Breaking News | Forum | UK News | USA News | World News | Political News | Sci-Tech News | War & Terrorism News | Sports News | Multimedia | Set Homepage

Saturday, July 28th, 2007

Liberal Democrats

Lib Dem Shadow Minister for Schools Greg Mulholland leads a House of Commons adjournment debate on use of biometric data in schools.

Opening the debate, Lib Dem Shadow Minister for Schools, Greg Mulholland said:

“In this country, thousands of schools are collecting fingerprints or other forms of biometric data from pupils as young as three. They are collected for registration, the lending of library books and the administration of school dinners. Several enterprising companies contact schools directly to sell these packages and the benefits that they bring. The new Department has no idea in how many schools this is happening. Despite the fact that unofficial surveys would suggest that it is taking place in every local education authority area in the country, the government have no records of how many schools are collecting biometric data.”

“Yet a survey conducted by the campaigning organisation Leave them Kids Alone has estimated that 3,500 primary and secondary schools now use biometric data systems and that approximately 750,000 children have been fingerprinted by their schools. It is estimated that 20 new schools a week are being added to those figures. Therefore, the issue needs to be addressed.”

“One thing is certain: we may not know how many schools this is happening in, but we do know that parents are often not being asked for consent and in many cases are not even being informed. Some schools will send a letter home - some do so before the system is introduced, some afterwards - but there is no requirement to do that. There is real concern among parents, parent groups and civil liberties organisations, which, I am afraid, up to this point has been ignored by the government.”

Mr Mulholland welcomed the fact that the government had finally published guidance for schools on use of biometric data on the very day of his debate.

On the security of the data collected in schools, Mr Mulholland said:

“Independent technology experts have stated that in their opinion it is impossible to say that data will remain secure. Advances in technology mean that it is inaccurate to say that it will not be possible to reverse-engineer the data stored in order to obtain the original fingerprint.”

“There is also concern about how the data is stored. It is generally stored on small school networks or stand-alone PCs, with the most basic level of firewall protection and anti-theft protection, or it is held by the agencies who provide the technologies - and we are talking, of course, about an industry that is unregulated. Further, as Action on Rights for Children points out, schools are not secure places. Theft of school equipment is alarmingly frequent and IT equipment is a magnet for thieves.”

“Banks invest millions of pounds in constantly updating and adapting their security systems to prevent identity fraud, but how can schools be expected to do the same? However, unlike a bank personal identification number – PIN - biometric data cannot be changed in the event of theft or identity fraud, and a person’s biometric data remains the same for a lifetime. Therefore, once stolen, it is compromised forever.”

“How long data is stored is also an issue. Schools act independently. Some might destroy the data they hold as soon as the child leaves school, but there is nothing to stop them keeping the data for longer, or permanently, if they have sufficient storage space. Not only does that raise questions about whether the data could be used by organisations, including the police or security services, in later life, or indeed while the child is still at school, it raises further concerns about the security of the data and the chance that it might be compromised.”

Mr Mulholland concluded:

“The collection of biometric data by schools is not necessary. It is interesting to note that swipe cards are 100 per cent. accurate when passed over a reader, but biometric systems such as fingerprint scanners are only 93 per cent. accurate. So they are less accurate than swipe cards and considerably more expensive.”

“It raises many issues, including those of security, consent and information, as well as benefit, necessity and cost. I mean cost not only in monetary terms, but in the possible ramifications and consequences of the introduction of that practice. The government have been too slow to listen and too slow to act. They are finally engaging with the issue, but their response is still inadequate. It is not enough to say that parents should be consulted. They must be consulted, if biometric data, such as fingerprints, are to be taken from their children. Like a child’s safety on a school trip, the collection of a child’s fingerprints or other biometric data is enormously important, and should be treated with the same respect.”

“I have come to the conclusion that the costs of introducing that technology into our schools utterly outweigh any positive benefits that may ensue. The collection of biometric data in our schools is unnecessary, intrusive and insecure. A can of worms has been opened and, as yet, the government have failed adequately to close it. The situation is now a little clearer, but we want real clarity. The only way to achieve real clarity is for the government to say that schools must always ask parents for consent before taking biometric data from children.”

See More:Big Brother 

Have Your Say: Pupil fingerprinting in schools is unnecessary, intrusive and insecure
Please note, only selected comments will be published.

Or discuss this report in our new forums

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 28th, 2007 at 5:17 pm and is filed under Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative Energy Art BBC Big Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate Change Cover Up Cults Culture Database State David Hicks David Ray Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education EU False Flag FBI Fraud Free Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health News History ID Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spying Stephen Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony Blair Torture TV UK News UN USA News Video Voting Warfare White House Wolfowitz World News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version