Slashdot Mirror
Biometrics in the Workplace
ryth writes "The Globe and Mail reports that McDonald's Restaurants and a few other companies in Canada have introduced palm-scanning technologies for employees. Workers are now expected to 'sign' in and out using their palm prints to record the exact time of arrival and the identity of the employee. Quoted in the article Jorn Nordmann, president of S.M. Products, was blunt about why he installed a hand scanner at his fish-processing plant in Delta, B.C. 'If you want to control a whole bunch of people, it's the only way to go.' It seems that some of the most underpaid and undervalued workers are starting to be treated no better than the animals they are frying up." Except for the frying part.
that people wash their hands before coming to work, because if everyone is putting their hand on the scanner, there could definitely be some health issues.
Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
Check me if I'm wrong Sammy, but I don't see how making employees sign in and out is all that terrible. Would it make people feel better if these employees pushed a button to sign in instead of having their palms scanned?
I'm not sure what issue taken with this is. Everyone who works a regular job is expected to show up on time and stay the duration of the day. Many jobs have some kind of time card system in place to help monitor this. That the system is more automated and exact would only be of concern to those who wish to cheat the system.
I work for a public utility. We had the hand punch system years ago. ( I always threatened to make a rubber hand, but never got around to it. ) Now we have the finger print reader instead. Overall, it tends to help both sides, since employees can often prove they were on site even if their supervisors weren't sure.
As a side note, biometric data can leak. Our finger print database is intentionally stored at a slightly lower resolution than the federal standard. The reason is that if we kept government quality information, we'd be required to surrender a copy of that information to the government. Now that's scary.
We installed a fingerscanning device a couple of years ago for signing in and out of work. The system works by allowing a person to be late at for work or going out early for up to 7 hours per month. After that, we penalize their salary for every extra minute after the 7 hours. Since then, we have covered the cost of the devices from all the salary penalities.
I've peripherally dealt with a few biometric identification systems deployments, and there are three major factors to consider:
-False positives (%)
-False negatives (%)
-Acceptance
The first two are objectively measurable over time. The latter covers peoples' reluctance to, say, put a DNA probe in their mouth, or put their eye to a retinal scanner for fear of catching pinkeye, or whatnot.
Biometrics themselves can be used to _identify_ someone, but relying on them as a catch-all solution to _authenticate_ is lame (authentication is performed by a combination of what you know, what you have, or what you are--think ATM card + PIN code.) Biometric systems are, under certain circumstances, a good complement to another ID mechanism, no different, for example, than using a GSM card for your mobile phone.
That said, I don't like biometric systems for something like timesheet checking. Aside from the fact that it's undignified and ham-handed (looks great on powerpoint!) there is the danger of non-repudiation in the case of a false positive. Most technical types understand this concet, but do you really think your average manager will believe Joe Frycook that he was present, if for some reason the handprint scanner had a glitch?
The other thing I take issue with is the possibility of a leak or misuse of sensitive data. A time card or ID is a physical object, usually limited to a specific use. However, if an employer has, say, a perfect thumbprint scan of mine, what's stopping him from sharing it? From using it in other, less legitimate areas (hiring a private security firm to check my laptop to see if I'm letting my girlfriend use it, whatever.) Sound paranoid?
It bugs me to see responses along the lines of "if you've nothing to hide, why are you concerned?" I'm concerned because, first, I'm a bit of a naive idealist and believe that people should be treated like human beings, not innately distrusted. And second, I've seen some fairly catastrophic examples of what can go wrong with any technology.
That said, there's a sociological theory that every human being has an innate tendency to want to sabotage authority in some small way--riding the bus without a ticket, cheating on their taxes, etc. My own insignificant little tactics involve trying to make factor #3, acceptance, lower for biometric ID systems--sneeze on eyeball scanners, smear boogers on hand readers, stick gum on camera lenses, whatever.
A few years ago, some German state had to hire private security guards to watch speed cameras, because the locals were taking shotguns to 'em. Cost them a lot of money, and sent a bit of a signal. I'm no anarchist, but occasionally the yay-biometrics mob could use a bit of the same medicine.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
IIRC, a law was recently passed which allows the FBI to collect a business' records without a subpeona. Which means that if your employer has your fingerprints, so does the FBI.
Someone could very easily lose their anonymity by simply working for the wrong employer. The Burlington Northern example is a case in point - IIRC, employees were forced to undergo mandatory genetic testing; those with a genetic tendency toward carpal tunnel syndrome were fired. Now the FBI has access to the genetic information for every one of BN's employees who was tested.
To be honest, the confidentiality promises a company makes mean nothing. Every company has a disclaimer stating that they will divulge information to comply with law enforcement and some (such as Ebay) make it a point to market this service to law enforcement.
Our lives are no longer private. If it is in a company database somewhere, the FBI now has access to it. The only safe option is to not turn over information you don't want the government to have to anyone, for any reason.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Don't be so quick to jump the gun on this one. Expecting people to be honest is somehow less than human? What about the honest guys who see everyone else ripping off the system, while he has a clear conscience? This will only validate those of us in society who play by the rules, and hopefully stop those who do break the rules. The only problem I would have with such a system would be if it linked up to government databases, or something like that. I would not be surprised given "security" companies' stances lately of profits over privacy. This practice would also, inadvertantly, be able to defeat fraud by management, like cutting people's hours. Most of the time, technology should not be needed, because all you need to do is have communication in place between all members of management. Example "why is Joe-Bob still clocked in?" "he shouldn't be, he left at noon".
I hate sigs.
The issue with swipe cards, that palm scanners eliminates, is that people often find ways to cheat the system. Certain individuals will get their friends to swipe or clock them in before their arrival at work. This was a very common problem with time clocks where someone would be late for work and they would call and have a coworker clock them in on-time even though the person didn't actually show up for work until an hour later. That's theft. This system prevents that possibillity as they cannot easily fake the palm scan. This saves the company a lot of money that it would otherwise be defrauded of.
I am aware of a very large produce packing company in south Florida that installed a similar system several years ago for tracking employee hours for the mostly migrant pickers and packagers. Prior to this system it was not uncommon for a quarter of the staff to not show up for work at all yet, still collect a paycheck for a full week's work. The companies facilities are very low tech overall, due to the nature of their business so, it was very surprising to see such a high tech time clock there.
In this particular case they used a number of hand scanners that measured the geometry of the persons hand for biometric identification. The company also found that the process of clocking in and out was much faster with this system as it illiminated the search for the time card on the wall and the examination of the timecard after it was punched. With the hand scanner the worker simply placed their hand on the scanner and when the light turned green it meant that they had successfully been identified and they moved on. Instead of taking one or more minutes for an individual to clock in, it now takes less than 15 seconds. This adds up when you start talking about crews in the hundreds.
"Makes it much harder for a company to screw you."
Are you that naive? Palm scanning, or other high-tech "people control" equipment, is brought into a company to benefit the employer mainly and the employee hardly. It is done to keep salary costs low... which benefits the employer mainly.
Clock cards are all well and good. I used one when I was younger and working in a printing factory for a few months. However I sure would not have wanted my employer to have a scan of my hand... fingerprints or palmprints. Why? Well who is going to oversee the records and make sure that they are not handed out to anyone who wants a copy?
Companies have enough info on their staff already... might as well throw in a voiceprint too and the unscrupulous will have a ready made set of IDs.
"Makes it much harder for a company to screw you." is what you said... yet in the article Colin Bennett, a politics professor at the University of Victoria, was quoted as saying "The employees would have little recourse if their information was misused."
Don't try to find the silver lining in that cloud mate.
cheers
front
Actually it does. When you go out into public you forfiet many of your rights to privacy. This is why we have concepts like public and private.
A street corner where you are outside on property that is maintained by the taxpayers is public. Your living room is private.
I am not saying you lose all rights to privacy when you go outside but to say it is "an outrage" for someone to take your picture when you go outside is absurd.