Slashdot Mirror
Library to Require Fingerprint to Use PCs
FearUncertaintyDoubt writes "Three libraries in Naperville, IL, soon will start requiring patrons who use the library's PCs to provide a fingerprint scan. The article says, ' Library officials say the added security is necessary to ensure people who are using the computers are who they say they are. Officials promise to protect the confidentiality of the fingerprint records.'"
"Right now we give you a library card with a bar code attached to it. This is just a bar code, but it's built in," said Mark West, the library's deputy director.
To be fair that does come after this paragraph:
Naperville library officials said the technology cannot be used to reconstruct a person's actual fingerprint. The scanners, made by Naperville-based U.S. Biometrics Corp., use an algorithm to convert 15 or more specific points into a unique numeric sequence.
But it's still shockingly cavalier to describe the technology as "just a bar code". I have difficulty understanding a) why this seems like a good idea to anyone, and b) why this gentleman seems incapable of understanding people's worries about a fucking library requiring fingerprints!
Carousel is a lie!
Officials promise to protect the confidentiality of the fingerprint records.
What does that mean exactly? Doesn't the "Patriot" Act allow for law enforcement officials to easily obtain library records during investigations? I know that the ALA has spoken against the "Patriot" Act in the past but will they actually stop the LEOs from taking this information?
The three-library system this week signed a $40,646 contract with a local company, U.S. Biometrics Corp., to install fingerprint scanners on 130 computers with Internet access or a time limit on usage.
Library officials say the added security is necessary to ensure people who are using the computers are who they say they are.
$313 a computer seems like an awful lot of money for this. I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish other than wasting taxpayer dollars.
Once a patron's fingerprint has been recorded, accessing a computer will require only the touch of a finger.
"Right now we give you a library card with a bar code attached to it. This is just a bar code, but it's built in," West said.
So patrons used to scan their library card and they could use the computer? There is no difference now except a database of information tied to a fingerprint that can easily be looked into by employees, LEOs, and possible thieves.
West said the library is requiring a fingerprint to set up computer access, although patrons who object could ask a staff member to log them on to a computer.
Are they going to make this perfectly clear to all patrons with a large sign in blinking neon? I doubt it. Make sure to give the staff a hassle. We need to hassle businesses (public and private) more so that these privacy intrusions cease. We will continue heading down the slope due to "ease" if people continue to stand down.
This really begs the question: Why do they need to know who that the person in front of the computer is who they say they are? What purpose does this serve?
"We take people's fingerprints because we think they might be guilty of something, not because they want to use the library," said Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
A very apt response from the ACLU. The problem is that we're now into the notion that "everyone is suspect" and due to that, we're going in this direction. It seems like
I could very well imagine this being linked into god-knows-what. Imagine, for instance, having $100 in parking tickets due, and the library terminal refusing you connection to their services before this due is paid.
Finally, anyone who is really interested in doing something criminal will just subvert the system. It's not like it's particularly difficult to spoof a fingerprint scanner. Remember the stories about doing it with Jello? Also, remember the fingerprint scanner that could be defeated by blowing on it?
Just like limitations on guns, just like airport security, just like locks on our doors and car alarms, and just like so many other things, this is used to punish the law abiding citizen, and does nothing to deter the hardened criminal or terrorist.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Oh... Wait.
Yeah, I don't care if it's "ethical," I think I'd just download the book I wanted to read after my community pulled something like that.
/dev/random
Sure, you can't get their *fingerprint* from the points, but you have a unique identifier. I.e., if someone is investigating messages sent from that computer and they round you up as a suspect, they can take your "15 point" fingerprint and ID you.
I believe Bird-Person can arrange that.
Naperville library officials said the technology cannot be used to reconstruct a person's actual fingerprint. The scanners, made by Naperville-based U.S. Biometrics Corp., use an algorithm to convert 15 or more specific points into a unique numeric sequence. But there's nothing to prevent anyone from taking an actual fingerprint and converting it into one of these codes. Either from a crime scene or an old database.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I see a huge problem there, but this is not the solution. It's a parent's job to monitor his kids as needed. It's not acceptable to turn that over to a filter. The real problem is irresponsible parents. The secondary problem is a library staff which is enabling them, with a foolish technological non-solution to a social problem.
Yes, I'm a parent, and yes, I give my kids the supervision they need, even in the library.
Please include your personal counter suggestion with any criticisms.
The solution is to tell those parents to watch their own stinking kids.
How about making sure that the computers the kids use have big screens, clearly visible to all? That would go a long way to facilitate the parental monitoring.
See what I've been reading.
library officials discovered that many patrons logged onto library computers using library cards and passwords of friends or relatives... So there's the problem. Please include your personal counter suggestion with any criticisms.
If it is illegal for children to view the restricted materials, charge the person who gave them access with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If it is not illegal, there is no reason to waste public funds trying to restrict minor's access to the material. Do they also prevent minors from looking at nude pictures in art books somehow?
Parents should not expect their children to be restricted unless they are present to enforce that restriction. There are always ways around these measures and many valid reasons to get around them. I have yet to see a filtering mechanism for the internet that does not block content that is both important for children to know and an unintended effect of the system.
These libraries should rethink their policy. Kids will still be able to bypass this with a gummi bear, a cd-rom, or a latex copy of their parent's fingerprint. Parents will be given the false impression that their children are safe on the internet, which they won't be since filtering never works properly and can be bypassed.
Here is the main problem with what the libraries are doing. They are asking patrons to trust them that the fingerprint data will not be saved or used against them. Even if all the patrons trust the people who work at the library now, this policy will sadly outlive them and they are being asked to trust all the people who will work at the library in future. Finally, they are being asked to trust that the federal government will not step in and start requiring this data at some point in the future. Basically, they are asking for a lot of people to entrust them and their technology and their policies to protect their freedom, all without a really really damn good reason to do so.
What is so shocking about this is that I don't trust them. How can I be sure that they are telling me the truth and my entire fingerprint isn't stored in the system ?
How can I be sure that the system haven't been cracked and someone hasn't intercepted the picture of my fingerprint before the 15 points were extracted and the rest discarded ?
How can I be sure that they still only take 15 points or that another organization that jumped in the bandwaggon is also only using 15 points ? Read the fucking licensing agreemend before each time I put my thumb there ?
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
I think the article just explained this rather bizarre move.
Naperville library officials [...]
The scanners, made by Naperville-based U.S. Biometrics [...]
Both in Naperville. How coincidental. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if U.S. Biometrics wandered into the library offices and said "y'know, if you buy our fingerprint scanners we might be willing to donate a fat wad of cash to the library. We'll even discount 'em for you."
Why else would a library -- likely strapped for cash, as most are -- suddenly feel the need for (expensive) biometrics hardware out of the blue?
[Seems OT, but it honestly isn't]The last Star Wars prequel is one of the most inspiring things I've seen out of Hollywood in a long, long time. It gave me hope. The dialog is mostly sub-par (as usual), but the plot and morals are dead-on relevant to modern America. I don't think that we're past the point of no return yet; not when a mainstream movie like this can get away with such blatant satire of democracy and patriotism.
"We shall change into the first Galactic Empire for a safe and secure society."
"So this is how freedom dies - to thunderous applause."
""You're either with me or against me."
"Only a Sith deals in such absolutes."
(Anyone with functioning brain should realize that Lucas is saying that Bush is no better than a Sith.)
It's not that these sentiments are new or radical; it's that they're present in one of the best-hyped mass market franchises of all time. Joe Sixpack will watch this movie! With his kids! Hell, I almost wish that this movie was rated PG, so that more kids will see it. Sitheven puts it in the context of Judeo-Christian style morality, which should make it even easier for the unwashed masses to digest.
I don't think it's too late for us. We who actually recognize and remember the true spirit of America (distrust of and freedom from our government) would do well to recomend this movie to our more trusting, sheep-like friends. It's like 1984, but with enough explosions to keep the audience interested.
I still wish we could've seen Jar-Jar's bloody head was splattered against the camera, and I really wish Lucas would get someone else to do his dialog (Vader: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" *sounds of audience retching*), but if you can look past these flaws, it really is an awesome, insightful, RELEVANT movie.
I think you're missing the point somewhat. Why is it so god damned necessary that the police be able to personally identify you based on library usage in the first place? I'd rather have that plausible deniability there - "It might not have been me, someone could easily have stolen my card." In fact, I'd much RATHER just have library access be completely and totally anonymous.
Oh, and on another note - is it just me or is the invocation of Child Porn becoming a new Godwin's Law? Is there an epidemic of people stealing library cards to surf for child porn in public or something? ;)