Scottish schools Freedom of Information results so far...

This is an update on the Freedom of Information requests (FOIR) sent to all 32 Scottish local authorities in August to determine the use of biometrics in schools there.  This is with a view to extending the same rights that English and Welsh children have not to have their biometrics collected and processed in schools, with an entitlement to use an alternative way of accessing school services such a a PIN or swipe card.

Some interesting results have turned up in the two thirds of FOIRs that have been received back so far.  There seems to be two companies supplying the Scottish market with one most dominant.  The company that is most dominant also introduced the biometric fingerprint scanners in schools as early as 1999 and 2000.

This is a surprise to me as I was under the impression that schools in the UK started the introduction of fingerprint scanners for libraries in 2001when the below communications with a school biometric supplier, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), who oversees the Data Protection Act, and Department for Education (DfE) took place.  See bottom of this post.  So it would be interesting to see if the ICO and DfE knew about the earlier use of children using their biometrics and see any correspondence on that.

With the results from the FOIR so far it seems that currently around 5% of children in Scotland use their biometrics to access school systems, although I still have a third of the authorities yet to reply.  Even so this amounts to 35,000 plus children and that is only a snapshot of current usage.  Given that some authorities have been using biometrics in schools for nearly two decades, this significantly raises the amounts of children that have had their biometrics logged at schools in Scotland to the many tens of thousands, if not over the hundred thousand mark.  The current Scottish school population is just over 687,000 children.

When all of the Scottish authorities have responded I will post more here.

Biometric facial recognition in education

Facial recognition is a biometric technology not much used in education.  If it is to be used it has been mooted that it will track children’s facial expressions to gauge response to lessons or on screen learning but it is now starting to creep into identifying and verification of students.

In the UK, facial recognition systems are not used in schools with the exception of one small instance of facial recognition being used in education in 2010 at the City of Ely Community College for registration purposes.  The college no longer uses the facial recognition system as it wasn’t suitable for the purpose intended; the scheme ran for around an academic year before being scrapped.

U-T San Diego file photo

Now the technology has matured over the past 5 years, facial recognition is coming back into education.  Encinitas Union School District, in California, students will log in to their iPads via facial recognition technology for a first-of-its-kind pilot project.  This involves the iPad scanning the child’s face every 60 seconds claiming to help kids log on to technology and for them not to forget their passwords.  If a child cannot be taught to remember their password then what hope is there for the schools to actually educate them!   This is not about remembering passwords or saving time logging on.  This is about constantly verifying the student so that the data controllers running the educational software can accurately gather data on that individual.  So here facial recognition is being used to identify and continuously verify.  Not without controversy though, parents are not happy with this constant biometric facial scanning for a number of reasons, invasion of privacy of minors and a that it a waste of money, with a petition set up against the facial recognition technology being used in this schools district.

From the San Diego Union Tribune:

“Encinitas Union launched its iPad program in 2012, equipping each third-through sixth-grade student with a device to use for school work and lessons. Since then, the district has put iPads into the hands of all of its 5,400 students, at a cost of $2.7 million.
“It’s creepy to take a photograph of a kid every 60 seconds,” said Gil Saidy, who has a third grade son at Flora Vista Elementary School. “I don’t trust them. I don’t want these roving cameras in my house.”

“It’s a momma-bear’s instinct to protect their child. I just don’t know who has access to the face scans,” said another parent, Darcy Brandon. “Where is the data being stored?”

The pilot program would start with 100 students and, if successful, the technology could ultimately be added to all district iPads. Parents must opt-in to have their child use biometrics.”

At the very least it is an opt-in scheme so hopefully most parents will have the common sense to say ‘no’ to this unnecessary use of facial recognition, desensitising our kids to constant monitoring.

Unlike fingerprint or palm scanning biometrics used in schools, facial recognition is a non-participatory biometric with the ubiquitous scanning happening without conscious involvement.  What else is the facial scanning revealing?   

Educational companies are lining up with emotional face biometrics coming into education gauging how a student is feeling, where their eyes are looking, how they are reacting.  An article from September 2013 reports that SensorStar Labs have a product that records “When the student is looking up at the teacher, the teacher score goes up.  If she looks down at the computer, the computer score goes up. So we’re tracking facial expressions.  If she makes a smile, it might be indicative that is enthusiastic about the topic.”

Facial recognition has also been introduced at St Mary's High School, St Louis, for 'safety' reasons only allowing in to school registered members on the database.  This is thought to be the first instance of facial recognition being used in this way in the States.  There is also a 'watch list' of peoples faces not allowed in the school that alerts law enforcement if those persons of interest try to enter.  Presumably opting out of this facial recognition system is not an option for pupils as it would deny them entry to education.

Facial recognition seems to be emerging as the new educational biometric.  Not for the student convenience or safety, more about verification of data capture... who is where, doing what and when. 

Children are the most data mined section of our society.  Biometric facial verification more accurately authenticates the data grab and profiling of our kids.  

Florida bans biometrics in schools, and the industry's "emerging fight" against it

It has been interesting to follow the progress of the Florida legislature to ban schools from taking and processing children's biometrics, the process of which started late last year.  It will be the first time in the USA or worldwide that biometrics have been banned in schools, when Gov Rick Scott signs the bill.  Some have argued that the UK Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 should have gone this far but instead we have that schools can only process a child's biometric data with written parental consent.  However, how parents are fully informed to make that consent still leaves the process open to spin and ambiguity surrounding the technology and its capabilities.

In Florida three bills were filed dealing with Florida schools using biometrics, during September and October 2013. With one, SB188 relating to education data privacy, being passed on April 11 2014. It reads (see lines 49-66):

(1) An agency or institution as defined in s.1002.22(1) may not:

(a) Collect, obtain, or retain information on the political affiliation, voting history, religious affiliation, or biometric information of a student or a parent or sibling of the student.  

The bill passed by 113 Yeas to 1 Nay. 

This news has been met by the biometric industry in the United States with fears it may lead to other states approving similar bills.  There are already laws in other states concerning parental consent for schools to use biometric technology but SB188 goes one step further, by banning it.

Many experts, privacy organisations and others have aired concerns over children using their biometrics in school for a variety of reasons:
     - Security of data - What does a child do if their biometric data is compromised?  How and when would that become apparent?  Leaps and bounds in technology cannot possibly foresee how this could play out in the decades to come.
     - The personal information that is held against the biometric - Reading or eating habits, who views that?

     - The sharing of biometric data and personal data stored against it - Government agencies now routinely take biometric data and upload it to other databases.

     - The subtle psychological message using this technology gives to children, that to gain access to books/knowledge, food/money, normalises the use of biometrics for mundane yet essential activities.   

Janet Kephart of the Secure Identity and Biometrics Association (SIBA), set up in February 2014, states that one of four biggest challenges of 2014 is to help clear the air in "a newly emerging fight in state legislatures whereby there is a push to ban biometrics in public schools".  

Kephart claims that, "Biometric technologies do not store identities; they store templates".  Surely template/s based on a particular person are designed to identify said person, otherwise how would the system work?  Then the next statement contradicts her earlier statement by saying, "To further assure privacy, names are kept separate from the biometric templates, encrypted, and not directly linked with the biometric data".  Yes, so they are linked then but encrypted.  Indeed, one might liken this to doublespeak?

She then, unsurprisingly, states the usual line to be seen and heard in the spiel dished out to schools in the USA and UK by biometric vendors, "...the outline of fingerprints aren’t stored like an image – they’re turned into a set of series of numbers that can’t be reverse engineered."  Yes, a set of numbers that is digitally transferable between databases.

With regards to Florida banning biometrics in schools (with SIBA only being set up two months earlier with a view to, "educate folks about the reality of biometrics, bridging the gap between Washington and the industry" , maybe SIBA was set up because of SB188?) Janet Kephart states:

“Nobody in Florida decided to do due diligence on this... [presumably she has proof of this allegation]  No one clearly went out and asked how biometric technology actually works … nobody asked the question. It was just basic public servant due diligence that they didn’t do and there’s really no excuse for that.”

Just a minute... where was the "due diligence" of the biometric industry from 2001 onwards effectively testing biometric technology on children by fingerprinting 4 year olds to get a library book out, using infrared palm scanners trialled on primary school children in 2006 so they could eat, iris scanning children for lunch lines in 2007, facial scanning kids in 2010 to stop them from turning up to school late, voice biometric planned in 2007 for students, and (partly what prompted SB188) a Florida school district iris scanning 700+ children to travel on a bus?  All without parental consent or appropiate discussion, hence the legislation in the US States and the UK.

And SIBA want to talk about due diligence?   An apology would be more fitting.

Let's tell it how it really is.  In this article is an astonishing, yet bluntly open, account of why Saudi Arabia are introducing biometrics in schools, explaining below the exact reasons for biometrics and CCTV.  Surveillance.  It is a "form of supervision", to" install a sense of discipline", to "track children", to make them "respect regulations" and gain "better productivity".  At least there is some honesty here, more than we have had from the biometric industry and government on this issue in the US and UK for the past decade.

Kevin Townsend, original founder of ITsecurity.com, puts it most succinctly in his March 2014 article - Why we must keep biometrics out of schools - definitely worth a read.

UK schools act as agents for private corporation's gathering of children s biometric data

St Ambrose Barlow RC High School 

UK, Manchester - St Ambrose Barlow Roman Catholic High School after being contacted by a concerned parent who had asked about their student biometric system for cashless catering, via a Freedom of Information Request, stated that they do not own the biometric system nor does the school takes responsibility for the biometric database. The system is owned by a Facility Management provider.  

However it seems the school's capacity in acting as an 'agent' for the private Facility Management provider was not made clear to parents when asking for written consent to process their child's biometrics.

"...this school holds no biometric data of the pupils; the system was bought by and is managed by the BSF [Building Schools for the Future] PPP  [Public Private Partnership] Facility Management Company.

We neither own the system nor have access to it. 

We are under no obligation to provide information relating to conversations, nor on the biometric system itself, which has been neither gifted to us nor is our property or personal responsibility. We have acted as an agent for the FM provider in obtaining parental/guardian permission"

So consequently no information about the biometric system is given to the enquirer of the original Freedom of Information request that spawned the above response.  St Ambrose Barlow Roman Catholic High School distance themselves from the children's biometrics fingerprint system (apart from their role gathering parent's consent on behalf of a Facility Management company).

If true, as I suspect it is, this is a new, very concerning step into how consent is gained from parents and students to participate in biometric systems, who has access to to our children's extremely personal data and the honesty shown by schools and corporations in this matter.   

Privacy campaigners often get thrown the old 'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' adage ...lets see how the boot fits on the the other foot here with this latest Freedom of Information request:  Biometric system in St Ambrose Barlow RC High School

Maryland introduce a bill Prohibiting Collection of Biometric Information from Students

USA - Maryland Schools stopped the implementation of biometric palm scanners for cashless catering in December 2012 after privacy concerns were aired by parents. 

After a Board of Education meeting, Carroll County Public Schools Superintendent Steve Guthrie told WBAL  “I made the decision to suspend it after concerns were being expressed by the community.  There was division on those who were for the palm scanner and those who were against it. It is not my intent to alienate any segment of our community. It is my job to unify the community, not to create divisions.”   A respectful and fairly unique stance taken by the school district with regards to the implementation of biometric systems.  They are looking into an alternative system.

On February 7th 2013 a Bill, SB855, was introduced by Senator Getty to the US Maryland Government which reads:

Public Schools – Collection of Biometric Information from Students – Prohibited 

FOR the purpose of prohibiting a county board or a person subject to the direction and control of the county board from collecting biometric information from students enrolled in a public school; defining a certain term; and generally relating to the collection of biometric information from students enrolled in public schools.

The scanners in Maryland were supplied by PalmSecure, a Fujitsu property.  The above Bill is probably not the desired effect Fujitsu envisioned when they first trialed the infra-red vein scanning technology on primary school children in Scotland in 2006.  The desired effect was articulated by Mike Nelson's the General Manager of Fujitsu Europe in 2006, who said at the time:

"Biometric solutions will increasingly allow us to move towards a cashless society and this project is one of the first real examples in the UK of an innovative and truly practical biometric solution in operation. I fully expect this to be the first of many similar implementations across Europe"

(The original link to the news article quoting Mike Nelson on Fujitsu's site has been removed (it was 7 years ago) but his comments are also reported here.)

Thankfully Fujitsu's vision of a cashless society, aided by infra-red palm scans, has not yet materialised and the existence of this Bill proves society's reluctance to use such technologies.

Is there a coincidence that these technologies are being aimed at the next generation in schools to get them young?  ...to prepare for technology companies, and possibly a government's, dream of a cashless society? 

Children embrace technology without the mature questioning that an adult mind brings, in this case the parents have intervened and a Senator introduced a Bill on the use of biometric technology in schools with children.  Whether the Bill becomes enacted or not, a public debate will be had on the topic, which has to be a positive and healthly process for our society.

"...the definition of privacy means something different today than it did five years ago”

I didn’t know quite where to come from on this one from the School Transportation News, the fact that on company "offers a touchless fingerprint scanning system, which claims to read fingerprints from up to 6 meters away" or the quote that comes from Jay Ange, the Director of Sales, at IDair, Alabama, the company selling the touchless fingerprint scanners.

“Still, privacy issues remain as the general public may not know exactly how biometric fingerprint technology works, but the definition of privacy means something different today than it did five years ago, Ange said.”

“the definition of privacy means something different today than it did five years ago”.  I would agree 100% with that statement.  We all need to be super vigilant about the information trail each of us leaves every day, how and where we travel, buy goods, use energy (with the advent of smart meters), images caught on CCTV and be especially aware if technology exists that scans your fingerprint from 6 meters away...

Figures, damned figures and statistics

Following on from the previous post we are looking at the 'joint' article published on the 15th April by the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and Planet Biometrics.


"Figures come from Biostore, the main supplier of identity management systems to secondary schools. Its client base includes over 1000 secondary schools, and it estimates that well over 1 million students use its finger based biometrics daily. Biostore’s work with schools shows that 2 users per 1000 decline to use biometrics. A 99.8% uptake of a voluntary process reflects the views of most of the public on this subject"


Both articles quote the above which is by the company Biostore who sell school biometric management systems.  They understandably have a commercial interest to state that biometrics have a high take up in schools.  It is taken from their written submission to the Freedom Bill.

• Did parents specifically sign for consent?
• Was it a parental opt out scenario, 'implied consent'?
• Did the parents even know that their children were using their biometrics?
• Is the 99.8% figure an indication of the uptake of children in a compliant school environment or an indication from fully informed parents and specifically gaining written consent?

Without knowing the answers to these questions the above statement is ambiguous and figures quoted should be questioned.  For Biostore to then assume that the 99.8% uptake in schools reflects the general populations view on this is, in my opinion, rather hopeful.


I can only speak from experience, where in my sons primary school when parents were specifically asked by letter to sign to consent to the school using biometrics, approximately 20% of parents did not consent for their childrens biometrics to be processed.  The school biometric system is now not in use.


Interestingly there are 3722 secondary schools in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) with 3,560,384 pupils.  If Biostore's "client base includes over 1000 secondary schools, and it estimates that well over 1 million students use its finger based biometrics daily" taking the figures literally at 1000 schools that means Biostore, at the very least, has 28% of the total schools biometric market.


Both articles quote that there is evidence that "30% of secondary schools have biometric systems".


Are we then to believe that one company, Biostore, has 93% of the high school market share...? 

Planet Biometrics and the ASCL are literally singing from the same hymn sheet

How funny!  Planet Biometrics and the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) on the 15th April both issued a news item about the use of biometrics with children in UK schools.  It is virtually identical, word for word.  What are the coincidences? 

What I want to know is, who wrote the article?   Planet Biometrics?...because they are worried about sales figures, or the ASCL? ...because they cannot be bothered to fully involve parents with this emerging technology? 

Both articles go on about how it will heavily inconvenience them both to fully involve parents with the storing and processing of their chidlrens biometrics - my heart is bleeding, really.   Although my heart is also warmed to see the biometric industry and schools working so closely, one could say almost psychically, together on this... though quite where the parents or childrens interest is in all this isn't clear from their articles.

On the plus side, it had been a bit slack on the biometrics in schools news front recently so it's nice for them to have jointly given me the opportunity to blog again.  In the next few days we'll look at exactly what the ASCL and Planet Biometrics are saying in their, seemingly, very joint statements and see whether or not it holds up.

Biometric industry see BECTA's guidance as a "green light"

Apparently industry welcomes "the findings of BECTA’s new report entitled Guidance on Biometrics in Schools , which highlighted the positive role biometric technology can play in reducing bullying, theft, truancy and costs in schools."

Really? Reducing bullying, theft and costs? There is no evidence to support this in the public domain.

One biometric vendor states “BECTA’s report effectively provides the green light to continue the roll out of Biometric solutions in schools. The report makes a clear statement that fingerprints cannot be recreated from the string of numbers stored in the database..."

So whilst parents, human rights groups and concerned Members of Parliament are not happy about the BECTA guidance the industry have taken it as a "green light". The parent consultation touched on in the document is simply NOT happening and the notion that BECTA, the DCSF (DfES) and Labour Education Dept hold on to that fingerprints cannot be reconstructed is simply incorrect.

What are we actually paying these people for?

A simple Google of "reconstructing fingerprints" bring up papers that have been written on this or blogs (moi, listed no.3!) that can point civil servants and politicians in the general direction on this subject. It's not rocket science.

It is apparent that there is a concerning lack of research in BECTA's "guidance" which appears to have unsubstantiated claims and inaccurate statements in. Is it right for this to be the basis of an industry that is able to legally take biometric data from children as young a 4 without consulting parents?

The people that this report should have advantaged - our children in schools.

The people this reports advantages - biometric companies supplying to schools.

Schools dinners drop by 250,000

The number of secondary school children taking school meals has dropped by 250,000 in the past two years.

The Local Authority Caterers Association (LACA) National School Meals Survey have some interesting statistics:

In Primary Schools the number eligible for free school meals has dropped from 17.3% to 15.9% and the uptake from 14.2% to 13.1%.

In Secondary Schools the number eligible for free school meals dropped from 14.4% to 13.1% and the uptake from 10.6% to 9.6%.

The service is under immense pressure and already being seen by many private contractors as a non-viable operation.

LACA’s concern is that this may well be the case too for public sector caterers. It is not inconceivable that local authorities would consider abandoning the [food] service as budgets are unable to sustain the costs involved with the introduction of the New School Food Standards, particularly if Secondary students can continue to obtain, on the way to school and in break times, the food and drink items banned in school.

Why on earth would a school buy a biometric cashless system when clearly this is an area NOT to invest in at present, but manufacturers claims that such systems boost school meal uptake fly in the face of these recent LACA figures.

Irish schools eager to fingerprint children

According to this article 50 schools in Ireland have expressed an interest in installing biometrics in the past month. Costs are between 10-20,000 euros dependent on the size on the school.

John Beckett, managing director of Byamsys, the company selling the fingerprint systems, states:

“There’s no way to reproduce the data we store as a fingerprint. We don’t store the data as a fingerprint. When students check in their fingerprint is scanned and converted into a string of letters and numbers which is encrypted and then compared to the encrypted file that we have already for that person. There’s never a decryption process."

How can he state there is never a decryption process? Has he got the ability to scry into the future? See Kim Cameron's site "Just lie to sell your product" ...

Digital Rights Ireland have rightly expressed their concerns over the increase of the use of biometric technology in schools, their Chairman TJ McIntyre states:

“There is a standard that’s used across the industry for biometrics to ensure different systems are compatible... but what they [biometric vendors] don’t explain is that the information used there is capable of being reconstructed to give you soft fingerprint information and it’s still possible to be used in police work."

Bernie Goldbach of Digital Rights Ireland, “With a card you’re not exactly sure it’s the same person but most kids don’t give up cards that have money on them and they don’t lose them. They learn a bit of responsibility without losing a part of their identity."

Responsibility and ownership of ones identity is a crucial lesson for children to learn as they grow up in a digital age.

However the messages they receive from using biometrics without question in schools is a potentially dangerous lesson that we, in our ignorance, are teaching them.

The Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland has issued guidelines about the use of biometric fingerprinting in schools. The main stipulation was that parents and children over 18 had to give their consent to use the system and that schools also carry out a detailed 38 point Privacy Impact Assessment before installing biometric fingerprint systems to limit any legal claims for damages in the future from students.

The guidelines are not statutory and are simply advice.

Australian Biometrics Institute Privacy Code

The Biometrics Institute in Australia have a voluntary Privacy Code, approved by the Australian Privacy Commissioner Karen Curtis, which applies to organisations that have agreed to be covered by the Code. The code came into effect September 2006.

The Code includes privacy standards that are at least equivalent to the National Privacy Principles (NPPs) in the Privacy Act and also incorporates higher standards of privacy
- sounds like the sort of boost our UK Data Protection Act could do with regards to biometrics, certainly in the area of using fingerprint softwear in schools.

On the third page of the Privacy Code, point 2 states that:

The Biometrics Institute Privacy Code seeks to build upon the National Privacy Principles (NPPs) in a manner that provides the community with the assurance needed to encourage informed and voluntary participation in biometrics programs. Biometrics Institute members understand that only by adopting and promoting ethical practices, openness and transparency can these technologies gain widespread acceptance.

The "informed and voluntary participation" and "adoption and promoting of ethical practices, openess and transparency" are points the biometric companies, schools and government in the UK could do with taking on board, at the very least in circumstances where children are involved.

Evidence to support claims needed

"I have not been able to find a single piece of published research which suggests that the use of biometrics in schools promotes healthy eating or impoves reading skills amongst children. I am concerned that these reasons are being given as a justification for fingerprinting children. There is absolutely no evidence for such claims."

Dr Sandra Leaton Gray, Director of Studies, Sociology of Education, Homerton College, Cambridge, 20 Feb 2007, quoted here.

As biometric data logging systems have been in some schools for 5-6 years there should be enough evidence now to research whether the claims that made are actually true, so that when quotes such as the ones below are spouted by Local Education Authorities and companies selling the technology to schools, there is evidence to back up claims made.

If the claims are true then prices of up to over £20,000, in one school, should require a cost analysis looking at whether the benefits of the system can be justified against the cost.

If there is no evidence to support claims, then research should at least be done to see whether or not using these systems in school actually does benefit our children.

If there is factual evidence/independant research to support claims made then I, along with government ministers, academics and parents, would be interested in reading it.

"Council bosses are working on a county-wide roll-out [Lancashire] of a scheme which uses electronic scanners to allow pupils to pay for their lunch using their fingers...Council officials say it will make children healthier"

"Mr Sanderson [Education director] that the system had increased book borrowing and reduced theft"

"More time devoted to teaching - every day and for every student!"

"It will help to prevent bullying, by ensuring that students no longer need to carry cash to school"

How biometric fingerprint scanners work

After yesterday's post I thought it might be good to look at how the technology works for those of you that are interested.

I have had a few 'comments' on my blog highlighting me to the fact it is not an actual fingerprint that is stored but an algorithm, which I was well aware of anyway, but for those of you who are as hazy as I was initially, on how biometric data is taken from a fingerprint, please use the below links.

A great website that gives a fairly detailed but easily understandable view on most types of biometrics is here.

This website details here on the characteristics of fingerprints and this page deals with how points on the fingerprint are converted into an algorithm number string.

When I had contact with Micro Librarian Systems (MLS) that supplied my children's primary school with the biometric fingerprint scanner 18 months ago, they sent me this document detailing the technology that they employed - Enterprise Security Architecture for Biometric User Authentication Systems developed by Digital Persona.

Could it be argued that the points on a fingerprint stored in an algorithm can determine race and ethnicity? - I don't know...

Are the images of a children's fingerprint removed from a school computor when they are initially scanned? - Truely deleting data or temporary files from a hard drive does not merely involve pressing "delete". Temporary files may be stored for a time scale also...

Research needs to be done exploring these (and other) issues relating to children and biometric technology.

Children as young as 3 years old are having their biometric data taken and stored on school/nursery databases here in the UK and, as with all techonogies, there is the remote possibly that their (biometric) data could be compromised in decades to come.

We need to make informed decisions now about how we as a society proceed with children and biometric technology.

Schools building in biometric systems under BSF

With the governments Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme one biometric company is partnering up with the large PFI contract holders/bidders to build in biometric systems in schools that are either being renovated or new build schools.

Consultation with learning authorities and local councils should be required with written consent obtained from all parents, before the biometrics are built into these schools as standard.

"The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Academies program requires ICT solutions providers to bid for all the ICT systems in a single bid. In order for the OnRecord range of products to be made available to the BSF and Academies projects, Gladstone Education have developed close partnerships with some of the leading educational ICT suppliers within the UK."

A biometric developer that piononeered the vein scanner in a scottish primary school, currently has a 15 year management contract with an academy in Middlesbough.

"Fujitsu is providing a managed service under a fifteen-year contract that specifies key performance indicators and service level agreements."

If you are concerned about the use of biometric systems in schools then contact your local council for their reassurance that this technology will not be used without full consultation and consent from parents.

It is worth checking the companies that get awarded the contracts for the schools in your area as they are independant parties that will have access to your children's data.

This from the General Manager of Fujitsu Europe Limited.

"Biometric solutions will increasingly allow us to move towards a cashless society"

So no ulterior motive for this company then to get'em whilst they're young...

No one admits to fully knowing how many children use their biometrics in schools and for what purposes they use them. Unfortunately therefore, analysis can’t be done to see if children really do read more books, bullying is stamped out at dinner queues and whether installing that £1000’s worth of biometric registration system actually does reduce truancy.

Claims by biometric suppliers to schools are that using biometrics gives:

“More time devoted to teaching - every day and for every student!” and...

“It will help to prevent bullying, by ensuring that students no longer need to carry cash to school” (What message is this sending to children? That carrying cash makes you a victim? Shouldn't the younger generation be taught how to manage money and that our society doesn't tolerate bullies?)

However I suspect that the government new guidelines on detailing pupil absence that came into force this September, school catering revenues/profits down, childhood obesity rising and that literacy rates could be improved could be some of the real reasons to monitor our children with the ease of biometric technology.

Business and government may attempt to sell us on biometric convenience but the use of these technologies are increasingly falling within schools, to one of surveillance and control rather than the initial reason they were invented – for security.

Unless the Government makes an effort to monitor this technology in schools, to see whether having it is necessary over normal electronic systems, a whole generation of children will have a open mindset to blindly giving up their biometric data in exchange for learning resources and food.

What exactly are the next generation learning from this?

New kid on the block - infrared palm scanning

Palm Printing ...

Well, it was going to happen, see link: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1588142006id=1588142006

"Pupils at a Scots primary school have become the first in the world to pay for their lunches by having their palms scanned rather than by handing over cash. Biometric technology which allows them to be identified through their hands' unique vein patterns has been introduced at Todholm Primary in Paisley."

Amey the company behind the palm scanner, have a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) programme in Scotland with Glasgow City Council, the largest education partnership in Europe. Amey worked in conjunction with Yarg Biometrics and Fujitsu to develop this biometric technology.

From Yarg Biometrics homepage : "Unlike fingerprint biometrics it cannot be linked to any criminal records database and civil liberties issues are therefore not affected"
And from the Fujitsu (now on the Wayback Machine here: http://web.archive.org/web/20061103111054/http://www.fel.fujitsu.com/home/v3__press.asp?prid=531) site, near the bottom of the article: "Biometric solutions will increasingly allow us to move towards a cashless society and this project is one of the first real examples in the UK of an innovative and truly practical biometric solution in operation. I fully expect this to be the first of many similar implementations across Europe" said Mike Nelson, General Manager, Fujitsu Europe Limited.

(Fujitsu is also providing a managed service in a fifteen-year contract for a Unity City Academy in East Middlesbrough. The Unity City Academy is a charitable trust. Members of the board of the Trust represent Amey plc, amongst others).