Biometric fingerprint readers ditched for hygiene reasons... to be replaced by contactless biometric systems?

On Twitter schools have been spotted ditching biometric fingerprint readers for contactless cards due to hygiene reasons, which completely makes sense as this was one of the issues raised initially over 15 years ago when fingerprint scanners started appearing in schools.  

Though some biometric suppliers have been keen to stress that sterilising fingers before using biometric scanners is good to keep children 'safe'.

So as good as it is to see fingerprint scanners be replaced by less personally intrusive methods it does open the way for a contactless biometric system, i.e. facial recognition, to replace the touch fingerprint pad.

Which seems to be, somewhat, what has happened here at a UTC school in Leeds, UK, where Years 10 (14/15 year old) and Year 12 (17/18 years old) students have started school after having been shut since mid March 2020.  

A combined facial recognition and thermal imaging system has been installed to check student's temperature to identify each student whose temperature is taken.  However it has to be said they have ditched their fingerprint scanners for contactless cards, which was used for building entry, class registration and lunch payment.  The newly installed facial recognition has not directly replaced, on first glances, the fingerprint system but it is still registering the students with their biometric data.

We have also installed a high spec thermal camera in the reception area. This camera uses facial recognition technology to enable unobtrusive thermal imaging and temperature measurements of students and staff. An alert is issued to the Principal if someone’s temperature is above a certain level.

Every school in England and Wales that wishes to process an under 18 year old's biometric data, including facial recognition, needs explicit written parental consent to do so and it is uncertain whether this particular UTC has done that.  When questioned specifically on whether they had gained parental consent, as per the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the UTC replied:

Albeit it this is a reply on Twitter (which now looks to be unavailable) but it is not glaringly obvious that the school is operating this biometric system in line with UK legislation specifically aimed at schools processing children's biometric data - The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  

The use of facial recognition in UK schools is also questionable under GDPR, the EU General Data Protection Regulations 2018.  Schools in France have been advised not to use facial recognition and a school in Sweden was fined for using the technology.  GDPR does not change at country borders or whether we are Brexiting so the use of facial recognition technology is certainly questionable in this UK school.

There are good reasons legislations are specifically put in place to protect children biometric data being unnecessarily processed and they should be adhered to.  

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?

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.

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." 

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.

Biometrics not so flavoursome for school catering

Over on What Do They Know, a UK website for Freedom of Information requests (FOIR), there have been some requests made to schools about biometric systems used.

Some interesting figures are emerging.  For example, Falmouth School in Cornwall has a biometric system for school meals, the take up after asking for parental consent is 34%.  Only 355 children are using the biometrics system out of a school role of 1044.

The school recently put a plea out to parents to use the biometric system: "Please could I ask as many students as possible to register to pay using the biometric system." 

Falmouth School's appeal to parents for consent to
 their children's biometrics used for cashless catering

Another school, Honiton Community College, has a biometric system where only 628 pupils and parents have consented to their biometrics being used - a 68% take up rate, with 203 not consenting, 22% .  As there are 926 students on their schools role, quite what the remaining the remaining 95 children are doing for lunch is not detailed in the Freedom of Information request reply from the college - maybe they are opting for packed lunch?

So why are schools buying identification systems for food that are only 34% - 68% effective, then having by law, in the recent Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to provide an alternative means of identifying oneself in order to access food - surely this is a waste of taxpayers hard earnt money?

Why don't kids use use money?  Children use money out of school... oh yes, according to schools, it encourages bullying apparently.  Does it really?

Are the Headteachers and Principles so incompetent that they cannot sort out bullying issues? - if there is really an issue here at all.  If a leader of a school has to resort to buying an inefficient technology in order to eliminate bullying in a lunch line should that Principle or Headteacher be in the job, as presumably they cannot sort out bullying elsewhere too?  Also is it not the duty of a healthy society to encourage children to know how to handle money, keep it safe, not steal other's money and behave responsibly around cash?

The argument for having biometric technology in schools is weakening.  Complaints need to to be made to schools Governors, who have a responsibility to spend the public's money wisely.  On the governments Audit Commission's website (Protecting the Public's Purse)  there is an booklet entitled - Fraud risks in schools advice for school governors where it states:

"School governors share a responsibility for protecting taxpayers’ money:  As a school governor you have a special additional role. As governors you are individually and collectively responsible for proper control of your school’s finances. The buck does not stop with the financial administrator."

Maybe, in these times of austerity, we need to start holding these governors to account, spending our money on biometric systems that are clearly not fit for purpose in a school environment.

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.

'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

Accountability for school implementing biometrics

A school in Salford, Manchester, UK, has recently implemented a fingerprint biometric system. 

The method by which the school has communicated with parents and how the system has been implemented has concerned one parent enough, after gaining some information via a Freedom of Information request, to set up a Facebook page detailing how the system is being introduced in the school with children and about biometric systems in schools in general. 

The forthcoming legislation, coming into force this September 2013, it seems, is providing a good and long needed neccessary platform to enable parents and the public to ensure schools act responsibly when using such biometric systems that process children's biometric data.

Current news from parents concerning biometric systems in schools are listed the social media links on this topic, on this page's right hand menu bar.