4 ms·

This proposal may be problematic because they seem to want to tie it into other computer systems/databases (e.g. state and federal crime, immigration). There's

This proposal may be problematic because they seem to want to tie it into other computer systems/databases (e.g. state and federal crime, immigration). There's a lot of paranoia about new technology, but the biggest threat isn't strictly from the technology itself, but our use of the resulting data and how it is disseminated. For example fingerprints for lunch payments/library books isn't inherently problematic, it becomes problematic if the fingerprints are stored beyond the student attending the school or sent to others (who could store it indefinitely or misuse it).

advisedwang 8y ago
That's basically a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.
- AlexB138 8y ago
  And your comment presupposes that's not a valid argument. If you have a counter argument you should make it.
  - orwin 8y ago
    No easely accessible guns make suicide harder (the success rate of pill or wrist cutting is way lower than the guns) and make passion crimes less deadly. Without accounting misfire and/or lost bullets, crimes are deadlier with a gun than with a knife. That said, i don't really care if you are having a gun in your car or at home, or even carrying one with you if you have sufficient training, it's just for the sake of the argument.
- robbrown451 8y ago
  How about a "there are multiple factors at play, let's consider and prioritize all of them appropriately" argument?
candu 8y ago
Storing this data enables a wide range of easily-foreseeable negative consequences, and it sends a clear message that school administrations do not trust their students. In that light, we could very easily see the simple act of storing it in the first place as problematic; we could even see the act of thinking seriously about storing it as problematic. Taking your example, what message does that send to a kid if they need to be fingerprinted just to eat lunch? Sending that message is, IMHO, extremely problematic.
- bb88 8y ago
  > Taking your example, what message does that send to a kid if they need to be fingerprinted just to eat lunch? Sending that message is, IMHO, extremely problematic. Except that fingerprinting is being marketed to parents as a way to recover lost children [1]. And it's not the child's choice, per se, since they're a minor -- it's the parent's. So parents will probably have a different priority than privacy for their child. I get what you're saying, in that fingerprints are part of our privacy, and that they can be used against us in certain circumstances. But, my thinking these days goes to answering the question of whether we should keep fingerprints private, or should they be public? Anything we touch tends to leave a trail of oil which identifies us, which kind of makes that data public anyway. But nothing stops our friends or neighbors or store owners from dusting the things we touch to get our fingerprints and selling that data on to a third party, other than the hassle of it. There are industries that collect our personal data and sell it to third parties, but to my knowledge, there is nothing stopping people them from collecting and selling our fingerprints as well. With the OPM hack [2] (Of which I was a victim of) I tend to think we should use fingerprints less and less anyway, since it would be relatively trivial now to recreate my fingerprints and put them at a scene of a crime. So either we have more and more regulations around fingerprints to keep fingerprints secure (which the criminals wouldn't follow anyway). Or maybe we should open them for everyone, and restrict how they can be used for identity (in almost no circumstances), and destroy the inherent value in the use of a fingerprint. [1]: http://www.childidprogram.com/the-id-kit/how-fingerprints-find-a-child http://www.childidprogram.com/the-id-kit/how-fingerprints-fi... [2]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-to-do-with-a-million-stolen-fingerprints/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-to-do-with-a-milli...
- 8y ago
zepto 8y ago
This is just like the guns don’t kill people argument. Ironically, it’s worth pointing out that people with guns almost never kill people. But organizations with surveillance technology do tend to misuse the data.

advisedwang 8y ago

That's basically a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

AlexB138 8y ago
And your comment presupposes that's not a valid argument. If you have a counter argument you should make it.
- orwin 8y ago
  No easely accessible guns make suicide harder (the success rate of pill or wrist cutting is way lower than the guns) and make passion crimes less deadly. Without accounting misfire and/or lost bullets, crimes are deadlier with a gun than with a knife. That said, i don't really care if you are having a gun in your car or at home, or even carrying one with you if you have sufficient training, it's just for the sake of the argument.
robbrown451 8y ago
How about a "there are multiple factors at play, let's consider and prioritize all of them appropriately" argument?

candu 8y ago

Storing this data enables a wide range of easily-foreseeable negative consequences, and it sends a clear message that school administrations do not trust their students. In that light, we could very easily see the simple act of storing it in the first place as problematic; we could even see the act of thinking seriously about storing it as problematic. Taking your example, what message does that send to a kid if they need to be fingerprinted just to eat lunch? Sending that message is, IMHO, extremely problematic.

bb88 8y ago
> Taking your example, what message does that send to a kid if they need to be fingerprinted just to eat lunch? Sending that message is, IMHO, extremely problematic. Except that fingerprinting is being marketed to parents as a way to recover lost children [1]. And it's not the child's choice, per se, since they're a minor -- it's the parent's. So parents will probably have a different priority than privacy for their child. I get what you're saying, in that fingerprints are part of our privacy, and that they can be used against us in certain circumstances. But, my thinking these days goes to answering the question of whether we should keep fingerprints private, or should they be public? Anything we touch tends to leave a trail of oil which identifies us, which kind of makes that data public anyway. But nothing stops our friends or neighbors or store owners from dusting the things we touch to get our fingerprints and selling that data on to a third party, other than the hassle of it. There are industries that collect our personal data and sell it to third parties, but to my knowledge, there is nothing stopping people them from collecting and selling our fingerprints as well. With the OPM hack [2] (Of which I was a victim of) I tend to think we should use fingerprints less and less anyway, since it would be relatively trivial now to recreate my fingerprints and put them at a scene of a crime. So either we have more and more regulations around fingerprints to keep fingerprints secure (which the criminals wouldn't follow anyway). Or maybe we should open them for everyone, and restrict how they can be used for identity (in almost no circumstances), and destroy the inherent value in the use of a fingerprint. [1]: http://www.childidprogram.com/the-id-kit/how-fingerprints-find-a-child http://www.childidprogram.com/the-id-kit/how-fingerprints-fi... [2]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-to-do-with-a-million-stolen-fingerprints/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-to-do-with-a-milli...
8y ago

zepto 8y ago

This is just like the guns don’t kill people argument. Ironically, it’s worth pointing out that people with guns almost never kill people. But organizations with surveillance technology do tend to misuse the data.