidnapped child. And if you don't, then ask the parent for copies of fingerprints (from toys, or better yet, from the fingerprints that were taken every couple years in school and given to the parents to store in their safe deposit box).
Either way, the argument "if you're not a criminal, then you have nothing to worry about," is rediculous. In America, our country was founded by criminals. As the government gains power, you can bet there will again be a time when people are doing "the right thing" and will be persecuted by the government. giving the government more information and yielding our rights to them under the guise of "protecting the children" is only going to come back to haunt us or future generations.
Obtaining finger prints hardly seems like an invasion of privacy. That would be like saying the image of ones face is private. The sue-mongers need to get bent and be happy the school isn't getting DNA samples w/o consent.
If parents would start raising their own kids and stop relying on the public school system to do so they wouldn't have to worry about anything.
I'm confused -- where's the gadget? Why is this an engadget story? I'm not saying it's not a story worth reading, but... well... where's the gadget?
These Law Suit/Get rich quick people are ruining America!
Well I dont like that = Sue!
Well that hurt = Sue!
I'm a dumbass, how can I get rich = Sue!
People need to realize that the courts are not just a channel to funnel money to people that dont deserve it. This system was set up to help those who needed help. Not for punnishment by those who are angry.
What I'm really sick of is the belief of governments, and sometimes others, that "If we don't have anything to hide, we shouldn't have anything to fear."
That's bull. If we don't have anything to hide, why fingerprint/search/etc someone? And I'm pretty sure that fingerprinting could fall under the 4th Ammendment.
I dont know if you all know but it depends on what state you live in here in the US. I have gone to schools in 8 different states. Only a school in Texas in 1985 took my finger prints. In Califorina or Nevada or any where esle they dont have such strict laws to where kids have no rights at all. In Texas they also wanted my Mom to sign a form so they could whip my with a paddle if i got in trouble. so my mom ripped it up and sent it back to them. a week or so later i got caught on a 15min break calling another kid a name. the office brought me and one of my good friends in and they whipped him in fornt of me and said if i did anything else they would bring him back in. needless to say all my friends got pissed at me and told me to stay away from them becasue they didnt want to get beat if i got in trouble again.
It's a public school. You give up a lot of rights as a student once you step on to school property. I seem to remember that the school has the ability to act as a guardian in the absence of your legal guardian.
In a nut shell this is perfectly legal. From what I've heard about high school since I graduated, teachers needs to get their reeds, paddles, belts and other instruments of punishment back.
Sorry guys, but this seems perfectly fine. Just be happy they sent the parents a notice after.
This is a pretty random post and a bit difficult to follow. First it's Cumbria not Cumbia an it's in the UK by the way, not the US.
The argument is that the Data Protection Act allows the child to consent and the parent's consent is not necessary. So it's a bit of a legal gray area until it's sorted out. And perhaps the ICO has already given it's oppinion on this and found that schools can't continue. Anyone know?
"sue-happy supporters"? This type of thinking is more than a bit childish unless you don't believe in the legal system. Where would you suggest people go when they have a dispute? A gun store?
@Juaquin
actually not for me. my motives would be because i don't want to get caught lolz!
only in America will people sue a microwave company because there were no death label about frying a cat and win.
whatsaname, you do know that's an urban legend, right?
Why would I get used to it? I don't live in the UK. Assume much?
This is great. But what would be better is to put RFID chips inside everyone's head. The chips would not only be able to locate you--but, if your fingerprints are found at the scene of a crime, the chip could be activated such that it explodes--taking your entire head with it. This shouldn't be a problem for you unless you have something to hide...
Why is this new? My entire 3rd grade class was taken on a field trip back in 1985 of the police station. My prints have been on file since then with a local agency.
Furthermore, if you've ever had your car broken into ... they must have your prints to exclude you from the investigation.
This isn't a rights erosion, it's a matter of safety as some others have mentioned here with child abductions.
The "rights erosion" comes from the misuse of the data not the gathering.
Even if "all" that is stored is an equation or some number-sets describing my fingerprint, it still allows my fingerprints to be traced. Really, there's no difference between it and an actual image of my fingerprint. To say that it's somehow better because it's only stored data representing a fingerprint is idiotic.
And fingerprinting to help find missing kids? Are you going to lift print from every surface in a 20 mile radius and check them against the records? That's more time-consuming (and less helpful) than actually looking for the kid.
What's so wrong with the systems we currently have in place that we need to introduce new ones that infringe on our privacy for only a tiny gain? I'd bet that fingerprinting everyone in the US would only help solve maybe an extra 5% of all unsolved crimes, maybe. 5% for the loss of privacy? Even 10%? Is it worth it to you?
"Even if "all" that is stored is an equation or some number-sets describing my fingerprint, it still allows my fingerprints to be traced. Really, there's no difference between it and an actual image of my fingerprint"
Yes - there is all the difference in the world: For instance, most face-recognition systems work in the same way - they map the distance between key points on your face and store this as data. Then they read you face when you present it; the algorithm produces the data string, and the computer compares the data strings to make a match.
There is just NO way, that that data string can be "uncoded" to give a picture of your face - as it's never stored that picture in the first place. Just some key measurements.
Most fingerprint systems work in the same way. Unless your at airport security for instance - there they will store your actual fingerprint.
"To say that it's somehow better because it's only stored data representing a fingerprint is idiotic".
No it isn't - is factual and scientific truth. Your limited understanding and quick reduction to insults without aquainting yourself with the reality of the situation shows that you have a tiny brain the size of a pea. And a green mushy one at that...
To say that it's somehow better because it's only stored data representing a fingerprint is idiotic.
has everyone heard the expression, "If you want to cook a live frog-by throwing him in boiling water, he will jump out of the pot. However, if you put him in warm water and gradually turn up the heat, he will swim around and not notice that he is slowly being cooked until it's too late"
In essence this is saying that if you start with something small like fingerprinting (no matter how vague it is) then that becomes the "norm" in society and then when they want blood samples it doesn't seem like a big invasion of privacy. Next RFID in every child’s backpack, etc, etc. All of this loses its shock factor when they introduce slowly and then one day we will have given up a lot of privacy without really knowing it.
We're losing more of our privacy everyday. The thing that bother me is not the taking of fingerprint but doing so without any consent whatsoever. The invasion of privacy is a big concern. What if one day the government decided that it does not need a warrant to search someone's house in the name of the peace and order? Well, since you did not do anything wrong, why worry? I find that statement idiotic.
A world without crime is a world without privacy. Give up all your privacy and crime rate will drop.