Schools asking for consent to process children's biometrics

I am getting a lot of emails from concerned parents of children leaving primary school to go to secondary school with the way that the secondary schools are asking for consent to use their child's biometrics - fingerprint, fingertip data - and not offering an alternative method to access the catering, library, registration, etc, system.  In this parents are feeling that their request for consent is coerced.

Schools MUST offer an alternative to biometrics.  The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Chapter 2, Section 27 (7) states that: 

The relevant authority must ensure that reasonable alternative means are available by which the child may do, or be subject to, anything which the child would have been able to do, or be subject to, had the child’s biometric information been processed.

Unfortunately some parents have been made to feel from schools that they are being unreasonable in not giving consent and that they are they only one objecting to biometric consent.  You are not a 'problem parent'.  You and your child have a right to not give the school biometric data - data that is absolutely unique, personal, highly precious and that needs to be secure for the child's life time.

Parents feeling isolated by a school is a story I have heard over the past 10 years so many times from so many parents - you are not alone at all.  I myself last year, when my child entered sixth form, was told by the Principal that I was the only parent objecting to them using my child's biometrics - I was not.

Quite often the supplier of the biometric system to the school will also offer alternative means of accessing the system they provide.  Examples are swipe card, PIN number and taking the names of the children at the point of sale at the till, so it shouldn't be an inconvenience for the school to offer alternative means of identification.

The new EU General Data Protection Regulations is law for every member state of the EU, including us.  It came into law 27th April 2016.  Schools are subject to this.

Point 32 states:

Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement.

Point 42 states:

Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.

If anyone has any concerns or questions please don't hesitate to get in touch, I'm really happy to help if I can.

Consider carefully when consenting to children's biometrics in schools

'Turning fingers into keys'
Credit: kaprik/shutterstock.com

There is a great article written by Brian Patton, University of Oxford, entitled "The trouble with taking biometric technology into schools", that appeared in The Conversation earlier this month, which every parent and student should read before considering using their biometrics in schools.

Other than copy most of the article into this post I would urge a read of the article which succinctly discusses security, effectiveness, implications of a data breach and consent.  

Schools and biometric companies supplying schools are keen to reassure parents and students that it is not a (pictorial) fingerprint that is being stored but simply a number string -  a number string completely unique and specific to your child's 'bio' body 'metric' measure.

Patton makes the valid point that:

"For other biometric data it's important to remember that what is being matched within the computer is not, say, one fingerprint against another. It is a set of data drawn from the features of the scanned body part – a numerical abstraction. Steal this key and you have effectively stolen that part of the person."

He also goes on to say that,

"...a  data breach will mean these type of scans will be untrustworthy for the pupils – for the rest of their lives.

And therein lies another issue: with the potential for life-long consequences, are pupils, some below the age of 16, competent to opt in to such a scheme? And what of those who opt out? It's one thing to ask adults to weigh up the balance between convenience and risk, but there are two likely issues that would make this harder in schools. There is an inbalance of power between those wanting to implement the technology and those subject to it.  This raises serious concerns about informed consent – perhaps one of the reasons why in 2012 using biometrics was banned in English state schoolswithout parents' consent."

It is unclear if there have been any data breaches of biometric databases in schools as the UK Information Commissioner's Office (responsible for the UK Data Protection Act), in response to a Freedom of Information request regarding compromised biometric databases specifically in education, are "unable to conduct an electronic search of our system using the term ‘biometric’" and so could not supply information on if there has been any data breaches of children's biometric data in schools.

There are potentially long term, unknown consequences to this biometric technology used on the youngest generation in society - we are experimenting with it on our children in schools for daily activities that can be easily undertaken, quite adequately, without the use of biometrics.

I guess an individual will only know when their biometric data has been compromised when in the future they hit a problem regarding their biometrics.  How will they know when it was compromised, by whom and where their very personal digital identity has gone? 

In the words of Brian Drury, IT Security Consultant:

"Once a child has touched a [biometric] scanner they will be at the mercy of the matching algorithm for the rest of their lives."

Facial recognition scrapped in San Diago schools

Encinitas Union School District has scrapped iPad facial recognition replacing passwords.  A system that was thought to initially cost $63,000 spiraled to $189,000 purely for "eliminating a common complaint: having to remember too many passwords for various programs on the devices."

How utterly ridiculous!  If children cannot remember a few passwords to log into an iPad how on earth is a school to hope children will retain lesson content?

What is more worrying is that teachers also "dedicate a lot of time to logging in".  Apparently with this new facial recognition programme it is a “walk through one door and you’re into everything,”...erm, isn't that what an iPad password does anyway?


The whole sales pitch on this was completely flawed - in fact it was a load of rubbish and parents were not falling for it.  A solution to a problem that simply did not exist and parents rightly saw through this.


It's strange isn't it?  Outside school children are quite capable of remembering passwords for computers, tablets and mobile phones.  As a parent I can absolutely say that I have never heard another parent moan about their child's inability to remember a password or had any conversation with another parent about their child's passwords being stolen or compromised.  So it's very odd that when a child enters school this sudden amnesia becomes a problem that potentially costs the tax payer $189,000.  I would say that is unbelievable. 

If maybe, possibly, this peculiar amnesia is true, then surely $189,000 could be better spent to fund research into this strange phenomenon of kids forgetting passwords...  I don't think we'll see that happen because this sudden loss of memory in our children does not exist - and we parents know it.

A petition was set up by a parent that gained over 360 signatures and was successful in swaying opinion that biometric facial recognition is a completely unnecessary and inappropriate technology to use with children.

Findbiometrics say on the failed programme-

"At a time when biometric technology is increasingly finding applications in schools – from deployments as innocuous as cafeteria lunch administration to more serious security systems – the EUSD fiasco signals how precarious this area can be, given the privacy and security concerns that often seem to come up with public biometric deployments, and parents’ particularly strong interest in protecting their kids."   

-  No sh*t Sherlock.

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.  

Legal advice for schools that feel the need to use children's biometric data

If UK schools feel the need to process children's biometric data they should take note of this very informative piece of legal advice from Browne Jacobson.  Schools cannot discriminate against pupils who are not participating in a biometric database and must offer an alternative.

My child has been home educated for the period of their high school education and recently entered back into mainstream education, now attending the local college to do AS levels.  The college botched an attempt to gain parental consent for a new biometric system, introduced September 2014 to make the college 'cashless'.  They swept the consent for biometrics into the medical and school trip consent.  Needless to say the college was informed how the consent process works after I did not sign the consent for anything.

My child can still eat as he is identified via his photograph on the school system.  We parents have to transfer money to the student account for him to pay for this.  We don't as...

• It is a hassle to transfer money - I do not need 'another' thing to do online
• I do not want a digital record to be held of his eating habits
• I am not certain where that information goes
• Food from the local sandwich shop is cheaper, fresher and it feeds the local economy

He, along with his friends, enjoys the fresh air of lunch time walking to the local sandwich shop to eat.  However, my child is still discriminated against in the college as he is unable to use the biometric vending machines (which in itself may not be a bad thing given the food contained).  I will be following this up with the college as a point.

Interestingly, through hearsay from students attending the college, the biometric system has been an epic fail with many students not participating.  Apparently the lunch sales have to dipped to only 11% of what it was previously, so much so that the lure of a mountain bike has been offer to those students buying a 'meal deal' with their fingerprint - their name goes into the draw for the bike.  Pavlovian?

I just wonder who is paying for this incentive to fingerprint the students?

Are parental concerns with fingerprint biometrics 'techno panic'

Photo courtesy of Berkshireeagle.com

As North Adams School in Massachusetts plans to use fingerprint biometrics to improve lunch line efficiency, some parents are understandably concerned about how using a biometric system erodes their children's privacy.  Most of the articles on North Adams School adopting biometrics seek to reassure parents and readers that its not a database of fingerprints but just a number string.  The reality is that that number string is the biometric identifier derived from the fingerprint and that personal biometric, digital identifier is capable of being transferred across databases.

Here in the UK personal biometric identification used in schools has the potential to be accessed by the UK Police or other agencies, without the knowledge of the child or the parent.  I'm not sure if this is also the case in Massachusetts but it would be a question I would ask if I were a parent there.

In a FindBiometrics article "Massachusetts Lunch Lines Go Biometric Despite Parental Concerns" they state that:

"The parental outrage revolves around worries that the biometric templates used to authorize the buying of food will lead to the storage of a child’s physical characteristics. This is a common fear in large scale deployments of biometric technology, but in this case it doesn’t hold up. identiMetrics fingerprint scanners don’t store full fingerprints"

Erm... it does store a child's physical characteristics in a digital format, otherwise it wouldn't be a biometric system.

The article then goes on to quote the International Biometrics and Identification Association calling the recent ban of biometrics in schools in Florida as "techno panic". Well I guess they would.  The industry have business to loose if all states decided to ban the unproportionate use of biometric technology for a faster moving lunch line or improved credit control.

Also with four other schools in the area rolling out biometrics the iBerkshire.com reports that:

"Parents are informed of how the technology works and to give them the option not to participate — both of which North Adams as done, although some parents are saying they should have been asked permission first, not after the fact."

This inadequate version of somehow gaining assumed consent from parents, and those that do not consent by having to opt out, failed miserably here in the UK.  As a consequence legislation was brought in to gain clear, informed consent from both parents, also if the child does not consent this overrides the parent's consent.  This legislation, contained in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, was brought about after privacy groups and parents lobbied parliament from 2006-2010 with the law being applicable from September 2013.

And yes, biometric authentication can be used to track your child.  A child's digital transactions can build up a highly personal profile in school of what they eat, read, attendance, movement around a campus, revealing a very personal footprint of how a child's life is lead in the education system.  Any system is able to do this I suppose, like a swipe card or pin, but because a child's biometrics are easier to use, i.e. you can't loose a finger, this type of authenticating seems the simplest most efficient option for schools, employing the technology for a whole range of purposes.  Put plainly, it is profiling - but at what cost to the child's privacy?

Children today will, in all probability, need to authenticate themselves biometrically in future for travel (as we do now) banking, access to state benefits, pension, purchasing food and national ID.  This is happening in other countries.

A child's biometric identity needs absolutely not be compromised.  The only way to do this it to limit a child's exposure to the technology - not to participate in such biometric systems for mundane purposes in schools.

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.

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.

Looking back 2013

Bio - body  metric - measure

"Once a child has touched a scanner they will be at the mercy of the matching algorithm for the rest of their lives."
Brian Drury, IT Security consultant

(Photo link)


The introduction of biometrics in society has rolled out more in 2013 than any other with smart phones using facial recognition and fingerprint biometrics for authentication, shops tracking consumers with facial recognition, police using CCTV and facial recognition, a US company using facial expressions of pupils to determine their reaction to lessons, the list could go on...

Notably in the UK now for every child's biometric, a school has to store a corresponding parental signature of consent.  This is required in law which became enforceable on 1st September 2013 - the first country globally to have parental consent in legislation for educational establishments to store and process a child's biometrics.

UK Police can potentially access school databases (see Q50 & 51) but a recent Freedom of Information request, sent in May 2013 to every police force in the UK, could not ascertain whether or not police have ever actually accessed a school biometric database - more in the New Year on those Freedom of Information request results.

I guess we'll never know if government authorities do access our children's biometrics.  Given the recent Snowdon revelations, why would we believe they would not access harvested biometric data from millions of children?

Maybe keeping our, and our children's, biometrics private, off institutional and corporate databases as much as we can, is prudent.  These are interesting times we are living in, where the free flow of data is great.  Information at the quickest touch of a button via the Internet.  Information is a tool.  Governments and institutions may be benign now (though some might debate that point) but this may not be so in the future and the highly personal level of information we willingly give now may come back to bite us in the future.
History, unfortunately, has a habit of repeating itself.