MumsnetGuestPosts (MNHQ) Thu 09-Jan-14 13:53:14

Fingerprinting pupils in schools teaches children they have no right to privacy

According to new research by civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, 40% of schools are using biometric technology to track their pupils - and 31% of them did not consult parents before doing so.

Here, deputy director Emma Carr argues that schools should be much more transparent about the surveillance systems they use - and that they have a duty to educate their pupils about their right to privacy.

Read the post, and tell us what you think: were you aware that some schools are fingerprinting their pupils without parental consent - and if so, are you concerned?

Emma Carr

Deputy Director, Big Brother Watch

Posted on: Thu 09-Jan-14 13:53:14

(60 comments )

Lead photo

40% of schools are using biometric technology, according to Big Brother Watch

How would you feel if your child returned home from school and told you that they had just been fingerprinted?

If this has already happened in your family, you’re not alone. New research from Big Brother Watch has found that more than one million children, in approximately 40% of schools, have been fingerprinted in a single academic year - part of an increasing trend towards using biometric technology as a means of identification when buying school lunches, registering attendance or issuing library books.

So what’s the problem? Well, approximately 31% weren’t consulted or asked to give consent for this to happen to their child.

The new research follows the 2012 reportThe Class of 1984,which highlighted the fact that there are more than 100,000 CCTV cameras in Britain and that - shockingly - more than two hundred schools are using cameras inside bathrooms and changing rooms.

For some parents, the use of biometrics within schools will be a perfectly acceptable use of resources and technology - part of the trend towards the use of increasingly sophisticated technology in the classroom. Others, though, will be profoundly uncomfortable that their child has been asked to part with personal, identifiable, simply in order to ease the administrative process. Wouldn’t you like the opportunity to make the call?

Going to school should not mean that children are taught that they have no right to privacy - especially at a time when we are sharing more data about ourselves than ever before. On the contrary: schools arguably have a responsibility to fully explain issues like data protection, privacy, fraud and the use of biometrics as part of the education process.


Fingerprinting children and tracking their movements and activities might save some admin work - but the risk is that pupils begin to believe that it’s ‘normal’ to be constantly tracked. Going to school should not mean that children are taught that they have no right to privacy - especially at a time when we are sharing more data about ourselves than ever before. On the contrary: schools arguably have a responsibility to fully explain issues like data protection, privacy, fraud and the use of biometrics as part of the education process. Many schools, however, appear to be failing to fully educate pupils about these increasingly important topics.

Schools need to be transparent about what data they collect and how it is used, but for many schools this is far from standard practice. This research was carried out after a spike in complaints from concerned parents who had either been provided with a vague letter, or had received no information at all, about plans to fingerprint their child. Giving consent, for many, simply did not come into the equation. In some cases, those that protested, or questioned the motivation for using the technology received a rough ride from school administrators.

It is this confusion about what information parents should have received from school and whether consent should have been sought that provoked the Government to pass the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which came into effect in September 2013. This legislation has created an clear legal framework which states that parents and pupils have a legal guarantee that no fingerprints should be taken without the school gaining explicit consent (written from parents and oral from pupils) - and that an alternative must be made available if they did not wish to participate.

The full extent of school surveillance is far higher than most people would expect, and will come as a shock to many parents. Schools need to come clean about the surveillance systems they use - and local authorities need to be doing far more to reign in excessive surveillance in their areas, and to ensure that resources are not being diverted from more effective alternatives.

Parents will be rightly concerned to hear that so many schools are not seeking permission to fingerprint children, while pupils may not have been made aware they now have a legal right to use a system that doesn’t require a fingerprint to be taken. The Government was right to change the law - but, sadly, it looks as though it’s going to be up to parents to make sure the law is being followed.

By Emma Carr

Twitter: @bbw1984

DrNick Fri 10-Jan-14 22:02:08

BOLLOCKS

the fingerprint thing is nothing

DrNick Fri 10-Jan-14 22:02:36

you lot need to recognise how unintegrated education IT is

HSMMaCM Fri 10-Jan-14 22:06:33

DD pays for her lunches with her finger, but we were asked permission first.

TalkinPeace Fri 10-Jan-14 22:12:33

A really strong argument in favour of the finger system.
NO other pupil can see the balance on another's account
therefore those pupils whose accounts are replenished by FSM are not highlighted
they are in line with those whose accounts are replenished by trust fund

responsible with money
yeah - simple
I can log in and see whay my kids buy
I can stop their account
and for kids with dietary problems, it will not let them buy inappropriate foods

nanny state, or using technology for the good of all
I prefer the latter

PS
as a governor I've seen the fingerprint file - its a list of 11 digit numbers as per the post above
they are not pictures - as is done at the US border

DrNick Fri 10-Jan-14 22:13:50

the OP needs to find something really serious to worry about iMO

CalamitouslyWrong Fri 10-Jan-14 22:16:13

If I were going to be worrying about privacy and any kind of fingerprinting, I'd worry more about the US government having my family's than the kids' schools having theirs. They're much more likely to use it in some dubious way.

bruffin Fri 10-Jan-14 22:18:21

My dcs text me to put money on their thumb. They know the money isnt limitless. Ds also registers by his thumb in 6th form.

JimmyCorkhill Fri 10-Jan-14 23:28:55

^I can log in and see whay my kids buy
I can stop their account
and for kids with dietary problems, it will not let them buy inappropriate foods^
But this is what I think is bad - they are not learning any responsibility for themselves.

JimmyCorkhill Fri 10-Jan-14 23:30:39

Italics fail smile
I can log in and see whay my kids buy
I can stop their account
and for kids with dietary problems, it will not let them buy inappropriate foods
But this is what I think is bad - they are not learning any responsibility for themselves.

NumptyNameChange Sat 11-Jan-14 08:06:00

but in the same way as if they have ten pounds cash a week for dinner money and they spend it all on mon, tues, weds they will having nothing for thurs, fri if they use their weeks credit on account in three days the same applies. in reality if they have a weekly credit they are learning more control and responsibility than being handed two pound a day. and in real adult life they will have x amount a month go into their bank account and need to responsibly use it and measure it out rather than their bosses handing them some cash on a daily basis.

you can actually be more irresponsible with cash and get away with it - re: i give you two pound for lunch and you spend it on a giant bar of chocolate and a monster drink on the way to school - you might wish you had some money at lunchtime but hey you get another shot tomorrow and no one knowing that you did this today.

all money is virtual in reality - whether it's pieces of paper and coins or credits on a screen both are purely symbolic.

i personally would not want to do away with cash though as it would mean absolutely zero privacy in terms of what money you have, what you spend, where you are etc. cash allows you privacy in that it can't be tracked. i use cash quite a bit personally as i don't like every payment and management of my money being on record - rationally or not. i also believe in keeping a decent sum of cash around for emergencies. it only takes a massive bug in the system or power grid failure or something to leave electronic systems offline.

NumptyNameChange Sat 11-Jan-14 08:06:50

(i haven't gotten to the stage of hoarding food in a bunker yet mind wink )

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now