MASS FINGER PRINTING OF UK PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN

PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL

MEDIA RELEASE

PRIVACY WATCHDOG CONDEMNS MASS FINGER PRINTING OF UK PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Privacy International calls for prohibition of child finger printing and urges Parliamentary inquiry into "unofficial endorsement" by the Information Commissioner

22nd July 2002

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The global human rights watchdog Privacy International (PI) has warned that tens of thousands of UK school children are being finger printed by schools, often without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

The electronic finger printing is being conducted as part of a cost cutting "automation" of school libraries. Privacy International has condemned the procedure, branding it "dangerous, illegal and unnecessary", and has called for a prohibition of the technology in schools.

As many as 200,000 primary and high school children from the age of seven have already been finger printed. The vendor estimates that at least 350 users have installed the system, including Kenton School, Queens Park County Primary School, St Annes (Stanley) CE School, Fryern Junior School, St Leonards RC Comprehensive School and Radyr Comprehensive School.

The technology being used on British children is similar to the identification systems used in US prisons and for the German military. It is being used in UK schools - sometimes in conjunction with digitised photographs - to replace library cards and to increase efficiency of library management. Each child is required to place a thumb onto an electronic scanner, and the identity of the print is then stored in a computer.

Privacy International says the practice "de-humanises our children and degrades their human rights", and has called for the unconditional withdrawal of the technology from schools. PI's director, Simon Davies, said "the use of such systems will have the effect of de-sensitising people to more comprehensive privacy invasion later in life".

"Such a process has the effect of softening children up for such initiatives as ID cards and DNA testing", commented Mr Davies. "It's clearly a case of 'get them while they're young' They are seen as a soft target for this technology".

Privacy International, the members of which include many of the world's privacy and data protection experts, also strongly criticised the involvement of the office of the Information Commissioner, the body responsible for the protection of information privacy in Britain. In a letter (dated 4th July 2001) to the system vendor, Micro Librarian Systems (MLS), the Commission's compliance officer, Robert Mechan, praised the use of the technology in schools, arguing that finger printing "aids compliance with the Data Protection Act".

In subsequent media coverage, the Commission was reported as wanting to "encourage" the use of finger printing in schools.

"This is a bleak moment for privacy in Britain", said Simon Davies. "The Commissioner's office has damaged privacy and human rights, and has brought disrepute to its role".

"I am appalled that the Commissioner would support a situation where innocent and impressionable young children are obliged to yield their finger prints even before they have reached an age of discretion on such matters".

"The Department for Education and Skills is equally culpable in this matter. I am staggered that the department could have allowed this practice to spread without consultation with parents or children", said Mr Davies.

The practice came to light after Privacy International and the children's rights group "Action on Rights for Children in Education" (ARCH) received a complaint from the mother of a child attending Sacred Heart School in Ruislip, London. The child had been fingerprinted without the parents' knowledge or consent. They have subsequently demanded the removal of the prints from the library computer system.

The Information Commissioner's support for finger printing was given despite its stated view that it was "theoretically" possible to use the prints for law enforcement purposes

Privacy International has called on the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Administration Select Committee to conduct an inquiry into the dealings between the Information Commissioner's office and private companies.

"The Commission's letter and comments to the media have been interpreted - and were intended - as a clear endorsement", said Mr Davies. "This practice occurs all too often and leads to significant problems for genuine privacy watchdogs who, following more careful analysis, subsequently identify shortcomings in these products", said Mr Davies.

Privacy International has lodged a request under the Open Government code for all correspondence between the Commissioner's office and technology vendors marketing such equipment for the use of young people. It has also lodged a request with the Department for Education and Skills for internal documents and correspondence.

"The Commissioner's Office must in the future publish its correspondence with such companies, together with a detailed explanation of its view." He added.

Privacy International warned that the practice of finger printing for the purpose of library cards was in clear violation of the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. "The law states that privacy invasion must be proportionate to the threat. A few lost library cards do not warrant mass finger printing" said Mr Davies.

It is also likely that the practice breaches Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that "no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy..."

The potential for expansion of the finger printing system to other purposes is very real, added Mr Davies. In an interview with the publication "Managing Schools Today" in September 2000, Lynn Stevens, Customers Services Manager of MLS commented, "you may ask, why stop with library systems, when schools have so many concerns with registration, attendance, and security? I assure you, we are way ahead of you. Watch this space..." (http://www.microlib.co.uk/images/events/revp2.jpg)

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

NOTES TO EDITORS

- The website of MLS can be found at http://www.microlib.co.uk/. Copies of all correspondence and details of the technology, together with the identity of schools using the system, are located on that site.

- Privacy International (PI) is a human rights group formed in 1990 as a watchdog on surveillance by governments and corporations. PI is based in London, and has an office in Washington, D.C. Together with members in 40 countries, PI has conducted campaigns throughout the world on issues ranging from wiretapping and national security activities, to ID cards, video surveillance, data matching, police information systems, and medical privacy, and has worked with a wide range of parliamentary and inter-governmental organisations such as the European Parliament, the House of Lords and UNESCO.

- PI's website is www.privacyinternational.org


research material

  



Back to the European Continent Menu
Back to News Archive Menu




Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.


FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

United States Code: Title 17, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.