Employer is requiring biometric data for clocking on, can I refuse?

i would have cared if this thread appeared months ago, but since ive gone to the USA, my fingerprints are now probably in hundreds of different servers...

so id say, do it or quit your job...

there is really only two options, any whining or complaining would be pointless as im sure the law would 100% back this up... considering its applications, if used everywhere for anti-terrorism and such assorted stuff :D
 
@ OP

Maybe you could argue that with the possibility of a swine flu epidemic this winter then having the entire workforce all press the same thumb reader would help to facilitate transmission of the virus from person to person and therefore it shouldn't be implemented on health & safety grounds unless they also employed someone to wipe it clean. Perhaps extending this also to door handles etc..

Well it would be less retarded than any irrational fears about "Indians" storing your (insert buzz word) "biometric" (shock, horror) data....
 
platinum87 said:
i would have cared if this thread appeared months ago, but since ive gone to the USA, my fingerprints are now probably in hundreds of different servers...

so id say, do it or quit your job...

there is really only two options, any whining or complaining would be pointless as im sure the law would 100% back this up... considering its applications, if used everywhere for anti-terrorism and such assorted stuff :D
Click to expand...

Sadly this is true, But when I went to the states in 2001 (before 9-9 I might add) and didnt have to have a fingerprint scan, everybody I know calls me Naive, but why should everything we do be recorded? I would rather have more civil liberties at the rick of more of a chance of a terrorist attack. There is a nice, clever quote about civil liberties and government control, that I can not remember exactly but my brings the same point accross.

Maybe I am Naive, but I would rather die a trusting, welcoming person, than be forever cynical of every darki skinned person that I come accross on the tube, it has worked for me so far.
 
If its stored correctly theres no way to really reverse engineer the biometric data stored to recreate teh finger print - only the sloppiest of programmers would have it setup this way (i.e. the ones the gov. hires).

The proper way would be similiar to password hashes where the data stored is a checksum that would match against the original input (and a few other random inputs but the probability of that happening is extremely small).

The question you should be asking is how the data is stored.

EDIT: haven't read the whole thread so this might be reposting info already brought up
 
Last edited:
we had to have all of our fingerprints taken for the school canteen 4 years ago, we weren't given the option of opting out, it caused a lot of problems as the school hadn't asked for parental permission.
 
Skyfall said:
Well it's pretty important when you're running a company.

I'm assuming you didn't literally mean everything...
Click to expand...

Of course not, I meant an ordinary civilian going about his business.

But, talking about businesses, their interest is purely economical, so the tax man does that, unless they lobby certain laws?

The thing is living in London (and I suppose every other major city in te UK) the amount CCTVs do scare me a bit, even though they are meant for good, I just don't feel comfortable with it
 
Energize said:
If your fingerprint is on a database it allows someone to easily frame you etc, eg government accesses private databases under new legislation, your fingerprint is on a murder weapon and then matches up against your profile. I simply wouldn't want my fingerprint on a database because of the mere possiblity that I may actually commit a crime in the future, nevermind getting wrongfully caught up in an investigation or being framed.
Click to expand...

Sorry you seem to have missed what I was saying: if somebody was to have that data - they could do nothing with it. It is NOT your fingerprint in a traditional sense. It is a series of readings from various parts of your print - that in no way can be used to generate your fingerprint.

If they were storing his actual fingerprint, then yes, I would agree. But they are not. They are storing some simple numerical data that can be used to match his user id with his fingerprint. It can not be used for any other purpose.
 
slylittlefox said:
If they were storing his actual fingerprint, then yes, I would agree. But they are not. They are storing some simple numerical data that can be used to match his user id with his fingerprint. It can not be used for any other purpose.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter in what form they are storing it, if they scanned his fingerprint it would generate that same data, matching against his entry on the database, thus revealing the persons identify.

Say someone has their fingerprint recorded at their workplace, then someone stabs someone with a knife that person has used, their fingerprint is going to be on that knife and when it's analysed they will be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
It doesn't matter in what form they are storing it, if they scanned his fingerprint it would generate that same data, matching against his entry on the database, thus revealing the persons identify.

Say someone has their fingerprint recorded at their workplace, then someone stabs someone with a knife that person has used, their fingerprint is going to be on that knife and when it's analysed they will be arrested.
Click to expand...

"thus revealing his identity" to.... let them know how many hours to pay him for lol

The knife thing is funny, you think the police might check prints without the biometric data already in place ? :D

I think op sleeps with tin foil hat on ;)
 
Energize said:
It doesn't matter in what form they are storing it, if they scanned his fingerprint it would generate that same data, matching against his entry on the database, thus revealing the persons identify.

Say someone has their fingerprint recorded at their workplace, then someone stabs someone with a knife that person has used, their fingerprint is going to be on that knife and when it's analysed they will be arrested.
Click to expand...


if that were actually possible, it would have already happened.
 
Do these fingerprint readers actually work now?

The last one I tried would only work if your finger was completely clean and dry - not always practical in a warehouse / industrial situation.
 
Energize said:
It doesn't matter in what form they are storing it, if they scanned his fingerprint it would generate that same data, matching against his entry on the database, thus revealing the persons identify.

Say someone has their fingerprint recorded at their workplace, then someone stabs someone with a knife that person has used, their fingerprint is going to be on that knife and when it's analysed they will be arrested.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous example.
 
Flukester said:
The knife thing is funny, you think the police might check prints without the biometric data already in place ? :D
Click to expand...

I can't decipher that.

james.miller said:
if that were actually possible, it would have already happened.
Click to expand...

It has been demonstrated before, it hasn't happened in real life forensics yet because the government don't have access to private databases. Scanning a fingerprint replica is no different to scanning the original finger, so will match up against someones profile.

Basher said:
What a ridiculous example.
Click to expand...

Hey if you can't refute it...
 
Last edited:
djmc0 said:
Sadly this is true, But when I went to the states in 2001 (before 9-9 I might add) and didnt have to have a fingerprint scan, everybody I know calls me Naive, but why should everything we do be recorded? I would rather have more civil liberties at the rick of more of a chance of a terrorist attack. There is a nice, clever quote about civil liberties and government control, that I can not remember exactly but my brings the same point accross.

Maybe I am Naive, but I would rather die a trusting, welcoming person, than be forever cynical of every darki skinned person that I come accross on the tube, it has worked for me so far.
Click to expand...

i'd like to add that the only reason i had anything against giving bio-data was because it would be much harder to track me if i had commited a crime, and managed to leave fingerprints through stupidity.

what im trying to say is the whole "if you've got nothing to hide, than whats the problem?" is what i will believe.
I cannot think another reason, except what ive said above to object to what people would end up saying is police-state policy.
 
Basher said:
Where?
Click to expand...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,13730,00.asp

Matsumoto has also demonstrated that one can capture a third party's fingerprint (perhaps from a drinking glass or other hard surface), make a series of molds by etching a standard epoxy-glass printed circuit board (the thickness of the copper is a good match for the depth of a typical fingerprint), and stamp out dozens of replicas of the victim's finger.
Click to expand...

If he did it 7 years ago, I would imagine the police today can do it.
 
dowie said:
@ OP

Maybe you could argue that with the possibility of a swine flu epidemic this winter then having the entire workforce all press the same thumb reader would help to facilitate transmission of the virus from person to person and therefore it shouldn't be implemented on health & safety grounds unless they also employed someone to wipe it clean. Perhaps extending this also to door handles etc..

Well it would be less retarded than any irrational fears about "Indians" storing your (insert buzz word) "biometric" (shock, horror) data....
Click to expand...

Yawn...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom