Heads baulk at biometric consent law
Legal duty to seek parental permission would be ‘huge bureaucratic burden’
Headteachers are set to incur the wrath of civil liberties campaigners after challenging new laws that would force them to seek permission from both parents to use children’s biometric data.
The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) claims a new bill forcing them to gain consent would be a “huge bureaucratic burden” for schools operating technology such as fingerprint recognition systems for cardless libraries and cashless canteens.
The new Protection of Freedoms Bill also gives pupils in schools and colleges the right to refuse to give their biometric data and compels schools to make alternative provision for them.
The several thousand schools that already use the technology will also have to ask permission from parents retrospectively, even if their systems have been established for years.
Until now, government guidance has merely recommended schools explain to pupils and parents what they are doing, but seeking permission has not been obligatory.
ASCL says schools already running the systems with very few complaints from parents may see a surge in those deciding not to opt in. They also fear pupils may refuse to give their data just to make trouble.
Opponents of use of biometric data in schools - from iris scans to fingerprints - claim it can cause children to feel “criminalised” and leave them open to identity theft.
But ASCL’s legal expert Richard Bird said: “The new law is based on a misunderstanding of what these systems are; it is not fingerprinting as understood by the police.
“The definition of ‘parent’ is also complicated - in some cases there are up to five people with parental rights. It is very unclear.
“If there’s a large-scale refusal to take part in these systems, schools who have invested a lot of money will have their plans turned upside- down.”
ASCL general secretary Brian Lightman, who installed a fingerprint recognition system at his former school in South Wales, said giving parents the chance to “opt out” would be more sensible than the “opt in” arrangement in the bill.
“This isn’t about storing data somewhere and infringing upon personal freedoms, it’s just a very effective way of running things in schools.
“Having to get permission from every single parent will be a huge bureaucratic burden and very difficult to achieve.
“The existence of this clause itself in the bill starts to suggest to parents that there is something sinister behind this when there really isn’t.”
However, civil liberties campaigners have reacted angrily to ASCL’s comments.
Daniel Hamilton, director of Big Brother Watch, said: “It’s quite clear that schools are not properly equipped to hold this sort of unique and personal data.
“By taking it for trivial purposes schools are jeopardising the privacy of the students for the rest of their lives.”
BIOMETRIC SYSTEMS - Picture perfect
Biometric systems are used by an estimated one in five schools.
- Common uses: automatic registration, cardless libraries, cashless canteens.
- Most popular systems: fingerprint-recognition.
- Other technology also in use: face and iris-recognition.
Comment (4)
In an age where it's generally accepted that school's have to seek permission to take pictures of children, to take them on school trips, take them swimming etc Then why wouldn't it be required before fingerprinting children. The biometric images collected are of a standardised form, the law recognises that these are a form of fingerprint so it's not a legal 'misunderstanding'. The EU has written to the UK warning that this collection of data which is "disproportionate to the goal, producing an effect which is too intrusive"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:06
19 March, 2011
JSmith24
There really is no need for any school to use biometric data. Cashless canteens and libraries work just fine with other technologies such as swipe cards, at a fraction of the cost.
Reliance on biometric systems is also not a wise move as they have a habit of going wrong, and are expensive to fix if they do. A friend of mine used to work for a company that installed fingerprint scanners at the offices of online gaming companies. They were massive - overkill for the needs of the companies, and were unreliable. Apparently they kept locking the company's cleaning staff out of the offices, because the skin on the cleaners' fingers would get damaged by scrubbing and detergents, making the machines unable to get a clear reading.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:21
19 March, 2011
Chirimolla
It really doesn't matter what these systems collect (although Microsoft's Identity Architect Kim Cameron has gone on record to say such data potentially compromises a child's future security).
The crucial danger is that the effect of such systems may be to condition children by a process of habituation, over time, to accept that fingerprinting is a normal part of life - so that next time biometric ID cards, etc are introduced by a future government in (say) 30 years' time they will stand a greater chance of succeeding because most people will think that presenting their fingerprints routinely as part of their day-to-day life is a normal activity. Ours may be the last generation to realise that it is most certainly not!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:14
19 March, 2011
David1969
I don't know how these systems get past the UK Data Protection Act. Principle 3 of the Act states that: personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed'. Surely asking a child for a sample of biometric data for something as trivial as getting a library book out or a slice of pizza from the canteen is excessive? Or in EU data law terms 'disproportionate and unecessary'. I'm not usually prone to agree with the Orwellian doom mongers but I must admit these systems really bother me. I do think that there is something slightly sinister about schools training children to give their personal data away so readily. I think we should leave this kind of high security technology to MI5 and 'leave them kids alone'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
9:19
24 March, 2011
Ponderous