3 ms·

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

by 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...
sharcerer 8y ago
Another long-term negative consequence would be the kind of mindset/ thought process they'll develop as they grow up. or eg: right now there's lot of debate over use of computer vision, AI etc and Amazon,Google have already faced backlash. Google corrected their stance at least for the time-being. No such action at Amazon, also I never really got the impression that Amazon had a employee driven culture. Google much better at that. Coming back to the point, when these kids grow up to be 20-40 years old adult, they might not see the negative consequences of state-wide surveillance IF they didn't face any negative consequence/disadvantage due to cams in school. The reverse might also happen,i.e, they face negative consequence/disadvantage at school and so they are cautious about the tech when they grow up. Personally, as a 20 year old, I am in a dilemma. On one side, cameras, vision have a lot of security benefits etc. They seem to be inevitable. Bad actors are always there, it's about how the safeguards which are put in place. what happens to the data and who does what? That's the question. Maybe if there was some large-scale audit system by non-profits, citizen groups etc , it would be better.

by candu 8y ago

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...

sharcerer 8y ago

Another long-term negative consequence would be the kind of mindset/ thought process they'll develop as they grow up. or eg: right now there's lot of debate over use of computer vision, AI etc and Amazon,Google have already faced backlash. Google corrected their stance at least for the time-being. No such action at Amazon, also I never really got the impression that Amazon had a employee driven culture. Google much better at that. Coming back to the point, when these kids grow up to be 20-40 years old adult, they might not see the negative consequences of state-wide surveillance IF they didn't face any negative consequence/disadvantage due to cams in school. The reverse might also happen,i.e, they face negative consequence/disadvantage at school and so they are cautious about the tech when they grow up. Personally, as a 20 year old, I am in a dilemma. On one side, cameras, vision have a lot of security benefits etc. They seem to be inevitable. Bad actors are always there, it's about how the safeguards which are put in place. what happens to the data and who does what? That's the question. Maybe if there was some large-scale audit system by non-profits, citizen groups etc , it would be better.