Comments on: 8300 Scottish schoolchildren to be biometrically fingerprinted

By: Sam Pagan

Sam Pagan — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:40:39 +0000

I’m with Mark, I don’t see how getting fingerprints from children is going to make anything more efficient or easier. What do you need the fingerprints for? It’s not a police station, it’s a school.

I don’t care too much about the privacy thing, and even though I’m not affected by this I still think that’s a lot of money to be spent on something that seems so ambiguous.

By: Erik

Erik — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:36:22 +0000

“Maybe part of me wonders where that photo is being stored now? ”

There is no photo. When you register your fingerprint, all that is stored is information about the relative position of certain points in your fingerprint, and the distance between those points. This is stored mathematically, and there is no way your fingerprint can be recalled based on that information.

By: Laurens

Laurens — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:51:11 +0000

Ok, so let me get this straight: it’s perfectly fine to let (a company like) Google track and store your every email, keyword searches, notes, pictures, videos, blog posts, agenda, medical information, etc… without even knowing exactly what Google does (or will do) with that information, but when a government introduces biometrics to make things more efficient, you all suddenly call for “revolution” and scream “intrusion of privacy!”, “big brother is watching us!”…

Seriously people… what the fuck?

Don’t get me wrong, I have my doubts about the real efficiency of biometrics (I’d prefer the magnetic card we use at my university e.g.), but I think it’s good they are experimenting with it on a small scale before introducing it to the masses. It’s NOT about “giving up your privacy” (lol, like you had that before), it’s about simplifying things. Welcome to the 21st century…

By: David

David — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:44:54 +0000

I think it’s a great idea, if a little expensive. Why is everyone reacting with horror?

Isn’t the use of names also a ‘gross intrusion of privacy’ - through this method (of “naming people”) we get to know who did something. Isn’t that person having his privacy intruded upon?

Seems to me fingerprinting is very efficient in finding out who did something, is that the problem?

By: packrat

packrat — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:01:13 +0000

You’re an offensive turd. I suppose by ‘the public’ you mean everyone but yourself? So I assume that you’re in the process of starting the revolution then, since it’s the only way you’re in a position to make such statements. Guess what? Prancing around web message boards saying everyone’s a pussy for not starting a revolution means that you’d better damn well be in the process of starting one yourself.

By: Clownsoup

Clownsoup — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:41:48 +0000

Oh, shut up. You’ll bend over and take it because there’s no choice but revolution. The public is too pussified to take up arms and stop it, because it means that their ‘precious snowflake’ might be injured by shrapnel or something. My children know how to hunt, fish and work. What about yours?

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:35:07 +0000

The reason this is so worrying is because it’s about getting people used to having their biometrics taken and used every day. If you’ve seen it everyday at school you’ll be much less likely to worry about a new measure that involves it when you’re an adult. Much like the adoption of id cards there are government papers on methods of getting people used to the idea. The terminal 5 biometrics are exactly the same - make the idea commonplace.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:56:25 +0000

It has nothing to do with security, it has nothing to do with convenience, it has nothing to do with bullying, school meals or library books, it is only, -ONLY- about control.

By: jdw24b

jdw24b — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:13:19 +0000

no way anyone will do that to my children.
That is insanity.

The TSA proves that tighter and tighter ’security’ is only as strong as the level of intelligence the person enforcing it has.