Face scanners to be trialled in schools from next week.

[untethered]

I can see very little a school could practically do with biometrics that it couldn't do with a photo ID card with a barcode on it.

Yes, the children would have to look after their cards, but that would teach them responsibility and not be a huge problem in itself.

Ditto having to manage lunch money. A practical and educational task that teaches arithmetic and responsibility.

Bully Brown stole your lunch money? Phone the police.

 

[_angel_]

I can't see any logical reason for this to be necessary in a school!

 

[Azrael]

The problem with all the privacy movements is that there's no clear solution being proposed. So I'll have a go.

We need a property law to be passed stating what should be obvious: that every person owns their biometric details. Barring criminal investigations, such details should not be taken without express consent, and no disability should arise from refusing consent. Suitably hefty gaol time should be imposed for ignoring this.

 

[DotCommunist]

The problem with all the privacy movements is that there's no clear solution being proposed. So I'll have a go.

We need a property law to be passed stating what should be obvious: that every person owns their biometric details. Barring criminal investigations, such details should not be taken without express consent, and no disability should arise from refusing consent. Suitably hefty gaol time should be imposed for ignoring this.

not just a law, an addendum to the human rights act. DNA/biometrics as proprietary to the individual. The only time such information is allowed to be kept by state or commercial entities is upon conviction for a crime where relevant or when the individual wishes to trade such details and is paid to do so.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I can't see any logical reason for this to be necessary in a school!

Depends whose logic you're talking about

 

[Azrael]

not just a law, an addendum to the human rights act. DNA/biometrics as proprietary to the individual. The only time such information is allowed to be kept by state or commercial entities is upon conviction for a crime where relevant or when the individual wishes to trade such details and is paid to do so.

I'd happily see the Human Rights Act and the Strasbourg court removed from English law, but I'd want see such a provision appear in a proper bill of rights.

 

[moon23]

i take your point that much of the privacy movement is defined in the negative like ORG do we need to talk about our digital rights in the information age

 

[Azrael]

i take your point that much of the privacy movement is defined in the negative like ORG do we need to talk about our digital rights in the information age

The whole civil liberties movement is defined by the negative. All Liberty ever say is what they're against, and they usually do that with timidity.

Problem is, it's much easier to be against things than for things. It's fashionable to take slogans over details. When I challenge Liberty types to support a maximum of 24 hours without charge, I got a load of hand-wringing evasion about "proportionality" and "being seen as moderate". When I bring up unanimous jury verdicts, I get blank stares.

If Liberty and their allies actually took the offensive they might get somewhere. As it is we get a lot of vague platitudes that aren't worth the soundbites they're delivered in.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

and this

http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/Risk.html

Thanks a lot for those 2 posts BM.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Discounting all the crazy frothing from privacy fetishists, there are two big questions about biometrics in schools. First: it's doubtful whether the benefits (cashless transactions, anonymity for freemealers etc) outweight the costs, which are a minimum of £25k per school. It's only in BSF programmes that crap value like that gioes unnoticed.

Secondly, councils are already joining up their RfID smartcard schemes for concessionary travel and leisure entitlement. Schoolchildren are major users of both of these, and it's pretty straightforward to extend these cards into cashless catering, library services and access management for schools. Smartcard schemes are slightly more expensive than biometric ones, but if the cards are multifunctional then the costs make more sense.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Discounting all the crazy frothing from privacy fetishists...

It aint privacy fetishm in most cases, just distrust of authority monitoring increasing aspects of our lives.

People who want to make money out of face scanning and fingerprinting kids are the real frothers.

A state that plans to track as many details of our lives as they can are the real control freak fetishists.

 

[jayeola]

We already have face scanners. They're called people. Amazingly, these 'people' can look at a pupil's face and immediately match it to an image in their memory banks, and recall the name of the student. Wonderful what they can do these days!

yes, but the problem is with people is that you have to pay them. Also they generally tend to tell the /truth/.

 

[SpookyFrank]

yes, but the problem is with people is that you have to pay them. Also they generally tend to tell the /truth/.

And people cannot be depended on to willingly hand over the information stored in their brains to any tinpot authority figure with a hard on for spying on people.

 

[DotCommunist]

Discounting all the crazy frothing from privacy fetishists, there are two big questions about biometrics in schools. First: it's doubtful whether the benefits (cashless transactions, anonymity for freemealers etc) outweight the costs, which are a minimum of £25k per school. It's only in BSF programmes that crap value like that gioes unnoticed.

Secondly, councils are already joining up their RfID smartcard schemes for concessionary travel and leisure entitlement. Schoolchildren are major users of both of these, and it's pretty straightforward to extend these cards into cashless catering, library services and access management for schools. Smartcard schemes are slightly more expensive than biometric ones, but if the cards are multifunctional then the costs make more sense.

crazy frothing from privacy fetishists might save your grandchildrens dna from being pirated for all sorts of reasons.

I've told you before, you show a worrying level of trust in authority.

 

[Azrael]

Discounting all the crazy frothing from privacy fetishists ...

I'd rather be a "privacy fetishist" than sub to the state. Any day.

 

[moon23]

Discounting all the crazy frothing from privacy fetishists, there are two big questions about biometrics in schools. First: it's doubtful whether the benefits (cashless transactions, anonymity for freemealers etc) outweight the costs, which are a minimum of £25k per school. It's only in BSF programmes that crap value like that gioes unnoticed.

Secondly, councils are already joining up their RfID smartcard schemes for concessionary travel and leisure entitlement. Schoolchildren are major users of both of these, and it's pretty straightforward to extend these cards into cashless catering, library services and access management for schools. Smartcard schemes are slightly more expensive than biometric ones, but if the cards are multifunctional then the costs make more sense.

The Crazy people are the ones that are so paranoid they think there is a need for facial biometric systems in schools.

 

[moon23]

The problem with all the privacy movements is that there's no clear solution being proposed. So I'll have a go.

We need a property law to be passed stating what should be obvious: that every person owns their biometric details. Barring criminal investigations, such details should not be taken without express consent, and no disability should arise from refusing consent. Suitably hefty gaol time should be imposed for ignoring this.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy07/justice-bill-of-rights-consultation.pdf

This Letter from Liberty explains their position with regard to proposals for a Bill of Rights. It goes some way to explain the problems with proposing a new system.

Personaly I think the time is right for one of the opposition parties to come forward with a positive set of rights that would cope better with the digitial age. Nick Clegg has just created a privacy commision with some big hitters in the area involved so maybe that will help set the agenda.

I agree with you that we should own our biometric information.

 

[butchersapron]

Are you a lib-dem member? Supporter?

 

[moon23]

Are you a lib-dem member? Supporter?

Not that it makes any differeance but no i'm not although I agree with them the most out of the three major parties.

 

[butchersapron]

The NO2ID netweok is heavily lib dem run isn't it?

 

[moon23]

The NO2ID netweok is heavily lib dem run isn't it?

no it's not run by Lib dems, there are of course a fair few lib dems invovled but it's a cross-party campaign.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, seems to be run on the ground by lib-dems.

 

[butchersapron]

Any non lib dem local groups here want to make me eat my words on live internet?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Any non lib dem local groups here want to make me eat my words on live internet?

My local co-ordinator is a Libdem and he happens to be very good at what he does. The core around him include a Green (me), a non aligned libertarian, student activists and some Solfed and AF blokes.

I think that is fairly typical - the LDs have a strong-ish hand i dont run the show in any regard. The campaign overall is a broad church, and it needs to be.

 

[moon23]

Any non lib dem local groups here want to make me eat my words on live internet?

I think lots of groups have lib-dems involved but also a real mix of backgrounds as people realise the need to work together on this one. I know a group run by a tory and another run by a socialist party guy most groups i think are not run by party political people at least as far as my limited experience goes

 

[moon23]

I complained to the school in question and they informed me no decision had been made as to whether to keep the equipment after the trial

 

[Azrael]

This Letter from Liberty explains their position with regard to proposals for a Bill of Rights. It goes some way to explain the problems with proposing a new system.

That's just the sort of empty preaching I've come to expect from Liberty. The content of a bill of rights is everything: just witness the uselessness of the Soviet Union's bill of rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man in practise.

This bit sums up their left-wing prejudices:-

There has also been a worrying trend to refer to a new Bill of Rights as protecting not human rights but citizen’s rights, defining rights as something you have by virtue of carrying a British passport not by virtue of being human.

Which is complete rot: the US Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens (it says "people", not "citizens"). A country-specific bill of rights just acknowledges that culture is diverse. "Human rights" codes must be vague, and will never protect common law rights such as trial by jury.

The bits Liberty do propose -- "more restrictive limitations on rights" and "a stand-alone right against discrimination" -- are vague and worrying. The Canadian "right against discrimination" has been used to attack free speech and gag people for life. Rights must be absolute, or else they're not rights.

People don't support the Human Rights Act because it often protects criminals. (Absurdly giving convicts the right to vote.) Far from damaging a "consensus" by opposing it, suggesting an alternative with trial by jury, unrestricted free speech, and so on could get the public on side.

People can't rally around platitudes.

 

[moon23]

That's just the sort of empty preaching I've come to expect from Liberty. The content of a bill of rights is everything: just witness the uselessness of the Soviet Union's bill of rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man in practise.

This bit sums up their left-wing prejudices:-

There has also been a worrying trend to refer to a new Bill of Rights as protecting not human rights but citizen’s rights, defining rights as something you have by virtue of carrying a British passport not by virtue of being human.

Which is complete rot: the US Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens (it says "people", not "citizens"). A country-specific bill of rights just acknowledges that culture is diverse. "Human rights" codes must be vague, and will never protect common law rights such as trial by jury.

The bits Liberty do propose -- "more restrictive limitations on rights" and "a stand-alone right against discrimination" -- are vague and worrying. The Canadian "right against discrimination" has been used to attack free speech and gag people for life. Rights must be absolute, or else they're not rights.

People don't support the Human Rights Act because it often protects criminals. (Absurdly giving convicts the right to vote.) Far from damaging a "consensus" by opposing it, suggesting an alternative with trial by jury, unrestricted free speech, and so on could get the public on side.

People can't rally around platitudes.

Yes to some extent I agree with you. I guess what Liberty might be strategically thinking is that now is not the time for a Bill of Rights, as the Government would use it as an excuse to scrap even more of our existing rights.

I think they are right to make the point of how rights need to be universal in making the distinction between citizen and human.

If they were to adopt your view they would at least be attempting to set the agenda a little more rather than react to it. I suspect their reactive nature is a product of our common law system whereby that which isn’t outlawed is permitted. Perhaps this is a preferable way of doing things, as the system develops over time gradually.. As you point out there have been some very bad bill of rights that try to completely invent a new system of rights overnight.

I’m not decided either way and think there are pluses and minuses to both approaches.

 

[Azrael]

I suspect their reactive nature is a product of our common law system whereby that which isn’t outlawed is permitted. Perhaps this is a preferable way of doing things, as the system develops over time gradually.

Codifying trial by jury, the right to silence, and double jeopardy would be entirely in the spirit of the common law. This "anything that isn't forbidden is allowed" theory is wrongly used to claim a bill of rights is incompatible with the common law. Not so: the Bill of Rights Act was passed in 1689. A bill of rights just prevents the state removing certain rights; it doesn't shift our whole legal philosophy. (The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution upholds this ancient common law principle.)

No, Liberty is deliberately vague because they haven't the stomach to defend the rights of nasty people. The ACLU regularly defend the First Amendment rights of the KKK, homophobic Christians, and other pondlife. Liberty, by contrast, are idealists, and balk at hard choices absolute rights present us with. But conditional rights will be easily dismissed by governments. Liberty need to learn that perfection isn't an option.

A specific rights code can apply to anyone in your jurisdiction; what Liberty want is quite different, a one-size-fits-all international code. Their claim that the alternative is rights for British citizens only is both dishonest and false.

 

[moon23]

The Amercian civil liberties groups are coming from a very different political background where it’s politically easier to defend the rights of ‘nasty people’ as you put it. Liberty tries to tread a fine line between promoting the cause of rights and trying to alter public perception away from the notion that the Human Rights Act etc helps criminals.

The American civil liberties group don’t have the same domestic political difficulties in managing public perception of civil liberties and rights, simply because they are already protected and enshrined within the constitution, that holds it’s own uniquely American political influence.

Ultimately I think Libery would like to push for a stronger bill of rights, but I think they are right that in the current climate it would result in a curtailing rather than strenghting of rights.

If the Lib Dems and Conservatives start putting forward a more positive message on civil liberties, which they may be starting to then the conditions of a more positive attempt to create a stronger legislative framework may be met.