NO2ID

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... books.html

Children, 4, 'to be fingerprinted to borrow school books from library'

By Andrew Hough
Published: 8:00AM BST 28 May 2010

Children as young as four could be fingerprinted to take out books from a school libaray.

Students in Manchester are having their thumbprints digitally transformed into electronic codes, which can then be recognised by a computer program.

Under the scheme, pupils swipe a bar code inside the book they want borrow then press their thumb on to a scanner to authorise the loan. Books are returned in the same way.

The scheme is being trialled on junior classes at Higher Lane Primary in Whitefield, Bury, Greater Manchester.

Officials confirmed it is due to be extended to all pupils at the school, one of the areas largest primary schools, with 453 pupils aged four to 11.

...

What? Is this an actual national scheme or just one company with a big sales team? Or are they just talking in generalisms here?

They tried this at our primary school, before our kids went there. On receipt of a letter from us refusing permission for them to take any biometrics, we were told it didn't work on kids that young because their fingerprints couldn't be accurately read, and the system had just been abandoned.

Slick salesmen strike again...

I don't get what the problem is? I remember having to give my fingerprint to take out books at my school 8 years ago. I didn't care then and I don't care now. It's a lot more convenient then having to remember a library card (at school very few kids carry a wallet/purse) and I recall it being quicker than when I take out books at my university library now using an 'old-fashioned' card. Finally, in the long-run, it's a more cost-effective system given that you don't need to issue a card to every student. Roll on the roll out!

Eight years ago the technology was still quite expensive! You kids must have been losing a *lot* of library cards. Or was it worth someone's while to 'sponsor' the system?


The word you are loking for is "desensitisation". Doesn't make it right.


This was cleary in the days before the pocket was invented.

As soon as people start hinting at conspiracy theories it's usually time to just nod and agree. As you can imagine, I didn't quiz my school librarian about the funding of her computer when I was 14 but let's just assume it was MI5 and leave it at that. I would disagree that it's desensitisation, if it was I'd have just stuck my finger on the scanner and thought nothing of it. I was certainly surprised at and intrigued by the concept but I didn't (and still don't) see any problem with the idea, it's a quick, easy and efficient way to borrow books, ofcourse those pesky spooks hoarding the fingerprints of children is certainly a downside but oh well . I'm not quite sure how the pocket reference is at all relevant, the point is most of the kids didn't carry wallets because they didn't really have a need to although if it makes you feel better you can pretend that I was in hysterics at your attempt at humour.

Sorry, you've just lost the argument. Marketing might be considered conspiratorial but that's a bit of a stretch. Try "profit" as the motive for sponsorhip and maybe we can try that one again.


OK, we'll have to differ there. The point I was trying to make is that if people do things as kids they question those same actions far less when they do them as adults. It's inevitable, not deliberate (if that's what you were hinting at).


Because a wallet or purse is not the only place that a card can be kept. There is also the option of keeping it in one's school-bag and taking it out (and putting it in said pocket) as needed.

Fingerprinting is an expensive way of doing something that can be done with a simple card - and a card has the additional benefit of helping kids learn not to lose things. If bullying or theft is the problem then that is what should be tackled, and properly - not just hidden by removing anything of possible value.