NO2ID

I passed through Heathrow last week and was subjected against my will to a biometric scan. I was told that these data are only held for 24 hours under the Data Protection Act. How can I check that my details have been deleted??


Alan

I am pursuing this with the ICO. It would greatly help if:

A: You would describe what happened to you.

B. How did they make you give your fingerprints agaisnt your will?

Cheers.

We were transferring from a Berlin flight to fly up to Manchester (ie "airside" at all times).
We were subjected to the full security check even though we had undertaken a similar thing in Berlin (ie baggage check, search hand luggage, etc.) When we went to "Domestic transfers" we faced a 2 lines both of which had an electronic pad, plus a small camera. I objected to this and the person controlling stated that if I didn't give these details, I would not be able to fly. I had to place my right hand on a pad and this produced a scan which was stuck in the front of my passport. My photo was taken, why, I don't know since there is one in the passport, and only then was I allowed to pass. I was also given a leaflet confirming all the above and stating that my details would be destroyed after 24 hours.
When we came to the Manchester boarding gate, my fingerprints were scanned again and only then was I OK'd to board. I was told that I could throw away the attachment once I was home.

There are a number of issues, but my 2 main concerns are:
1. Why the photo, if not to retain it? They had me and my passport photo, we have performing this match almost since the start of commercial aviation and there is no reason for another photo, unless they wish to retain it.
2. Although the scan was printed and stuck in my passport, it was never verified, any verification which took place was via the 2nd scan of my fingertips. This makes me think that this is just a piece of propaganda (I.e. When you take this out of your passport and destroy it, the record is gone); plainly this is not the case. I was told all this was to prevent identity theft, which I just find highly insulting, if someone wants me to believe that my identity could be stolen and re-engineered, all within what is supposed to be a secure environment.

This to me is another example of surveillance state by stealth and I would greatly appreciate any help which you can offer on this, not just for me but for other concerned individuals.

Alan

Alan,

Is alangent@alangent.com your actual email?

I am happy to share some personal correspondence with you and can suggest a way forward with this.

Alternatively would you be able to chat privately with me via P.M. ?

Kind regards,

Spartacan

Yes, its is my email address, you can use that, its secure. I hadn't realised when I logged it, that that would be my userid!

regards

Alan

Alan, you aren't logged in - that is why it says "Guest" by your posts! You (or your browser's auto-completion feature) must have entered your e-mail address when posting your messages. Do you want your address removed from this thread?

This is what they do to you when you refuse fingerprinting:

>> We were fingerprinted and photographed at Terminal One before being allowed through to the shops; the alternative was to be held in a secure room until our flight. <<

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... dt1101.xml

I'd like to see some kind of campaign calling for a Heathrow boycott. When I first heard about this fingerprinting scheme I vowed that I wouldn't use Heathrow whilst it was in place, and I'm sure there are many other people who've done the same.

For instance, next month I need to take a flight and one of the easiest routes is to go via Heathrow. I've chosen a different route, however. It'd be good to have some kind of website with a table showing lost business for Heathrow. The table would have three columns for final destination, Heathrow route and non-Heathrow route,

i.e. Final destination X, could have taken direct flight from Heathrow/change at Heathrow, actually took direct flight from Y/changed at Z

Imagine thousands of people all listing how they could have gone through Heathrow but deliberately chose a different route due to their fingerprinting scheme.

Y'see, this is how dangerous it is.

It's already happening.

Today they hold your details for 24 hours - if we can take their words at face value.

Tomorrow it's 48 hrs.

The next day it's longer.

And before you know it they're keeping them forever.

If you tolerate it today, you lay the ground for worse tomorrow, simple as that.

We must get this stopped ASAP by mass refusal to comply. There is no other way.

They only want our compliance, not our agreement.

We're deluding ourselves if we think we can do it then complain and win. We can't. We must refuse point blank.

I'm afraid the masses won't protest.

I believe though that there is some protest planned at the end of March. Anyone got details?

One reason for the introduction of biometrics at airports is to allow domestic and international travellers to mix so that revenue from shops etc. can be maximised.

Avoid the airports if you can but if not do not buy ANYTHING not even a coffee. Also whenever you are asked to provide a biometric make it clear that you are not happy about giving it and ask for the bit of paper detailing who is taking the biometric and why. If you are being asked to give a fingerprint it is not unreasonable to ask for the machine to be wiped clean.

Is anything more happening about the Heathrow biometrics issue? After the initial coverage everything was ecliped in the media by the T5 opening fiasco and now it's gone quiet. I would have expected more activity on this from all angles

Surely if the intent here is to hide your personal details... just pay with cash?

Which would be rather futile once you have entered on the thoroughly surveilled business of scheduled air travel. I think what the guest was suggesting is you punish the airport for its part in this by not contributing to its shopping-centre revenues.

It was my understanding that following a complaint to the ICO from Privacy international this use of biometric fingerprint technology at Heathrow has been put on hold.

If the complaint is upheld, could the same principle of the Data Protection Act (e.g. the need for necessity and proportionality of data collected) used to complain against other companies’ use of fingerprint biometric technology?

As the private sector may soon be playing a role in collecting this information on behalf of UK Gov for use on the NIR then anything that slows down the proliferation of this technology is a good thing.

I know several firms e.g. a Gym, Nightclub etc that are using the technology.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-561079&als[theme]=Border%20and%20Travel%20Surveillance

The Privacy International article is dated 22nd March which is over a month ago. Is there an update on this? Are the biomatrics at T1 and T5 still happening? Whats the latest? I'm really suprised and disapointed that this is not a higher profile issue
Mike

BAA has suspended fingerprinting at Terminal 1 & 5 pending the outcome of the ICO's investigation into Privacy Internationals complaint. There hasn’t been anymore news on it hence why it’s dropped off the radar. Obviously the outcome of this could affect the use of biometric technology in other areas.

>>As the private sector may soon be playing a role in collecting this information on behalf of UK Gov for use on the NIR then anything that slows down the proliferation of this technology is a good thing.<<

Precisely. Private companies are not subject to the Human Rights Act. Necessarily buying goods and services is a matter of free will. You are not compelled to buy a ticket with BA, use a particular night club or car hire company. So, therefore, strictly speaking, you are not being compelled to give away your biometrics. However, the principle or proportionality is very important. It must be wrong for a private company to attempt to demand excessive private and sensitive personal information. BAA, in attempting to harvest and retain biometric information, was attempting to gain more information than was proportionate to the task. I.e. checking someone through a common airport lounge that they had originally designed for purely commercial reasons. That fingerprinting was unnecessary for the circumstances is now proven as BAA has not had to split the terminal to segregate the passengers.

I think the ICO will win this battle with ease. It would be up to other campaigners to cite the BAA fingerprinting debacle as a precedent with further complaints to the ICO. I.e., if someone refuses to rent a car to you because you decline to give your fingerprints then it is up to you to complain to the ICO.