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.

Florida moves to ban use of biometrics in schools

Defiant 13 year old - "stand up for what they believe in, even if it means standing alone"

Melody, 13, protesting the
 United Kingdom's policy of
 obtaining biometric data
 from minors at school.
Photo: Kirstie

After reading about a 13 year old's plucky stance objecting to her school using a biometric fingerprint system last week, by wearing an Anonymous Mask, it gave me some hope that having a choice in this matter is filtering through to children.  Children that do not want to be part of a biometric system ultimately have the last say on this - if they do not want to participate their decision overrides consent given by their parents (though in this case the parent did not consent).

The school involved in this, should have made clear to the students that they have a choice in this.  The Department of Education's template letter for schools to send to parents states:

'Even if you have consented, your child can object or refuse at any time to their biometric information being taken/used. [His/her] objection does not need to be in writing. We would appreciate it if you could discuss this with your child and explain to them that they can object to this if they wish.'

Not knowing the name of the school Melody attends, the student who objected, I am not able to ask the school or check their website, to see if they made this fact known to students or their parents.  Maybe they didn't judging by Melody's comments to the Digital Journal. 

"Many didn't want their fingerprints taken, but on the day when the fingerprinting was to take place, there was only me and a friend. And she has now had her fingerprints taken."

The next statement made by Melody is quite concerning:

"The dinner lady got my finger and tried to move it onto the scanner even while I was wearing my mask, I had already explained I'm not doing it and didn't have my mum's consent [to be fingerprinted]. I just pulled my hand away and refused again."

Really?  Isn't that assault, an adult trying to move a child's finger onto a scanner when they have already expressed their legal right to refuse?  This is highly irregular and indicates the staff have no idea of the child's rights in law as contained in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Chapter 2, 26 (5) which reads:

But if, at any time, the child— 

(a) refuses to participate in, or continue to participate in, anything that involves the processing of the child’s biometric information, or 

(b) otherwise objects to the processing of that information,  

the relevant authority must ensure that the information is not processed, irrespective of any consent given by a parent of the child under subsection 

Good for Melody that she held out from this intimidation.  She knows her rights and that of her parents and is exercising them.  If only more children had this conviction maybe biometric technology would not be viable in schools.  As it seems that schools are not telling students they have this right, then in a compliant environment which school is, students are going to feel compelled to conform and give up their biometric identifier if they do not know they have the right to say 'no'.  As Melody's Mum stated in the Digital Journal's article, "You can either be part of the solution or remain part of the problem".   Parents can be "part of the solution" and not consent to this and so can the students - if they are given that choice by the knowledge they too can refuse.

Let's hope the message Melody sends out by her opting out inspires other children to do the same.

When Melody was asked what do you think will happen next and a message to give, she replied:

"In all honesty, I don't know. But I hope my actions have encouraged my generation to stand up for what they believe in, even if it means standing alone... We shouldn't be scared of giving our opinion or not following the rules."

Words of wisdom and strength of heart coming from a 13 year old.  We should take stock of what this teenager is saying here.  There is incidious surveillance creeping into schools which is slowly desensitising the next generation into a Big Brother state, so it is heartening to see that Melody has refused to use by wearing an Anonymous mask conveying her opinion on "taking children's privacy away." 

13 year old exercises her legal right not to be fingerprinted

I will write more on this later but really heartening to see this plucky teenager exercising her legal right to refuse to use this surveillance technology.  Inspirational!

Well done Melody! :-)

13-year-old defies ‘big brother’ and refuses to be fingerprinted
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/13-year-old-defies-big-brother-and-refuses-to-be-fingerprinted/article/370009

"They can even confiscate my mask, but they can't confiscate the idea. I'm allowed to make my own decisions and have my own opinions."

What happens if UK schools do not comply with written parental consent for children's biometrics?

This new school term in the UK presents parents with a new transparency regarding the data a school holds and processes on their children.  A transparency that parents in the UK have not had before.  Since 2001 schools have been taking, storing and processing children's biometric data and have been able to do with without consent or consultation with the parent/s. This nearly happened to my children in 2005 when they were six and seven years old, hence this blog.

After campaigning, lobbying parliament and working with other committed parents and privacy organisations The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was passed in May 2012 and as of September 1st 2013 schools by law need to gain written parental permission before taking a child's biometric data.

This is what the Department of Education stated in reply to a recent Freedom of Information Act request when asked:

Q -  What action will be taken by which body if any school is in breach of its statutory duty to comply with the Act?

A - As you are aware, the new provisions in the Act will come into force from 1 September 2013.  The provisions will apply to any school, sixth form college or further education institution using biometric systems where education is provided to children under 18. 

These new duties require schools and colleges to notify all parents that they intend to take and process their child’s biometric information and, as long as no one objects in writing, the written consent of only one parent will be required.  

It is important that consent is actively sought and received and that it is informed consent: requiring schools and colleges to gain written consent makes sure that parents are aware both that their child’s school uses an automated biometric system and that it is up to them whether or not their child’s biometric data is taken.   
In addition, as you have highlighted, a pupil can object or refuse to participate in the processing of his or her biometric information. The child’s right to refuse applies both to the giving and the on-going storage and processing of biometric data. If at any time the child objects to the processing of biometric data the school or college must stop doing so.   

Where pupils do not use automated biometric recognition systems, either because their arents have refused consent or they themselves have refused to participate, schools are required to provide reasonable alternative arrangements for them.

The Department of Education's second reply to the initial question goes on to state that (as the above first response did not answer the querient's request): 

There are two bodies that have the remit and powers to investigate a complaint concerning a breach of a school’s duties under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2013, when this Act comes into force for schools in September 2013, and the existing Data Protection Act 1998.

I should first say that if, in the first instance, you believe that a school has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act, you should first complain to the school using the formal complaints process. Each school in England is required by law to have a complaints procedure and to publicise that procedure. If, having exhausted the full complaints process (including appealing), you are not happy with the outcome of your complaint, then two further options are available to you. 

If the school has failed to comply with its duties under the Protection of Freedoms Act (e.g. failing to notify each parent of a child of the school’s intention to use the child’s biometric data), and the school concerned is a maintained school, the Secretary of State may consider and investigate the complaint directly with the school’s governing body.  If it was decided that the school had not complied with their statutory duties under the Act, the Secretary of State could issue a direction to the school.   

On the other hand, if the school fails to comply with the Data Protection Act (e.g. processing or handling the data inappropriately), the  Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) may investigate the complaint.

So if you are not happy in the way consent has been sought, from you or your child, or you may be a parent who has not been informed by the school of its intent to process your child's biometric data, these are the procedures you can go through to hold the school to account.

Schools have been informed by the Department of Education how to comply with the law but I have already had a number of communications with parents who have forwarded me 'consent' communication/forms received from their children's school which do not comply with Department of Education guidelines.  

Some schools are not offering an alternative for children not using biometric systems, some schools hinting that if the consent form is not signed they will assume consent, schools making false assurances stating that no one else has access to that biometric data - which is incorrect because police can access school fingerprint biometric databases by making an access request (see Q50 and51) and not necessarily tell the parent or child.  Some schools claim that the data stored is not a fingerprint, which is true in the sense it is not a replica of their child's print, and not part of the Department of Education Guidelines - but the digital biometric data stored form a child acts like a fingerprint, it can identify like a fingerprint and can convict like a fingerprint.

One parent telephoned to say that her child, upon an induction day to high school, had been told by school staff that if Mummy did not sign the consent form the child would not be allowed in the canteen over dinner time to sit with their friends.  The child was understandably distressed by this and the parent obviously concerned. 

I hope these are isolated instances of bad practice but if you are not happy with how your school has acted in this, you have the above information to help decide the next course of action you wish to take or email me.

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

"...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...

Misinformation and no consent - still!

Again and again the same old cr*p is spouted by schools to parents about it's not a fingerprint that's taken so don't worry.

Obviously they have not done their research and believe whatever spiel the biometric sales persons are giving them. Here's what Education Bradford say about Junior Librarian, which according to them, is recommended by the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

"Publicity material from the manufacturers states: "No image of the fingerprint itself is ever stored and the unique number that is generated during registration can never be used to recreate an image of the original scan.""

These biometric readers have not been scrutinized by the government, as Jim Knight MP admits himself, or any independent experts here in the UK [unless any of the biometric vendors can inform otherwise or offer a system for scrutiny] - however the above statement, by Junior Librarian, can be challenged as US universities have reverse engineered fingerprints from such systems.

Along the line somewhere the complete truth isn't being aired.

On top of the misinformation given to parents, and despite advice from the government and the Information Commissioner on the practice of using biometric technology with children, schools are still taking biometric fingerprints from children without informing parents.

Parents, in Keithley, when the school had taken childrens biometric fingerprints without consent were concerned enough to contact the police and Ofsted.

Little Lever School, Bolton and Long Lee School, Keithley are the recent culprits have committed the two offences of giving misleading information and not consulting parents.

So the recent government advice is working well then...

Fingerprinting children for food reduces schools "annoyances"

On the fingerprinting of children for food in schools, doubts arise:

“The benefits certainly do not justify the privacy violations that we’re seeing,” said Alessandra Meetze, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

But Beverly Blough, the director of food service in Wood County School District, West Virginia, cited that the pressures of No Child Left Behind was the reason why West Virginia schools used biometric systems -apparently it would...

“ ...reduce the annoyances that would take the principal and staff away from education and focusing on things that were relatively minor in a student’s day.”

A mother, Joy Robinson-Van Gilder, from Illinois who has been instrumental in bringing about a change in the the law in Illinois to limit/regulate how biometric technology is used with children, said:

“It just opens a huge database out there that’s just easy for identity theft, I think it’s against their civil rights, without a doubt, and it is an invasion of privacy.”

Biometrics - what data is logged alongside our childrens biometrics?

There is a really informative article here by Rachel Wareing about schools in Sussex, UK, implementing children's biometrics for these reasons:

Parents can see what their children are eating for lunch.

Teachers do not have to waste time taking a register. [!]

School librarians no longer have to issue books.

...others to see what reading habits our children have, by gender, age and ethnicity - sensitive information needs to be dealt with under the UK Data Protection Act.

Oh the possibilities...

Dan Brawner seems to have his finger(print) on the pulse here -

LIVING IN IOWA: Forget your signature: soon the biometric thumbprint will be the new national ID

by Dan Brawner · February 06, 2008

I’m sure the Iowa Department of Education only wanted what’s best for us when they proposed the “thumbprint bill” that would have students use a biometric thumbprint scan in paying for school lunches and checking out library books. They assure us the thumbprints will not be stored or shared with government agencies or businesses. They argue convincingly that students will have to spend less time standing in lines and the new technology will keep them safer by tracking their whereabouts.

I can understand why a sophomore in his desperation to check out a copy of War And Peace does not have time to laboriously sign his name for the librarian. But after all, attendance in an institution of higher education does presuppose a certain degree of literacy. If they make it too easy to sign a document, you discover later you’ve sold Manhattan for a handful of beads.

If the thumbprint thing catches on in schools, pretty soon Mastercard will say, why carry around those silly plastic cards that could fall into the wrong hands when all you need to do at the checkout counter is plant your thumb on the scanner? Now you can buy stuff faster than ever!

Before long, the Department of Motor Vehicles will want to get into the act. Then doctors and hospitals will have patients zipping through check-in, dispensing with all that tiresome paperwork. All you will ever need is your thumb. You won’t even have to be conscious. Heck, you won’t even have to be there. Just your thumb. Parents could have detachable thumbs. “Hey, Dad, I’m driving into Chicago today. Can I borrow the thumb?” “Okay, son. Just have it back by midnight.”

Our entire identity will be defined by our thumbs. Our thumbs will represent our legal status, our financial stature, our health, our political leanings, our religious affiliations, our intrinsic worth as neighbors and citizens. Our very soul.

We will no longer be able take our thumbs for granted. We’ll have to take special care of them. If you get a scar on your thumb from peeling potatoes, it might alter your identity. “I’m sorry, Ma’am. We cannot allow you to pick up the boy you say is your son from baseball practice. According to your thumbprint, it says you are a 78-year-old Tibetan man who had his license revoked for running over a goat.”

With all our personal information stored with our thumbprint, identity theft can be surprisingly easy. Investigators found that thumbprints leave a mark on the scanner and can be made to reappear by merely breathing on the glass. We can no longer afford to expose our naked thumbs to strangers who might photograph them or lift our prints from doorknobs. We’ll have to wear special thumb lingerie to hide our most intimate secrets from prying eyes.

Sure, it will take some adjustment. But sailing through the checkout line at Wal-Mart will make it all worthwhile.

Personal

With the appalling data losses that are now happening in our UK Government with the Inland Revenue and Customs, Child Benefits and now the UK Army , to mention a few - we parents need to make ourselves aware of data attached to our children, that may go astray.

So I'm going to make a subject access request to the head teacher at my children's school so I can see what data is logged against my children on their, each, unique National Pupil Database number - perhaps (and hopefully not probably - but not holding breath) information that may get into other peoples hands...

Canadian students object to biometic access - for gym access

The University of Northern British Columbia has installed biometric scanners "controlling access to the sports centre" [why?] 300 students have signed an online petition opposing it.

"Graduate student Gabrielle Wint-Rose wasn't sure why her gym needs such personal data, and said the invasiveness of the system should have been considered and students consulted before installing the system.

"It was a really shocking experience. It really wakes you up. You realize you walk into this facility and the only way to access is through finger scanning and all of sudden you're in this moment where you have no choice. What do you do?" said Wint-Rose on Wednesday.

Lindsay Stinson told CBC News she was upset she had to register her fingerprint and give personal information before she could work out at her university's new gym."

Proportionality in this must be considered. Who would want to monitor or possibly profile students exercise information? Does the university own the gym or do they lease it out to a private company? Where does the students data go?

Want to exercise = give personal biometric data? (would suggest boycotting gym and jogging instead, cheaper and non intrusive)

Students in Canada have (absolutely) more awareness than UK primary school pupils, 4 years old, that are now using fingerprint biometric systems here, and in the USA, without parental consent/knowledge.

With the Canadian students being older and having awareness of their personal data, they consequently raise valid privacy issues:

"Wint-Rose said she is concerned about what happens to the biometric information and who controls it.

"The northern sports centre has my information. I have no way of getting that back. I don't know how it's being collected, where it's being stored, who has access to this information," said Wint-Rose."

The following is a published paper by the Candian Information and Privacy Commissioner in March 2007:

Biometric Encryption: A Positive-Sum Technology that Achieves Strong Authentication, Security AND Privacy

by
Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario &
Alex Stoianov, Ph.D. Biometrics Scientist

Police able to access primary school fingerprint system

The Highland News reports that Drakies Primary School in Inverness, Scotland, has spent £1000 on fingerprint scanners for their school library.

The below comment is, as far as I know, the first mention in the media of police having accessing school fingerprint databases. Police can use children's biometric databases in England and Wales without informing parents. It does state here that the police have to get permission from the school and parents, Scottish law is different to English and Welsh law so this may well be the case in Scotland - but not in England and Wales (see questions 50 and 51).

... a spokeswoman for the National Policing Improvement Agency said: "If the police have reason to suspect a child has committed a crime then as part of their investigation with permission of the school and the parent, the police can request access to the data if they have reason to believe it will help them with their investigation."

There is no relevance to the argument that fingerprints aren't stored - a biometric identifier is stored which carries the exact same implications as if a fingerprint was stored.

The Royal Academy of Engineering on biometric technology

The Royal Academy of Engineering published a report last month titled 'Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance Challenges of Technological Change'.

The subject of biometric technology is dealt with on page 23 of the report:

The more biometric identification is used and the larger the database of biometric information, the greater the likelihood of false matches between a person’s biometric information and records on databases become.

This could result in people being under suspicion of serious crime if their fingerprints are falsely matched with those on a database of fingerprints found at crime scenes.

A police officer in Scotland (Shirley McKie) lost her job because her fingerprints were incorrectly identified as being present in a crime scene that she should not have entered. If systems which use biometrics as a means of identification are regarded as failure proof, then innocent individuals will suffer.

Shirley McKie's father, Iain, posted a recent comment to this blog. They, unfortunately, have had first hand experience of how devastating it can be when biometric identification fails.

Valid concerns from the USA

Patricia Deubel, Ph.D, voices her comments on the use of biometrics in schools, in the article "Biometrics in K-12: The Legal Conundrum", 10th April 2007, on the site The Journal, which is a publication aimed at educators across the USA. Although not a lawyer she cites some cautionary advice using this technology with children in schools.

Biometrics are among the latest implementations for school security. There are many issues to consider, which have been voiced by parents, students, and civil liberties groups.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protects student records and might provide some protection for public disclosure of records stored in databases containing a student's biometric measurements...

And also James Carroll, writing "Fingerprint foreboding" in the Boston Globe, 9th April 2007, has his view on biometrics in schools after working for the FBI. The last part his article, below, is quite succinct:

Privacy, the dictionary says, is the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion. But that definition seems anachronistic, with ubiquitous intrusion a new fact of life. For security, or mere efficiency, we Americans are sanctioning the end of our right to deny sanction to such invasion.

Now, of course, it is not just law enforcers in the mode of J. Edgar Hoover who have the capacity to intrude, but also MasterCard, the credit bureaus, the Google user, the phone company, the e-mail provider, the airport screener --
and the lunch room cashier in the local school.

And why shouldn't parents be uneasy?

Regulation deadline has not been met by Government for millions of children's biometrics held on school PC's

Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are vocalising their serious concerns about using biometric fingerprint scanners in schools (see blog side bar of parliamentary questions asked), and experts such as Kim Cameron express worries about this practise.

Even BECTA recognises the "concerns of parents" and internationally Roderick Woo, Justice of the Peace at the Hong Kong Office of the Privacy Commissioner, states about the use of biometrics in schools:

"I considered the consent of the staff and pupils rather dubious, because primary school's consent in law cannot be valid and there's undue influence. If the school says, 'give up your fingerprint', there's no way of negotiating.

"Also it's not a good way to teach our children how to give privacy rights the consideration they deserve,"

The Irish Data Commissiors Office has this guidance issued and warns schools about the danger of legal action, "claim for damages from a student", if they don't implement a detailed Privacy Impact Assessment.

There are laws in the USA regulating this technology and children.

But when schools send letters like this school in Doncaster did to parents, and another example over on Tarique Naseem's blog something is radically wrong.

What is going on when we parents have to sign slips for our child's image to be taken but yet when it comes to their bodily biometric data lying on a school PC - no consent, no even letting us know, no nothing!

Why, when ALL the above people and more are expressing serious concerns with fingerprinting children in schools, is the government not moving on the promised guidelines,as stated from 10 Downing Street , it said it would issue at the end of March?

School PCs storing up to nearly 6 million children's biometrics?

The Independent have this article about schools fingerprinting children.

"Almost six million children at 17,000 schools could have their fingerprints taken, intensifying fears of the growth of a "surveillance society" where personal information is gathered from cradle to grave."

With just over 9 million school children in the UK this amounts to nearly two thirds of the school population that could have their biometrics stored on a school PC without the school having to ask for parental consent.

The DfES were planning to issue guidelines on this practise at the end of March via the BECTA -British Educational Communications and Technology Agency's - website (who are an NGO). Non have been forthcoming so far.

See the following BECTA site searches for 'fingerprint' and 'biometric'. If anyone can find any guidelines there please let me know.

Police Officer's views on fingerprinting children

Over on the School Governors Forum the discussion regarding using biometric systems in schools continues, now 11 pages long, with this recent comment posted by a Police Fingerprint Officer of 15+ years.

His post is quite extensive and is well worth a read. On the area of consent he has this to say:

As to consent, if you have not been asked explicitly for your signed consent to allow your child's prints to be taken, kick up a huge stink immediately. Even arrested persons are asked to sign consent to their prints being taken - they can be taken by force if not consented to but this is a very rare occurrence.Victims of crime etc can refuse to provide their prints for 'elimination purposes' (legitimate access etc) and that's it, they don't get taken...

...I would assume that before printing kids (especially under 10 - age of criminal responsibility) schools would have to provide a detailed and explicit set of guides, rules and exceptions for what purposes prints are taken, how and where they will be stored and a policy for their eventual destruction. Criminal prints have this so innocent persons should be at least as well governed. If this hasn't happened, as governors, make sure it does.

Contact the police for advice, all forces have lawyers to scrutinise the legality of new and emerging issues like this.

The forum is run "by governors for governors".