Florida moves to ban use of biometrics in schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next statement made by Melody is quite concerning:

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

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

But if, at any time, the child— 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 year old exercises her legal right not to be fingerprinted

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

Well done Melody! :-)

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

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

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.

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.

What is hidden in our biometrics?

Dermatoglyphics Multiple Intelligence Test, DMIT - a way to tell a person's intelligence by their fingerprints.  Hogwash or truth?  Can fingerprints really reveal our intellectual strengths and weakness?

Parents in India seem to think so with the article 'How brainy is baby? Parents find out' appearing in The Times of India.  According to the article this emerging trend is appearing in Asia, US and Australia with over 2,000 tests a month being done.  Children as young as 9 months old can take the test with the vast majority of clients being under 9 years old.  This is what the article goes on to say:

"A DMIT report tells parents whether their child learns better by 'seeing, hearing or doing' (visual, auditory or kinesthetic learner), whether he has high or low inborn learning capacity (short-term memory ), how long it takes for his mind to process information and so on. This, coupled with the finding about his dominant type of intelligence (there are eight listed ones, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, naturalist, inter-personal and intrapersonal ) can help parents give their child a good "head start", say companies." 

One company cites the need for DMIT in that "12,000+ students commit sucides in India every year due to exam related stress.  Parental and peer pressure and prime causes for such high number of suicides" and that "DMIT can provide crucial inputs for students counseling and guidance" also stating "In recent years U.S., Japan and Taiwan have applied Dermatoglyphics to diagnose Down’s Syndrome, congenital disorders, genetic abnormalities, educational fields, human resources management, employee recruitment etc."

It is fair to say then, that our biometrics have the potential to give data about us that we cannot possibly imagine.  When children are encouraged willynilly to give up their biometrics for everyday mundane activity in schools, this DMIT analysis does show there is further potential to glean information from our biometrics - maybe today's children offering up their biometric data in schools should be mindful of this.  Yet more information about us, profiling, categorising with potential to judge.  

Are we being informed of what it is that is being collated about us?  Fingerprints for school meals?  Most probably benign... let's hope so.

Florida introduces three bills for biometrics in schools

After the appalling iris scanning of 750 Florida school children in May 2013, without their parents knowledge, to get on a school bus Senator Dorothy Hukill introduced two bills to the Florida Senate, SB232 and SB188 dealing with biometrics in schools.

SB232 would simply prohibit schools from taking and processing students biometrics whilst SB188 would allow schools or school districts to set policies on how biometric technology could be used.

“And the parents have to opt in, give permission for the information to be taken from their child,” Hukill said of SB188.

“Who would even think a school would take this kind of information from children?” Hukill said. “We've had children get on buses and go through lunch lines for years without taking their biometric information. Why do we need to do this? And if we are going to do this then why not have a policy in effect?”

Good questions indeed Senator Hukill!  

On 21st October 2013 Senator Jake Raburn introduced House Bill HB195 - 'Provides that students & parents have certain rights relating to submission of biometric information; requires school district that collects student biometric information to implement policies governing collection & use of information; requires security of information & notification if security is breached; provides penalties'  - which is a near replica of SB188.

It will be interesting to see the bills journey through the senate.  Here is a brief explanation of the difference between Senate Bills and House Bills.

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.

Really? 'Biometrics Help Teachers Track Students Every Move'

Biometrics Help Teachers Track Students' Every Move

Just look how invasive biometrics can be in the classroom with this article from Yahoo attractively entitled 'Biometrics Help Teachers Track Students' Every Move'.

[Title of article changed in the 24 hours of writing this article to 'Will Big Brother Be Watching Your Kids?' - lots more accurate, thank you.  Original title still in the URL.]

Is where we are heading in society, not just with education, but with all aspects of our life, advertising, interviews, shopping, etc?

If teachers need this level of aid to teach or improve their teaching they simply should get out of the profession.  This level of personal data should not be analysed with children nor anyone.  At what point as a society do we say that enough is enough and that there needs to be some privacy? ...but this is not the case.  Britain houses something like a quarter of the world's CCTV cameras, here we are surveilled by consent apparently.  Our crime rates are completely comparable to other western countries as is our conviction rate so why the intrusion by CCTV?  And not take some down?  Once surveillance systems are in place they tend not to be disabled, if anything they become more invasive as technology improves.

With facial recognition being used covertly, with the US state of Ohio justifying  "the installation without any prior warning or legal oversight of a facial recognition system using public data bases and CCTV, arguing that “every other state is doing so”, do we need to worry about the capabilities of the surveillance cameras on the street or in the school classrooms?  We are in a sad position to have to trust that more data is not being taken and gathered on us or our children than we believe.

The capability of technology is great, not always so great is the intent.

We are being normalised to accept this surveillance and it is happening first in our schools.  Get them while they're young...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St Ambrose Barlow RC High School 

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

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

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

We neither own the system nor have access to it. 

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

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

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

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

Infrared palm scanning Irish students for registration

A school in Ireland, Coláiste an Chraoibhin in Fermoy, is considering infrared palm scanning for their pupils in order to register them at school.  How widespread is this infrared palm scanning in Irish schools or schools in the UK?

Back in 2006, Amey & Fujitsu introduced infrared palm scanning to a Scottish primary school, Todholm Primary school.  However, infrared palm scanning technology never spread here in the UK and emerged in schools in the USA around 2011.  After extensive Googling (yes I know I shouldn't use it) I can see no companies here in the UK or Ireland selling infrared palm scanning technology for registration or otherwise.

However the various reporting in the press of Coláiste an Chraoibhin School considering infrared palm scans is ambiguous.  One report states that:

"Almost 100 schools around the country, including 12 in Cork, are already using swipe card technology to record pupil attendance.  However only six schools nationwide are using biometric scanning technology."

So only 6 schools use biometric scanning technolog... or do they? - this from the Head Teacher, Mr Healy:

"To be honest, I don't know what all the fuss is about. This is a system that is already widely used across the country. In fact one supplier I spoke to said he is working with more than 100 schools"

So who is supplying biometric palm scanners to 6 or is it 100 schools in Ireland?  Clearly (or unclearly in this case) a company or companies that decide to have little or no web presence about the fact they offer infrared palm scanning solutions for schools - strange? 

Will schools in the UK be offered infrared palm scanning technology too? And will infrared palm scanning be an easier sell  to schools and parents, now that parents and child consent is required in the UK, as a 'softer' biometric technology rather than harvesting a child's biometric fingerprint?

Gathering biometrics from the population whether it be fingerprint or palm vein scanning is still reaping incredibly personal data about a person.   With less data invasive methods around, using biometric technology in schools is completely unnecessary.  If the argument being used (which this is in this case) is that swipe cards have a cost to replace, then use a pin system or password system instead.  It could be argued that a swipe card's ability to be lost actually teaches a child to look after the card/identity and that there are consequences if carelessly loosing it.  

Mr Healy states that "there will be no data protection issues involved" and "says he's been told they [infrared palm scans] don't contravene data protection laws".  Mr Healy may well be right and that data gathering such personal information does indeed have the potential to be fine - but it also has the potential not to be fine if it falls in the wrong hands or abused.  

After recent news about Prism, our society does not have a great track record of honesty regarding data collection, keeping data safe and secure or using it for good.   Personally, I would refuse to use.