ConLibs to outlaw kiddyprinting without permission
Dabs grab confab blab
The new government plans to ban the controversial practice in schools of taking children's fingerprints without their permission.
The decision is likely to mean a change in the law. According to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), as it stands the Data Protection Act allows schools to take pupil fingerprints without permission, prompting outrage from parents' groups.
In response, in 2007 the ICO issued non-binding guidance to schools suggesting that they ought to seek permission.
In a brief document explaining the broad terms of their coalition yesterday, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats committed to "outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission".
The Register recently heard from Chris Halliday, a father in the Scottish borders who has battled authorities for several years after his daughter's fingerprints were taken without the family's permission.
Fighting for answers from the ICO, he was eventually told that as well as having no choice as a parent, his daughter's consent was also not needed by the secondary school. Her "consent could not be freely given", the ICO wrote, because a fingerprint was needed to use the school dinners system.
Halliday's anger at the regulatory response chimes with that of campaign groups such as Leave Them Kids Alone, which argues that being forced to give biometric data to access normal services is a breach of children's human rights.
There have already been moves to rein in school fingerprinting at local level. In Liverpool, the city council passed a motion banning promotion of biometrics in schools by the local authority.
The ICO said said today that it was awaiting further details of the proposed national restrictions, which are due in the next two weeks. Responsibility for drawing up the new policy will fall to the Department of Justice, under Ken Clarke. ®
bout damn time
Why finger print kids? Let's look at the arguments shall we:
1. Speeds up queues. No more than sensibly implementing any non biometric register system.
2. It's easier. Easier than NOT fingerprinting kids? No I don't think so.
3. Protects against fraud. Yeah little Johnny is really going to pay for his lunchtime doughnut with a stolen credit card isn't he?
4. Trains children to be malleable in the hands of authority as required for the coming police state and in particular to surrender their ID on request to anyone for any reason. BINGO.
5. Enriches the people working towards the goals outlined in reason #4. Yes.
6. Takes money away from worthwhile spending on books etc. Yes.
7. Trains parents and teachers alike that it is acceptable for children (and immigrants) to be digitally cataloged, with a view to manufacturing their consent to, and implied agreement with, ID cards and the necessary infrastructure for verifying said cards as a prerequisites to activities that will include, but are not limited to; buying, selling, traveling, working and accessing public services.
Because I don't want it. I don't want the government to have access to my fingerprints, DNA or anything like it, and I sure as hell don't want my kids getting used to the idea that it's OK.
Do Not Want! Will Not Have!
I am not required to explain my reasons to you. You should accept that most people do not want this kind of thing regardless of how frivolous you perceive them to be.
With the new Coalition Government, we can all breathe a sigh of relief with the knowledge that they fully intend to rid the country of this New Labour, agenda driven bullshit.
The problem is...
...that even if it is only hashing the fingerprints, it gets children used to the idea of giving their biometrics to officials without questioning it. Read 1984 if you don't understand why this is a bad thing. Pay particular attention to the last couple of chapters.
It may be an overreaction, but do you really want your children to have nothing to look forward to in life, except for the eventual bullet in the back of the neck?