NO2ID

Is anyone here aware that tens of thousands of school children in the UK have given up their biometric identifiers, often without parental consent, for library systems and registration? This applies to children aged from 4 -16+

...ask around... a school near you will have a biometric system that is up and running, also ask if parents were asked permission for the children to give up their fingerprints for these private commercial systems.

What are implications for these children in the forthcoming decades with the advance of technolgy? Who will have access to the information held on them? What about possible future selling/passing on data held or their biometric identifiers...?

By desensitising our younger generation ID cards/monitoring will easily be implemented in the next decade or so.

Biometrics by the back door!

Dead right, see here:

http://www.no2id.net/phpBB/viewtopic.ph ... olchildren

Thanks Ross

Nice to see that it has already been aired. I am trying to see how the law works in respect to parents who are unhappy about their children having their fingerprints scanned and how any data stored on a individual child is protected now and in the future

I have been going round in circles for a fair few months now - written to gvmt, data commissioner and other.

Just had a reply last night from the data commissioner after a 2 month wait - see below.

I think I'm correct in reading the below reply that the Data Protection Act enables a school to legitimately take a childs fingerprint without any parental consent and that if you requested data to be removed from the database then all a parent has is the good word of the school or LEA.

So no legal redress - schools/establishments can take our childrens biometric details when they like and we as parents cannot legally stop the process...? am I reading the below correctly?... it seems incredulous...

Quote from email received yesterday from the Data Commissioners Office:

"You have asked whether, if a school takes a fingerprint without the consent of the parents, there is any redress through law that a parent may take against the establishment or company that took the fingerprint.

You have mentioned the company, Micro Librarian Systems, who provide software to schools to enable them to take thumb prints for use as part of the schools' library computer system. I would point out that such companies only provide the software, training, advice etc in respect of these systems to the schools. It is the actual school who is responsible for the processing of the data to which you refer, and not the company who provide the software. Therefore any concerns you have relating to the use of such a system should be directed to the school itself, or the Local Education Authority.

With respect to obtaining permission by the school from parents before taking a child's thumb prints, whilst we would suggest that it would be good practice to contact parents in such circumstances, failure to do so would not necessarily represent a contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The First Principle of the Act stipulates that the processing of personal information must be fair and lawful. The school, in having regard to this Principle, must ensure that one of the criteria of Schedule 2 of the Act (and in the case of 'sensitive personal data' also one of the criteria in Schedule 3 of the Act) are met. Consent of the individual is only one amongst several criteria that may be used to legitimise disclosure and it is likely in this case that even when consent has not been given, that the actions taken still comply with one of the other criteria set by Schedule 2 of the Act. In this case, Schedule 2(5)(b), which provides a legitimate basis for the processing of personal data where it is necessary for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment, or schedule 2 (5)(d), where the processing is for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person could possibly be applied by the school as a reason for their decision to take thumb prints of the children in order for the school library to function effectively.

It is accepted that a form of identification is essential for the school to be able to identify who is using the library service and there are a number of means by which this can be achieved. For example a card with a name on, a card with a bar code, a card with a photograph, or in this case, thumb print reading technology. In the case of cards, these can be lost and/or used by others or swapped. There are therefore various options available to provide a necessary identification of a child, with varying degrees of accuracy. Fingerprint recognition technology does allow a school library service to be sure that its information, as to who has what books, is accurate, which helps in meeting the fourth data protection principle, that of accuracy. And if the technology is used to control access, it also helps ensure that only those who should have access actually do so. In some cases such access control might be necessary for security.

The Commissioner accepts that the introduction of such a system may be regarded as a sensitive issue to some parents and therefore would suggest that it would be good practice for a school to inform parents of their intention to introduce such a system. The school may wish to consider the response received to such a proposal and gauge the response and popularity of the introduction of such technology before proceeding with its implementation. However, a failure by the school to make such contact would not necessarily represent a contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998.

With respect to your second query which is in relation to any guarantee a parent may have that the fingerprint information obtained will be deleted from the system after they make such a request, again it would not be the organisation that has provided the software who would deal with this issue but the school itself. We would expect that when a parent asks a school to delete the fingerprint data which they hold relating to their child, that the school complies with this request. If you have reason to believe that they may have failed to do so, then you could consider taking the matter further with the Local Education Authority."

Thanks for that information Wary.

My greater concern is the lawfulness of enforced fingerprinting in the first place, as well as the importance of recognising the rights of the Gillick competent child.

I was head librarian in my school.

Its a fuuny old thing but not that many years ago we had the capability of identifying other pupils by name and face.

They signed a book out and when they didn't return it we spoke to the form teacher!!

A simple procedure, even then.

This is the key; we are increasingly moving to a position where people are automatically distrusted and presumed to be dishonest.

Put simply, the burden of proof is reversed.

Absolutely. I used to tutor model aircraft flying in a model aircraft club, occasionally to the under 18s, club members just arrived at the flying site and if I was free to then I would assist them out of good will...

A few years ago we were advised by our governing body that for the under 18s parents should be present during tuition, wasnt a problem, things proceeded as priorly with the exception that I able to talk to mum or dad into the bargain...

Last year the governing body advised that tutors needed to accept TOTAL responsibility for the youngster even though mum or dad were standing right next to them, be cleared against the criminal records database, and receive special training...

It became so I was automatically distrusted, and had to prove that I was honest, so I discontinued tuition as it was done totally out of good will with no onus on me whatsoever to do it.

There we have it in a nutshell.

Reminds me of something Norman Tebbit said last September (on Question Time I think). He was saying we had in many respects gone too far in trying to protect kids from all the evils of the world. In fact we risked causing more harm to their welbeing in the long run. He then gave an example at his local school: "where because the school was having some tiling work done and they hadn't had time to do the required checks on the builders, the school was closed for the first two weeks of the new term." [not an exact qoute but close enough]

His point being that the kids were being deprived of a very important two weeks of schooling to 'protect them'.

Sure when I was a lad things were much more relaxed but you also quickly learned (hopefull) to avoid the risks... its a part of growing up. I fear soon we'll end up with a generation that has no concept of what's harmful to them, nevermind all those missed school trips and extra-curicular activities.

It comes down to people thinking for themselves rather than demanding someone else look after them and then apportioning blame when things go wrong. It is of course a shade of consumerism.

I have discussed what happened with a number of people since it came about, the advice from the governing body derives from new child protection legislation...

One person informed me that snorkeling classes have been cancelled locally due to tutors not willing to continue under their new guidance, and another told me that exactly the same thing is happening with football referees and cricket umpires...

People who were formally willing to tutor under 18s are no longer willing to do so under new guidances where they have to accept full responsibility for every aspect of a childs welfare from its parents...

The guidance given to me made me responsible for the child being properly protected against cold / sun, properly fed and watered, nobody to swear, demean, or tell rique jokes within earshot; even when the parent is standing right next to me as club rules say they must be...

That on top of special training, and being cleared annually against the Criminal Records Bureau register...

Just to help them fly a model aircraft !!!!!

I took one look at what was expected and said you can count me out of it entirely...

So now the regulations appertain to nothing, because the activity ceased due to the regs. Some control freakery eh, so controlling that theres nothing left to control.

Tell the school to remove the information from their system. You could also try and get other parents to do the same. I read an article at http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly ... 91,00.html about fingerprints in schools which you should read.

If anyone else has children and is wondering what else is happening to them think what is happening to our rights to privacy and make them think things like having to be scanned to get a job or do anything else you should look at http://www.arch-ed.org/issues.htm these are perfect examples of how our children are being influenced by people that have a big impact on how children develop.

By the time your average child leaves school they will think mass databases (such as the NIR) that invade their privacy is 'normal'. Not sure things can get much worse.

By the way, if I buy my passport at end of Apr, would I go on the NIR?