Swalecliffe Primary running out childrens biometrics for catering, registration, library and printing - caterer supplies the biometric system

After a few years of biometric vendors steering clear of selling biometrics to primary schools (it seemed that 'fingerprinting' younger children was less palatable that older children), Swalecliffe Community Primary School have decided to role out biometric technology so the children there can eat lunch and potentially print documents, log their registration and take library books out.

After sending Swalecliffe a Freedom of Information request, it turns out that surprisingly the system was not paid for by the school, instead the generous catering company GS Plus (the school caterers) are providing the system.  Which begs the question - who is the data controller?  Who exactly is processing the children's biometric data - the catering company or the school?  Seemingly also the biometric software the caterer is providing also will be used for registration... so is the catering company branching out into registration or is another company providing that?

The school did not effectively communicate to parents that the child had the right to refuse this, instead flanneling the issue up in an "e [electronic?] safety" discussion within school.  The template Department of Education letters (see page 14) do not advise this.  In their template letters this is communicated unambiguously to the parents in writing.

As always biometrics are used as a solution to a problem, and indeed the technology is effective at authenticating users, but the efficiencies come with the system not the authentication process.

The school justifying the introduction of biometrics by apparently "ensuing greater" safeguarding is an emotive, and I find a slightly distasteful, use of language (unless the school really did have child safety issues?).  Unfortunately "safeguarding" is a word that is overused to the point of almost dangerous dilution of the meaning of it, especially when it is used to effectively 'sell' a system to parents.  Other less invasive, proportional identification processes can be used to ensure equal safety of children - especially with young children, whose biometric data had to be ubersecure, and not compromised at their early age.

See my comments in red below.  Another Freedom of Information request will be sent to the school as this throws up more questions (as is often the case) to gain clarity of how who has access to the children's biometric data, i.e. who is the data controller, what companies are involved and who is ultimately actually paying for this?

I can't really imagine the caterer is paying for this altruistically... (?)  I'm sure the tax payer will be propping this up.  Commercial companies do not survive by 'gifting' computer hardware/software to schools.  The cost will be obviously worked into the price of the contract or meals.


24 Jan 2014

Dear Swalecliffe Community Primary School,

Under the Freedom of Information Act please could you supply the following information within 20 working days.

As per the article
http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/School-swaps-ditches-dinner-money-woes-hi-tech/story-20343882-detail/story.html#ixzz2o2awFg5z


1) In the above article it is quoted that the biometric system
 would “save the school essential funds”. Please advise:
i) how this would save the school essential funds

Swalecliffe Answer: As a school we are responsible for any debt accrued by parents not paying for the meals their children have. This is part of any school’s meals contract. 
In addition we require an admin assistant to manage the monies coming into school, sending the debt letters, checking the registers and then making phone calls to parents who still haven’t paid their debt. In total this amounts to approximately 15 hours per week of school admin time. This does include the time of the contractor’s cash collector which obviously impacts on the meal prices.


ii) the amount of funds estimated to be saved per year.


Swalecliffe Answer: Admin costs: £7,098 per annum
Debt costs: £1,200 per year on average each year since 2009 (although these costs have been increasing with a debt of £1,300 from September 2013 – December 2014)

33 weeks x 15 hours a week = 495 hours

£7098 divided by 495 = £14.33 per hour (incl physical expenses i.e. letters)

Will a member of staff loose 15 hours a week from their employment i.e. will someone be financially worse off?

iii) the cost benefit analysis done showing savings to the school.



Swalecliffe Answer: As above


2) Please advise the cost of the biometric system

Swalecliffe Answer: The details of this are not transparent to the school because the system is being provided by the school caterers with no costs incurred by the school 

Nice.  Just a thought but perhaps the school caterer could have subsidised the debt incurred by the missed payments rather that incur more debt by providing a biometric authentication system?    

So then who is the data controller then and who has access to the children's biometrics?


3) Please advise any ongoing licensing or maintenance costs

Swalecliffe Answer: There are no specific costs linked to the biometric system and cashless catering for schools. However as the software is now in school we have decided to upgraded our registration system, combining the two together to make morning registration more efficient and ensure even greater health and safety and safeguarding procedures within the school. This has cost the school £480 per annum but will also save us £48 per annum as we wont be using other software we currently purchase. 

How can biometric technology ensure *more* health and safety.  I'd have thought the hygiene of the scanners having hundreds of fingerprints on them (not to mention the added expense of wiping them clean) would have created a health risk.  Safeguarding... how many issues have the school had with 'safeguarding procedure' at registration time to justify a biometric registration system?


4) Please supply the documents sent to parents for meetings and
letters sent about the biometric system, including letters sent 
regarding parental consent.

Swalecliffe Answer: Please find attached [documents need to be provided externally]

Another post on this topic is warranted as the Head Teacher's comments regarding the alternative identification offered is unorthodox and not a response I've seen before.


5) Please show how the school communicated to the students that 
they had a right to refuse to use the biometric system.

Swalecliffe Answer: The system was shared and talked about in an assembly and by the class teachers as part of our e safety and ICT day in school. The children were asked to talk about it at home and decide with their parents what was right for them. During the actual process of registering for biometrics the staff were very careful to ensure that if any child was worried or anxious that they stopped and spoke to the parents before taking the reading. This only occurred with one child who has a specific learning difficulty and Asperger’s Syndrome. The children were very excited about the process. 


6) Please advise what the “right information” was given by the
 school to parents who had concerns about the system

Swalecliffe Answer: Please see the documents sent to parents. Following our information sessions and our drop ins we collated the most frequently asked questions and shared them with the whole parent body.

Again I will deal with this in another post, details given were inaccurate - details to follow.  Suffice to say I will point this out to the school ASAP so they have the opportunity to the rectify information given to parents. 


7) How many parents consented to their children’s biometrics to be
processed by the school?



Swalecliffe Answer: There are 649 children on roll.
578 children are able to use the system 
535 have permission for biometrics (82% of the children)

82% efficiency for a biometric system?  What if other procedures in schools were only 82% efficient? - that would not be acceptable.  I don't think that's a great endorsement of the system. 

8) How many parents refused for their children to use the biometric system?



Swalecliffe Answer: 13 families have refused to allow their children to use the system 
However 11 of these do not use the catering facility and their children do not have school meals. 
Only 3 of these families attended the consultations evening, the information evening or the drop in sessions. 


9) How many consent forms were not filled in by parents?



Swalecliffe Answer: 41 have not completed any forms but all of these are families who do not have school meals 


10) How many children refused to participate with the biometric system?

Swalecliffe Answer: We had one child who was distressed by the process but they have a specific learning need and anything unusual is challenging for them. We also had one family who communicated that they were discussing the options with their child and would like their child’s opinions to be seriously considered in their decisions.

Primary school gives parents "right information" to "understand the positives of this system"

Parents of children attending Swalecliffe Community Primary School who were concerned

about their children using biometrics to access the lunch line that talked to the school got "the right information understand the positives of this system."  

Having heard many justifications for schools to use biometrics I was interested to see what "right information" Swalecliffe Community Primary School were giving to parents so I asked to see this via the Freedom of Information Act.  Steve Clayton, the Business Manager also stated that this biometric system would save the school "essential funds" - brilliant!  Seriously, any system that can save public tax payers money deserves consideration, so I also asked to see cost benefit analysis done on the biometric system.

Interesting that biometrics is finding it's way back into the primary school market.  Previously fingerprinting primary age school children gave biometrics in schools bad press (hence my involvement when my 6 and 7 year old children were nearly fingerprinted without my consent in 2005).  

Let's see what Swalecliffe's repsonse is - it's due by 21st February 2014.

The bigger picture on how many children are 'experiencing' biometrics in schools 2013

Good that Big Brother Watch's 'Biometrics in Schools' report highlighted schools in the UK taking children's biometrics, though unfortunate that their figures are somewhat diluted as they are based on an alarmingly low response rate to their Freedom of Information Requests (FOIR).

Having a 39% response rate, 1255 replies from FOIRs sent  to 3,218 schools, is worrying as:
A) accurate data cannot be gleaned from it and
B) as schools are increasingly corporatised, does this suggest they see themselves as unaccountable?

But let's face it, if you were a school receiving a FOIR from Big Brother Watch about if/how your school uses children's biometrics you would be inclined not to answer, as legally every answer given under FOIR is "to the world", i.e. public.  Potentially embarrassing.

So if 40% of schools are using children's biometrics, as Big Brother Watch's FOIR response suggests, then when applied to the wider school population of 8.2 million, in England, this means that 3,280,000 children have their biometrics on school databases.  Interesting.  A figure not reported in the media.

But what about the remaining 60% of schools that did not reply to Big Brother Watch's FOIR?

In 2010 I asked 500 schools similar questions about their use of biometric systems for the then Protection of Freedoms Bill committee sitting in Parliament (now an Act of Parliament) and got replies from 47% of schools.  Because the data I had was not accurate enough to submit to the committee, not having got a near 100% replies, I rang round the schools that had not replied.

Two thirds of the secondary schools that did not reply were using biometric systems, so for example, in Liverpool's secondary schools the initial figure I got from the 47% FOIR response rate indicated that only 25% of schools used biometrics.   After ringing round the remaining schools this figure rose significantly to 72% of Liverpool's secondary schools using biometrics.

So does this mean we can apply the same criteria to the 61% of schools that declined to answer Big Brother Watch's FOIR?  In which case we would be looking at over 6.5 million children using their biometrics England's school population of 8.2 million.  A significantly larger figure than is being quoted in the media.

However, the demographic trend is that biometric systems are mostly used in secondary schools.  'Fingerprinting' primary age school children is not quite yet seen as acceptable, having had bad press in the past decade.  Whereas biometric systems in secondary schools are easier to stomach as children of secondary school age could use the technology routinely on their phone, PS and Xbox, etc.

As there are 8.2 million children in England's schools, with schools having children (from Reception, age 4/5, to Year 11, age 15/16) for 12 years, there are approximately 680,000 children per year group.  Perhaps more importantly, there is a need to look at the percentage of children having experienced biometric systems before they left school, i.e. looking at the secondary schools population where biometric technology is predominantly concentrated.  There is potentially a very high level of children passing through this age group experiencing using their biometrics in a school environment, normalising biometric use for fairly mundane transactions

It would only need two or year groups (or even one year of using a biometric system in a school) to accustom a child to the technology.  This may only mean that 1.3 million children have been using biometric systems in secondary schools but a near 100% experience of every child leaving school having experienced the technology.

So I guess the question could be better asked "How many children leaving school have experienced using biometric systems?"

Though still, the sheer numbers of children that have their biometric data on systems in schools, that possibly may be compromised in the future, is still a very valid point.

Thank you Big Brother Watch for highlighting the issue, as it is always good to have this topic in the news, but perhaps in the future more targeted research should be undertaken.

Quality of biometric normalisation does not necessarily lie in quantity of users - a nicely aimed, targeted demographic suffices.

'No choice' biometrics? Only up to 31st August 2013

Haberdashers' Aske's Boys School

As reported in the Mail, it seems the modus operandi remains the same in private schools as it does in state schools. Give parents less than a week to 'opt out' of their child's biometric fingerprint data being taken, in this case 4 days, then fingerprint the kids.  

Parents do not always get emails, letters or even think to look at the schools website or even expect the school to assume consent in order for a parent to withdraw consent and in this case one pupil said that his parent had "zero idea" and that the school had given the pupils "no choice" to have 'their fingerprints taken'.

Schools do not assume consent for school trips or photographs being taken of children. Why then assume parents have already consented for the school to take, store and process a child's biometric data?  Surely schools should know that, in less than 6 months, this contentious issue of consent is becoming enforceable law in September 2013.

That's not cricket Haberdashers' Aske's Boys School is it now?

Very sensible advice from a parent whose son attends the school:  "The Times has reported that Paul Jessop, who has a son at the school, said:

'The use of biometrics can be very convenient but it relies on the security of the systems used. Without real assurances about this security, I could not recommend that any parent allow their child’s fingerprints to be used for something as trivial as paying for lunch.'

Wise words indeed and a statement that has been reiterated by Microsoft's Kim Cameron below.  Other parents may want to seriously consider Paul Jessop's above words of advice as the following experts and academics have all expressed concerns about children's biometrics being used in schools.  
_______________________________________

Kim Cameron (Microsoft's Chief Architect of Access) has been blogging some more on this issue about the minutes of a school board meeting in Florida... here.
Kim Cameron has this to say:

"It drives me nuts that people can just open their mouths and say anything they want about biometrics... without any regard for the facts. There should really be fines for this type of thing - rather like we have for people who pretend they're a brain surgeon and then cut peoples' heads open."
http://pippaking.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/kim-cameron-microsoft-has-been-blogging.html
_______________________________________

This post here from him (Kim Cameron) states: 

"The more I learn from Alex Stoianov about the advantages of Biometric Encryption, the more I understand how dangerous the use of conventional biometric templates really is. I had not understood that the templates were a reliable unique identifier reusable across databases and even across template schemes without a fresh biometric sample. 

People have to be stark, raving mad to use conventional biometrics to improve the efficiency of a children’s lunch line."

When this comes from Kim Cameron, alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear for those schools using this technology and for apathetic government departments letting this go ahead completely unregulated.
http://pippaking.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/people-have-to-be-stark-raving-mad-to.html
_______________________________________

Fred Bellamy, a Phoenix Attorney who specializes in Technology Law went on to say that "fingerprinting children is an invasion of privacy".

“Once the data are captured no matter what kind of promises the vendor may make there is a serious risk, and I think the parents have every reason to be concerned about how this data will ultimately be used.” 
http://pippaking.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/in-and-out.html
_______________________________________

"Head teacher Gillian James said in an explanatory letter to parents that the system would store a number based on a fingerprint reading. No fingerprint images would be stored". - Not exactly true, what is stored is an fingerprint algorithmic 'image' that our UK police can access and use without parents and pupils knowledge (Deputy Information Commissioner Q50 & Q51). 

I wish teachers would stop spouting the vendors and the governments "It's not a fingerprint...." speil and educate themselves.
http://pippaking.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/technology-for-technologys-sake.html
_______________________________________
Experts and academics that have voiced concerns about biometric technology in schools:

Kim Cameron, Microsoft's Identity Architect
Andrew Clymer, senior identity management security expert (more than 8 years at Cisco Systems, working with Visa, Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, etc - providing them with a secure network environment)
Paul Squires, Identity Solutions Architect at Enline plc
Bruce Schneier, a respected US writer and lecturer on issues surrounding security and privacy, who has testified before Congress and authored eight books and dozens of articles and academic papers.
Ralf Bendrath, privacy, security and internet researcher
Dr Sandra Leaton Gray, Director of Studies, Sociology of Education, Homerton College, Cambridge
Professor Emerita Leone Burton, University of Birmingham, visiting research fellow, Cambridge University
Patricia Deubel, PhD, adjunct faculty member in the graduate School of Education at Capella University
Dr James Atherton, learningandteaching.info
Jon Crowcroft, Marconi Professor of Communications Systems, University of Cambridge
Terrance Boult, University of Colorado
Eugene Schultz, Ph.D., CISM, CISSP, CTO of High Tower Software
David French , 30 plus years in IT, Wellington NZ
Brian Drury, IT security consultant, UK
Brian Honan, independent security consultant based in Dublin, Ireland
Dom Devitto, information Security consultant, UK
Rufus Evison MA (Cantab), senior IT consultant and company director, UK
An unnamed Police Fingerprint Officer (15+ years' experience)
Stephen Groesz, a partner with the law firm Bindmans
The Austrian Supreme Court
The States of Michigan, Illinios and Iowa (so far, others are likely to follow)
Tony Delaney, The Assistant Irish Data Protection Commissioner
Roderick Woo, Justice of the Peace at the Hong Kong Office of the Privacy Commissioner
George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Ann Cavoukian, The Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
Fred Bellamy, a Phoenix Attorney who specializes in Technology Law
Damian Green MP, Conservative Home Affairs spokesman
The Rt Hon David Davis MP, Conservative Shadow Home Secretary
Nick Gibb MP, Conservative Shadow Minister For Schools
Baroness Carnegy, Conservative
Sarah Teather MP, LibDem Shadow Education Secretary
Greg Mulholland MP, Lib Dem Schools spokesperson
Baroness Walmsley, LibDem
Baroness Howe, Crossbencher
83 other MPs from all parties who have signed Early Day Motion 686 (frontbenchers do not usually sign EDMs)
More than 1500 parents who voted last summer [2006] in an online poll against kiddyprinting without parental consent. 93% opposed fingerprinting without consent. 

http://pippaking.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/technology-for-technologys-sake.html

Warning for schools using biometrics

SecEd issuing some advance warning of the future implications to schools processing childrens biometrics:

"Paula Williamson, a legal expert from The Information Law Practice, said: “In order for the consent to be valid it must be ‘fully-informed’. A school will need to give clear and comprehensive information to the parents and arguably the pupils in order for them to make fully-informed decisions about whether to give their consent.”

Parents should also be informed who the information might be shared with, for example schools may need to allow companies that run cashless catering systems to hold data, or may be compelled to share data with the police.

Also, schools cannot obtain this permission through an opt-out letter of consent, whereby parents not agreeing must actively inform the school. Letters must be opt-in.

...schools found to be in breach of these provisions face a potential fine of up to £500,000."

It seems that across the world the UK is being held up as bad practice fingerprinting our children in schools.

This from James Heiser from http://www.thenewamerican.com/

"The decision to permit the mechanisms of the national security state to intrude into the most routine aspects of the lives of children as young as four is not only degrading and absurd — it is educating impressionable youths to take for granted that the State will track their every movement, action and thought for the rest of their lives.

 Such needlessly pervasive interference in the lives of children is so scandalous that even continental European bureaucrats understand that it is wicked."

Biometrics for school toilets are here!

Even I thought I'd never biometrics in schools used for toilet access...

 "In one secondary school in West Lothian there is a hand pad system in place for primary school pupils housed there temporarily to gain access to toilets."

This link is now archived here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110728095646/http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Hundreds-of-school-children-fingerprinted.6672785.jp

Liverpool councillors sever all ties with biometric technology in schools

This from the Liverpool Echo:

"A meeting of the full council will be asked to express its formal “opposition to the fingerprinting of children by schools” and a ban on any local authority-led promotion of its use save for a criminal investigation.

Picton ward councillor Andrew Makinson who is behind the motion said the £20,000 average cost of installing it could be better spent on school staff.

He said government mishaps with personal information was proof all systems were vulnerable.

Council leader Warren Bradley stressed it had always been down to individual schools to adopt the technology.

He added: “It would be wrong to implement a policy and support something which could potentially be of detriment to the protection of our children.”"

Biometric systems 100% safe?

Nunnery Wood High School in Worcester is planning to use children's fingerprints for logging pupils in and out of school and for cashless catering systems.

The system is on trial at the moment with a view to it being fully implemented in 12 months but there are concerns from parents, one parent, Angie Wilkes, stated that:

“Biometric data, when included on UK passports, was hacked within two weeks by Lukas Grunwald, a consultant with a German security company, using a piece of software costing £105,”

You can understand her concerns, yet the school insisted that "the system is 100 per cent safe" - mmm... no system is 100% safe.

"Headteacher Alun Williams said the school had taken advice from government agency Becta, and had carried out rigorous research. " If the Head has done rigorous research he will know that the systems are not 100% safe.

As far as BECTA carrying out rigorous research on biometric systems in schools - they simply haven't. Their advice given July 2007 was given with no research into these systems whatsoever, I know that as a fact as the Freedom of Information Act was used to see what research they had done - zilch.

So for all you Head Teachers out there thinking that BECTA know about these systems, think again.

Ousedale Secondary School, Newport Pagnell, is planning to use biometric fingerprints from it's pupils to access to canteen. The MKNews reports that the school "has received a string of angry, anonymous letters of complaint about the scheme"

One 15-year-old pupil who contacted the paper by email said: "The Government is so insistent on snooping on us all to a point where they are fingerprinting us to buy our lunches. They are treating us like criminals."

More schools - same misinformation

Although I haven't posted here for quite a while I've been busy behind the scenes gathering some information using the Freedom of Information Act from various bodies with some interesting results on how the governments advice for schools using biometrics was constructed and we've also had some interest from the media on the subject of biometrics in schools. So although not "bloggingly vocal" - still at it!

So what has been happening?....

Seems that the media coverage over the past month or so has been constant with parents voicing their concerns across the country.

This video from the BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7502790.stm about Caldicott Comprehensive School, Newport, Wales, where parents are protesting about fingerprint systems. The school hasn't consulted with parents at all.

Chipping Campden comprehensive in Gloucestershire, where the actor Chris Jury's child attends, is rolling out biometrics for catering and registration, as the Telegraph and Cotswold Journal reports. The Coltswold Journal states that:

"He was responding to a letter she circulated to her pupils' parents announcing biometric machines would be installed at the school." and rightly so - is this the schools idea of consultation? Telling the parents is an arrogant way of assuming consent from parents (or children for that matter).

Abbey College, Ramsey in Cambridgeshire are introducing a fingerprint cashless catering. According to the Hunts Post:

"The school has assured parents that no one has access to the information and that the data can "never be viewed as anything other than a string of numbers and letters".

Obviously the company selling the biometric system to the school hasn't informed them about research done in the United States on how fingerprints can be recovered from such systems.

As the government nor academics in the UK have not had access to any systems that are sold to schools to test whether the schools statement is true, judgement can only be taken on the basis of work that has been done in the States on this.

Abbey College school also state that "no one has access to the information" - wrong. The police can have access if they believe that it will help solve a crime. This is what the Deputy Information Commissioner, David Smith, had to say on this in May 2007 with regard to school biometric systems (see Q50 and Q51):

"The police [can] make an access request. The school looks at: "Would we breach the Data Protection Act if we respond to the police?" If they can say that not giving the information would be likely to prejudice prevention or detection of crime and does not say a level of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of an offender, then they can give that information without breaching the Act. A low level of crime would justify that"

So think again when a school states that no one can access information.

And £30,000 is being spent in Nequay's Tretherras School in Cornwall on biometric cashless catering, with a further £1500 spent each year on the license to have the technology.

Apart from the issues of consent, who can access to information and the possible re-engineering of fingerprints the additional issue of cost is huge.

When my children were nearly fingerprinted 3 years ago , at 6 & 7 years old, there were two companies selling biometric fingerprint systems - now there are nearly 20 companies in the market place here in the UK - a market that is ultimately driven by our tax payers money. We are funding this biometric market.

More UK schools using childrens fingerprints

Biometric technology using children's fingerprints is well underway across the UK. When systems using biometric fingerprints can cost up to £27,000 this is certainly a big business concern (funded by our taxes!).

The Bexhill-on-sea Observer reports that William Parker Sports College in Hasting has gone fully cashless:

Biometric fingerprints will be used by both pupils and staff to pay for everything from school dinners to theatre trips.

"We will be the first school in the town to be a cashless college," said John Court. "All our catering and anything that parents have to pay for will be paid for from online student accounts."

and in the Journel Live in Tyneside...

A North Tyneside school is spending £15,000 on the latest fingerprinting technology to curb bullying at lunchtime. Every child attending Churchill Community College in Howdon, has had their thumb prints scanned ahead of the launch of the new cashless payment system after the half-term break.

The biometric system is designed to reduce bullying in schools and any potential stigma suffered by those receiving free school meals.

Was bullying so bad at Churchill Community College that they felt the need to throw £15,000 at it? Over in Lancashire it's reported that in Bowland High School:

School dinners have been given a hi-tech overhaul. Headteacher Mr Stephen Cox said:

"Although biometric identification has been used in schools for library use for a number of years, we are one of the first schools in Lancashire to embrace the technology for use in paying for school meals, while it is early days the pupils have embraced the technology and we are hoping it will enhance their lunchtime experience by speeding up service."

£25,000 biometric cashless system bought - based on "commonly perceived benefits"

At the end of January Sophie McKeand's child's school told parents they were "introducing a "cashless catering system", where children will pay for their school dinners using either a fingerprint identification system or a pin number". This is in Flintshire, Wales.

Sophie rightly objected "to have such important and sensitive biometric data being taken from children for a matter as trivial as buying lunch is absolutely absurd."

Since then Sophie has been busy finding out, via the Freedom of Information Act, just how much these systems cost (using our tax money), where the funding is coming from, who made the decision to implement such systems, etc. - interesting reading indeed.

Her Freedom of Information questions and answers, for Flintshire County Council, are on the "Biometrics in Schools" forum over on the NO2ID site.

Here are a few questions and answers:

3. What is the FULL, TOTAL AND FINAL cost of this system in Alun School?

A3.The full cost of the system in the Alun School is as follows:

PCS Systems £20,905.00
Software £ 1,062.32
Installation £ 1,162.50
Server £ 283.14
Printer etc. £ 574.00
Writing/Electrics £ 1,162.50

TOTAL £25,149.46 [this is cost for one school]

1. I wish to be provided with ALL cost / benefit analysis that have been completed concerning anything whatsoever to do with implementing these cashless systems in Flintshire schools. Not just for Mold Alun but for all schools in Flintshire as stated in the quote from the first letter from Alun School, above. This includes all equipment, maintenance and IT services.

A1. The Council holds no information regarding a cost/benefit analysis. [What?]
The commonly perceived benefits however, are that..... then follows some drivel about reducing bullying and enabling children to eat before afternoon registration, up take of free meals increased, blah, blah.

So, lets get this right...

...the council spends 25K of our money on a biometric/pin cashless catering system purely based on "commonly perceived benefits" - with no cost/benefit analysis to justify such expenditure?

IMHO this sounds like jawdropping negligence.

Flintshire County Council sound like they've been sold a line. "Commonly perceived benefits" that are backed up with absolutely no academic or government literature, but I guess probably literature from sales persons.

It would seem that the implementation of the systems (that were originally proposed to be run throughout all Flintshire Schools, which would be around £250,000 of taxpayers money) has not been a completely open and transparent process, as reported today:

"Cllr Ray Dodd said he shared some of Miss McKeand's concerns. "I am surprised that this biometric system has been introduced in a school already without any consultation with elected councillors.

The education department said there has been extensive consultation, I have not been able to establish any consultation with county councillors,"

Suffolk schools fingerprinting for food

Stowmarket High school has started using children's fingerprints for meals, not mentioned on their website, along with Kirkley High, again not mentioned on their website either.

This from the Stowmarket Headteacher Keith Penn: “I have no concerns about any infringement of civil liberties in this instance and am not concerned about this issue." - what at all?

He should be concerned as Action on Rights for Children, Liberty, Privacy International, NO2ID, parent run site Leave Them Kids Alone and a host international experts have concerns - and in the USA Electronic Frontiers Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union have concerns as well.

Well he is only a headteacher and obviously has no experience of children's rights (although maybe he should have, being in charge of a fair few hundred of them).

Maybe these heads of schools should do some research into this issue of using children's biometric data for routine activities that, supposedly helps the schools administrative function.

See Mark Crossley's blog, editor of the Suffolk Free Press on this.

USA news

Just thought I post a list of articles of what is happening in the USA with biometric scanners in schools.

When I started this I could initially keep on top of what was happening in the states but the technology is being rolled at such a rate in the USA, it was difficult to keep up with it! This is the past couple of months news:

Should schools fingerprint kids?

Fingerprinting kids for school lunch comments from the 29th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners was held in Montréal, Quebec.

School store checks out in high-tech ways Detriot News

Finger-scanning implemented at local elementary schools Colorado

Wallenpaupack Area to offer cashless lunch Pennsylvania

Finger Scanning System at Oregon School Raises Security Concerns

From The Statesman in Oregon:

Scanning students' fingers hits a nerve

Lunch-line thumb scan won't hurt privacy

Thumb scanners keep information private

Schools add a personal touch - Denver Post

Orlando school scanners put on hold

Whist schools are rolling out fingerprint systems in the UK, over in the USA it's also being brought in on a massive scale.

What is it with educationalists that makes them think it is acceptable to take a child's biometric data without even informing parents that they are going to do it. The same railroading tactics to finger scan the next generation are happening in the States as it is here in the UK.

If biometric technology is so great why not ask parents permission before their children's biometrics are taken and stored on a relatively insecure school computer?

Schools in Orlando didn't ask parents:

"Superintendent Bill Vogel said he had "indefinitely" delayed installation of finger scanners in lunchrooms at Hagerty High in Oviedo and Millennium Middle in Sanford. Officials say they jumped the gun by starting the scanning program without notifying parents or giving them a choice whether to have their children participate."

"There was not a letter sent out," Vogel said." - Why not? Here in the UK we have to sign permission slips for photographs taken, schools trips, food tasting, off site walks... why not biometric scans?

"I don't want to hear about this being a secure system or that it won't be used for anything else. No one can guarantee this," said Lisa Reese-Gordon in an e-mail complaint to Gov. Charlie Crist and school-district officials.

Look to recent law in Illinois, SB1702, which came into effect Aug this year states in section 5(B), page 4:

(5) A prohibition on the sale, lease, or other disclosure of biometric information to another person or entity, unless: (B) the disclosure is required by court order.

This could be law enforcement or government agencies.

Reese-Gordon, whose daughter attends Hagerty High, said there is"no educational purpose for the taking of fingerprints from children."

She's absolutely right. Biometric systems are purely used for administration purposes. Here in the UK children are the main proportion of the population using biometric systems.

If biometric systems are so time and cost effective why not use them routinely on the adult population? Why not in hospitals, civic centre, production lines, adult libraries, loyalties in stores, cash card authentication?

Why? Because adults question. In order for biometric systems to be efficient a large percentage take up of users would have to happen. But because we adults would question their use, who has access, how secure, etc. potential take up would be low and therefore not viable.

Children don't question, however parents would if we were asked - so we're not asked.

Technology for technologys sake

Okay, biometrics for vending machines, meals, entry and exit at school, libraries (and in the states school transport) now a school in Ilkley, Leeds, has a fingerprint cash paying in machine, for childrens school trips, that has set the school back £2500.

"The organisation of trips at Ilkley Grammar involves a turnover of £250,000 a year, mostly collected in £10 or £15 instalments. It means close to 20,000 transactions a year."

A quarter of a million pounds of parents money on school trips each year for around 1500 students (works out around £170 per pupil per year) suggests that Ilkely is a fairly affluent area and that the need for parents to pay in such small amounts could be managed better by the school.

"Head teacher Gillian James said in an explanatory letter to parents that the system would store a number based on a fingerprint reading. No fingerprint images would be stored". - Not exactly true, what is stored is an fingerprint algorithmic image that our UK police can access and use without parents and pupils knowledge (Deputy Information Commissioner Q50 & Q51).

I wish teachers would stop spouting the vendors and the governments "It's not a fingerprint...." speil and educate themselves.

Apparently - "The Information Commissioner and the Department of Education and Skills had said they had no concerns.", however these people do:

Kim Cameron, Microsoft's Identity Architect
Andrew Clymer, senior identity management security expert (more than 8 years at Cisco Systems, working with Visa, Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, etc - providing them with a secure network environment)
Paul Squires, Identity Solutions Architect at Enline plc
Bruce Schneier, a respected US writer and lecturer on issues surrounding security and privacy, who has testified before Congress and authored eight books and dozens of articles and academic papers.
Ralf Bendrath, privacy, security and internet researcher
Dr Sandra Leaton Gray, Director of Studies, Sociology of Education, Homerton College, Cambridge
Professor Emerita Leone Burton, University of Birmingham, visiting research fellow, Cambridge University
Patricia Deubel, PhD, adjunct faculty member in the graduate School of Education at Capella University
Dr James Atherton, learningandteaching.info
Jon Crowcroft, Marconi Professor of Communications Systems, University of Cambridge
Terrance Boult, University of Colorado
Eugene Schultz, Ph.D., CISM, CISSP, CTO of High Tower Software
David French , 30 plus years in IT, Wellington NZ
Brian Drury, IT security consultant, UK
Brian Honan, independent security consultant based in Dublin, Ireland
Dom Devitto, information Security consultant, UK
Rufus Evison MA (Cantab), senior IT consultant and company director, UK
An unnamed Police Fingerprint Officer (15+ years' experience)
Stephen Groesz, a partner with the law firm Bindmans
The Austrian Supreme Court
The States of Michigan, Illinios and Iowa (so far, others are likely to follow)
Tony Delaney, The Assistant Irish Data Protection Commissioner
Roderick Woo, Justice of the Peace at the Hong Kong Office of the Privacy Commissioner
George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Ann Cavoukian, The Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
Damian Green MP, Conservative Home Affairs spokesman
The Rt Hon David Davis MP, Conservative Shadow Home Secretary
Nick Gibb MP, Conservative Shadow Minister For Schools
Baroness Carnegy, Conservative
Sarah Teather MP, LibDem Shadow Education Secretary
Greg Mulholland MP, Lib Dem Schools spokesperson
Baroness Walmsley, LibDem
Baroness Howe, Crossbencher
83 other MPs from all parties who have signed Early Day Motion 686 (frontbenchers do not usually sign EDMs)
More than 1500 parents who voted last summer in an online poll against kiddyprinting without parental consent. 93% opposed fingerprinting without consent.

Parents voice their concerns

The Daily Mail reports today on growing concerns amongst parents about the practise of "fingerprinting" children in schools for food, books and access.

One parent has already taken legal advice after his child's school took biometric fingerprint from his child without even informing him.

"...a Suffolk filmmaker called Jonathan Adams, are considering legal action to stop schools in their tracks. "Litigation may be the only way forward," he says. "We fear they are in breach of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the European Commission laws that safeguard the child.

"We have sought initial advice from lawyers."

This from David Clouter of Leave Them Kids Alone, (which as a parent I completely agree with),
"Schools send out consent slips for just about anything, from allowing popcorn during cinema trips to whether we can take pictures of the school play at the end of term," Mr Clouter says, "but they didn't plan to ask the parents about taking their children's fingerprints."

Fiona Elliot a parent in Doncaster, who was quoted in the article, had this letter from her children's primary schools which stated: " We have no legal requirement to ask for permission [from parents before 'fingerprinting' children] as we will not be breaching any data protection regulations"

...and the next sentance is quite unbelievable, "and also letters of permission are not always returned" (!)

I agree with Fiona, "If some choose to write this off as alarmist, she doesn't care", neither do I.

Schools right to fingerprint without consent?

Chris Woodhead, who was the Chief Inspector of Schools in England from 1994 until 2000, answers this parent query on the Times Online website.

My 15-year-old son’s school recently informed parents that it would be introducing technology which uses pupils’ fingerprints to pay for school dinners. The school say they want to discourage children from bringing cash into school. How is that schools can keep this sort of personal information that could lead to identity theft? Where do parents stand in demanding their child’s fingerprints be removed from the system? Fiona Byrne, Leicestershire

The school has no right to fingerprint your son without your consent. You can therefore demand that his fingerprints are removed from its records.

I worry that our children will come to assume that those in authority have a right to demand any information they desire.

Although schools may not have the right morally, schools, with the support of the Labour Government Education Dept, are being told that they are operating within the law which enables tham to 'fingerprint' children without informing parents - until this assumed right is tested in a court of law.

New US legislation halts school fingerprint technology

This from the Chicago Tribune:

Shortly after rolling out a new lunch program that allows pupils to pay for hot meals with a scan of their fingerprint, Wilmette school officials put the system on hold after learning that a new Illinois law limits the use of biometric information to protect children's privacy.

Illinois General Assembly SB1702, specifically dealing with school biometric databases, came into effect on the 1st August this year.

Adam Denenberg, the school district's director of technology and media is quoted in the article saying, "...no fingerprints are stored or could be obtained by police."

However, a child's biometric fingerprint algorithm, stored on a school database, can be accessed by police, as SB1702, section 5(B), on page 4, details:

(5) A prohibition on the sale, lease, or other disclosure of biometric information to another person or entity, unless:

(B) the disclosure is required by court order.