Too often the argument in defence of fingerprinting children in school is that "the system doesn't store a fingerprint, but a number". So that's okay then...
This is quoted 'ad lib' to the press by schools and bio-companies targeting schools.
What is stored is the digital equivalent of a fingerprint, uniquely identifiable to a particular person/child - otherwise if the biometric technology used in schools couldn't identify a particular child (via their fingerprints) the systems wouldn't work and issue library books, logged meals eaten, track a child's whereabouts, etc, against a child's name.
The police now use very similar systems, in the fact that they too use digital technology to store and compare fingerprints, to the systems used in schools.
The argument "that it's not a fingerprint that is stored" is irrelevant as it is fingerprint data that stored on a school database which is relatively insecure in comparison to the importance placed on storing biometrics on databases that large IT companies have.
As Andy Clymer states in a paper he has written: "No system can guaranteed the security of information against future technology. Attempting to protect life time relevant information is extremely tricky and potentially costly."
On that note, the computers of the future are just about here. Welcome to quantum computing which "...has IT security firms and spooks afraid their current encryption technologies will be rendered obselete when a quantum computer with hundreds of qubits arrives.."
Estimated time of arrival - 2008