Slashdot Mirror


Fingerprint Requirement For a Work-Study Job?

BonesSB writes "I'm a student at a university in Massachusetts, where I have a federal work-study position. Yesterday, I got an email from the office that is responsible for student run organizations (one of which I work for) saying that I need to go to their office and have my fingerprints taken for the purposes of clocking in and out of work. This raises huge privacy concerns for me, as it should for everybody else. I am in the process of contacting the local newspaper, getting the word out to students everywhere, and talking directly to the office regarding this. I got an email back with two very contradictory sentences: 'There will be no image of your fingerprints anywhere. No one will have access to your fingerprints. The machine is storing your prints as a means of identifying who you are when you touch it.' Does anybody else attend a school that requires something similar? This is an obvious slippery slope, and something I am not taking lightly. What else should I do?"

578 comments

  1. Contradictory by Arancaytar · · Score: 1, Informative

    I can think of a better way to write that:

    Hey look, what's that behind you? It's much more interesting than any contradictions you might see in the following. There will be no image of your fingerprints anywhere. No one will have access to your fingerprints. The machine is storing your prints as a means of identifying who you are when you touch it. If you're still reading this, damn.

    1. Re:Contradictory by digitalunity · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am on federal work study right now and I have not had to submit my fingerprints for anything. You have a few options.

      Accept that this is the way they track work study hours.

      If you can afford it and the privacy concerns are too compelling, decline the work and let them know why in a formal letter. It may go directly to the waste bin but at least you made your reasons known.

      Lastly, you can try to change the policy. Contact your student senate for some backing as they're the most likely to listen, although not the most likely to have power to change it. A couple of suggestions: Switch from bio-informatics scanning methods to plain old bar code badges, RFID chips or paper timecards.

      My school does work study timecards on paper. It's probably the most likely to be abused, but it is convenient for everyone. I'd be more than happy to use an RFID token or bar code badge for clocking in and out. Wouldn't work very well for my specific job, considering I work from home, but in theory I would accept either.

      Your ability to change the policy by force is pretty limited. Employment rights(especially regarding privacy) vary by state when it comes to work study. You could try to contact your local department of labor but it's unlikely they will give you anything other than a headache.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    2. Re:Contradictory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is work study at the college/university level correct? And they aren't willing to treat these people as adults or trust them. Lovely. It sounds more like they're working in a McDonalds or some other menial job then something that would apply to college/university. I'm amazed at the fact that managers/etc. won't treat people as adults, and then wonder why they don't behave as adults.

    3. Re:Contradictory by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      A lot of companies use various methods to reduce timecard fraud, including biometric scanning or token clock-in systems such as badges or RFID cards. Universities are no different.

      I don't disagree with your sentiment though, I'm just pointing out that this isn't all that unusual. I've worked for several large companies and a few small ones and I've seen a lot of timecard systems. The best implementation I've seen was an RFID card access system for the building and a paper timecard system. The paper system is for flexibility and convenience, but if they suspected you of fraud, they would compare your timecard with the building access logs to see if you were in the building when you were working. This wasn't 100% foolproof because a lot of workers telecommuted, but it did catch fraud with the lowest hourly wage workers where telecommuting wasn't an option.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    4. Re:Contradictory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to laugh every time I read something like this. People complain about privacy all the time but walk around with a transmitter in their pocket 7x24 that will instantly give out your location to anyone with the right equipment. Ya I am talking about your cell phone.

    5. Re:Contradictory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try actually working for the Federal Government as a student, you get to submit your 10 card to the FBI as a part of your background check... or how bout a coop at a Nuke Power Plant, yet another NRC background check with fingerprints... guess I am screwed!

    6. Re:Contradictory by houghi · · Score: 1

      What about the manager just showing up once in a while? I know of a place where the big chief went on a holiday. The other managers said to come in one hour later when he was on a holiday. However what they did not know was that when he arrived, he took a plane back and showed up the next morning. Not sure if heads rolled, but you can be sure nobody did something like that ever again for the next 20 years.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. Non-issue? by Fastolfe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've used biometric scanners like this in the past. Whatever it stores to recognize your fingerprint never leaves the machine. I don't know if that's what's going on here, but it seems perfectly reasonable.

    1. Re:Non-issue? by Indiana+Joe · · Score: 1

      Biometric time clocks can be surprisingly cheap. Mind you, you probably get what you pay for...

      --
      I can't decide if this post is interesting, funny, insightful, or flamebait.
    2. Re:Non-issue? by leadacid · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of whether it's reasonable for them to do this, it's whether you should have to put up with it. People now have a desperate yearning to believe that things are normal and get on with their lives, so they post all sorts of reasons why this is reasonable and good. It doesn't sound reasonable and good to me - if nothing else it will lead to both sides being ready for the next step later. The time hasn't come yet when this kind of thing will make your life intolerable. Will it lead to that? You have to decide. If there's a way around this, or to screw the system so it doesn't work or the people doing it regret it, I'd use it. I have yet to be fingerprinted, even by a totally safe system. And anyone who reads /. should know that there is no totally safe system, no matter how calm and reassuring that kool aid looks.

    3. Re:Non-issue? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Eh? They just want your fingerprints so when you check in/out there's a high chance it was actually you, and not someone else claiming to be you. Not a perfect system - what system is? - but it works (you won't forget to bring a card; can't be trivially copied etc). Not sure what `safe` has to do with anything, unless you think you're likely to catch swine flu from touching a fingerprint reader or something.

    4. Re:Non-issue? by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure what `safe` has to do with anything, unless you think you're likely to catch swine flu from touching a fingerprint reader or something.

      Safety means you won't get your finger chopped off by someone who wants to impersonate you to enter the building.

      Safety (for people) is higher when there's no biometric system in place, becaus the bad guys don't have an incentive to chop their fingers off or gouge out their eyes.

    5. Re:Non-issue? by akma · · Score: 1

      The company I manage installs them sometimes. Most of them tend to suck....costing $150 or $1500...most all tend to suck.

      --
      akma
    6. Re:Non-issue? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I have yet to be fingerprinted

      I guess you aren't going to Canada any time soon.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:Non-issue? by Macfox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ask if the unit is FIPS 201 certified. If it is then you can be certain that no reproducible image leaves the unit. There's no more identifying data than a password or PIN that leaves the unit.

      There are cheaper units on the market that centrally process the finger print image to speed up matching, which is open to abuse.

      Disclaimer: I previously worked for a fingerprint / time-clock manufacture that produced FIPS compliant devices.

      --
      Area51 - We are watching...
    8. Re:Non-issue? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      I guess you aren't going to Canada any time soon.

      I live in Canada and I've never been fingerprinted.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    9. Re:Non-issue? by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We use a lot of students where I work. I can speak from experience that students, especially part-timers who like to squeeze in hours whenever they can, are without their badges and ID cards a lot. Either lost or left in the dorm room when they left for the day. As someone who is responsible for getting a temporary day-badge for my co-op whenever he forgets his, my first reaction was something like "cool! How can I get me one of those?".

      I suppose I don't know exactly how this system works, and thus what kind of privacy implications might exist. But I can imagine the privacy implications here are no different than all the other personal information employers routinely collect about their new hires.

    10. Re:Non-issue? by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is not the technology at hand, but rather the privacy implications of it. What should really be looked into is the privacy policy of the work-place. If it is one of those "We will try to protect your data but can not be help responsible and may share it with third-parties without your consent" situations I would never agree. This is the problem with personal information today, the sharing of information that is your info to other people without proper consent or notification. If someone has a warrant it is not a problem, other than that, I want to know that nobody else will ever obtain this type of data. I have been fingerprinted exactly three times in my life, of which I was still hesitant but had little choice. These were, joining the military, applying for security clearance, and when I got my concealed weapon permit. But at the same time, I am the guy that doesnt have facebook or myspace or twatter and I like to keep my personal info personal, so call me paranoid if you want.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    11. Re:Non-issue? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he is referring to the US Border Patrol and their, shall we say, "enlightened" policies? This is a guess, because I have never been through the US-Canadian border. My travels have only been to the mysterious Far East, and then before 9/11

      --
      SSC
    12. Re:Non-issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this really a problem (outside of Hollywood)?

    13. Re:Non-issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I remember getting fingerprinted when I was in grammar school back in the 70s and my wife does as well. I have yet to hear any stories at all about how that was detrimental to anyone's lives. I got fingerprinted again when I got my license, and again when I joined the military.

      I believe BonesSB is suffering from a bad case of paranoia.

    14. Re:Non-issue? by devman · · Score: 1

      Um, if you read TF Summary this system is for clocking in and out not for access.

    15. Re:Non-issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The systems at the colo we have servers at checks for a pulse to go with the fingerprints.

    16. Re:Non-issue? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I work for a military contractor; I'm an Engineer. The kind of clearance one would require for that type of work is left to the imagination of the reader; it's reasonably high and took about a year to get.

      I have never been fingerprinted ...unless they did it when I was sleeping.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    17. Re:Non-issue? by gnapster · · Score: 1
    18. Re:Non-issue? by Desert_Scarecrow · · Score: 1

      Any non-terrible biometric scanner will scan for a pulse while it is reading data points. While this is not so difficult to simulate with a finger, it's relatively difficult to simulate with an eye. For a bad guy, there are probably much easier ways of compromising security if they have the unlimited physical access they would need to chop up body parts and use those parts to bypass the scanner. Really the OP just needs to take off his tinfoil hat - or leave it on, understanding that he won't be getting a lot of government work that way.

    19. Re:Non-issue? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      Well, they've got your beardprint. It's quite unique.

      --

      Liberty.

    20. Re:Non-issue? by jbatista · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to ask them to SHOW you conclusive documentation related to the unit's certification, instead of trusting them blindly?
      -"Is the unit certified?"
      -"Why yes it is!"
      -"Can you prove it?"
      -"Why yes of course!"
      -"... Well?"
      -"Erm... that's classified"
      -"Why is the certification classified?"
      -"Erm... hey look at the pretty colors!"

      --
      My sig is better than your sig.
    21. Re:Non-issue? by ifoxtrot · · Score: 1
    22. Re:Non-issue? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      You've been watching too many movies. In the real world, bad guys generally don't try to break into buildings by gouging out the eyes of passers-by. Social engineering is much simpler, less messy, and actually works reliably.

    23. Re:Non-issue? by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he is referring to the US Border Patrol and their, shall we say, "enlightened" policies? This is a guess, because I have never been through the US-Canadian border. My travels have only been to the mysterious Far East, and then before 9/11

      I go through frequently, including last week, never seen anyone get fingerprinted.

    24. Re:Non-issue? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      I work for a military contractor; I'm an Engineer.

      ECHELON? Is that where the UKUSA searches for words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy?

      That is a serious amount of cognitive dissonance going on. I can only hazard a guess: you're happy building weapons / surveillance systems, but not happy with the customer using them? You've got some serious compartmentalisation going on about the ethical consequences of building weapons vs surveillance systems. Not trolling, I'm genuinely curious what your story is.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    25. Re:Non-issue? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Why bother? Cheap fingerprint scanners can be fooled by a jelly baby and the fingerprint taken from a glass. I usually object to invasions of privacy... but we're talking about fingerprints here. It's not a unique feature - or, rather, your two subsequent fingerprints are different, so fingerprint matching has to use some fuzzy logic to work and this means that you get a lot of potential for non-unique matches. It's something that you leave on everything you touch.

      People storing databases of fingerprints isn't the problem. The belief that fingerprints are private or uniquely identifying data is.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Non-issue? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      No doubt, some people would be like "If some guy WANTS to clock in and out for me and work my shifts, he can HAVE one of my fingers".

    27. Re:Non-issue? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > People storing databases of fingerprints isn't the problem. The belief that
      > fingerprints are private or uniquely identifying data is.

      Nothing is uniquely identifying. The problem is people who believe 1) that there exists a single unique identifier and 2) that unique identification is needed when in fact all that is necessary is authentication with a reasonable degree of confidence.

      Using a fingerprint machine for clocking in and out at a work-study job is ridiculous, though.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    28. Re:Non-issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second this several areas of the location I work at use FIPS 201 fingerprint scanners. (We will be moving to palm scanners in the future due to maintenance issues with the fingerprint readers sensor pads fouling.) These units never store an "Image" what is stored is a hash of a subset of patterns in the fingerprint. These units were used from time reporting and access control to the "access restricted" areas.
      What has probably happened here is someone not familiar with the technical working of the device just used the simple straight forward language of needing your fingerprints. What they need what amounts to the signature of the your fingerprints NOT an image of them. These are very common devices and DO NOT CAPTURE AN IMAGE IN ANYWAY!!!! you are probably getting all bent out of shape over nothing.

      Also note that for some jobs that are security sensitive a fingerprint "work card" is required these tend to be jobs working in care/education of children, care of the elderly, most medical professions, handling large amounts of currency, or any form of law enforcement. There are others in this list but this should give you a good idea of them. In these cases most often here is the states this card is filed with the county offices or state professional license board.

    29. Re:Non-issue? by kramerd · · Score: 1

      When I worked at a restaurant, we just clocked in and out by using a pin number. If you forgot to clock in/out, you didn't get paid for that shift. I'm guessing, but it was probably both cheaper and more accurate than a biometric system.

    30. Re:Non-issue? by fwr · · Score: 1

      If the students are that irresponsible (synonyms: reckless, careless, negligent, foolish, rash, immature), then they probably should not get paid when they can't comply with the requirements of the job. If that means they need to waste a hour to get back to the dorm room to retrieve their badge, or pay a fee to reprocess them for a lost badge, then I would think the problem would take care of itself after a few occasions.

    31. Re:Non-issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've never been fingerprinted, then your clearance is not as high as you think it is.

    32. Re:Non-issue? by winwar · · Score: 1

      "If you forgot to clock in/out, you didn't get paid for that shift."

      Simple, effective and illegal. If an employee complains and can prove they worked the employer will be liable for back wages and penalties. This can occur years after the fact.

      If an employee has problems clocking in and out, they still need to be paid for time worked and disciplined if it is a problem. Withholding wages is really stupid.

    33. Re:Non-issue? by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Ordinarily I would agree with you, but part of the contract for employment stipulated that in order to be employed, employees must clock in and out as part of procedure (along with a large list of other issues, like how employees earn additional shifts, promotions, health and safety requirements, etc). Actually quite legal, provided you are in a right to work state (you can be fired for any reason at any time, but you can also quit mid-shift if you so choose, all without penalty).

      By omitting the clock in / clock out procedure, employees had not worked, and therefore, the time worked would be 0, thus no payment.

      Granted, we used an electronic system, but there is no reason that this couldn't be implemented manually by having employees sign in and out on a form and having managers sign a copy for employee records.

      Really, its a gray area from a legal standpoint. Since it is not illegal to require employees to clock in / clock out, it is not illegal to not pay them when they break rules, provided that they are aware of the consequences of breaking specific or general rules. If employees don't wish to adhere to rules, they can either suffer the legal consequences (no pay for the shift) or find a new job.

      To be fair, I never heard of a single person who failed to clock in or out more than once, so it was a sound policy...

    34. Re:Non-issue? by David_W · · Score: 1

      By omitting the clock in / clock out procedure, employees had not worked, and therefore, the time worked would be 0, thus no payment.

      Nope, still doesn't work that way. I had a manager who threatened to not sign off on our timecards if we did not submit our weekly status report (with the implication that an unsigned timecard == no pay for that period), despite otherwise having done a full week's work. I wrote the state department of labor to verify my suspicion that this would be illegal, and they assured me that had pay been withheld it definitely was. Also note that this was in a right to work state (Virginia).

      (Thankfully, nothing came of it other than more whining and threats on his part; he, or at least the company, never was foolish enough to withhold pay.)

    35. Re:Non-issue? by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, I'm quite certain you actually filled out your reports, thus fulfilling the requirements.

      You cannot get paid (hourly, not salary) if your employer does not know how much you have worked. QED.

    36. Re:Non-issue? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the delay in responding.

      I have no problem with weapons being used on Bad Guys. Life is about choices, and if you have made the kind of choices where the Navy is firing weapons at you, then it's not a big loss if we have to kick you off the planet. The guys who throw acid at schoolgirls because they're going to school aren't going to sit around and discuss the problem over croissants.

      When you use weapons or surveillance on civilians -- of your own country, no less -- who have commited no crimes, then you have crossed a line. The role of the military is to protect the state, not to spy on its citizens. Everything else is feature creep.

      Why is someone reading my /. posts and email when I've done nothing to deserve it? My sig's been in use for more than 10 years, with jihad put in a few years ago. (I happen to like the word, and we don't have an equivalent word in English.)

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    37. Re:Non-issue? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply. It's quite a clear cut line and makes for an interesting read. You remind me of someone that I once knew who made air to surface missiles - very cool guy who loved his work. He had pictures "of his babies" on the wall of his apartment. They certainly were beautiful explosions.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  3. What else should I do? by NfoCipher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Start looking for another job..

    --
    I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
    1. Re:What else should I do? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree .. if you don't like it .. don't do it. No one is forcing you to. Others may not have the same concerns and would be more than happy to do that job, so I'm sure it won't bother them too much.

      I used to work at a job that required using an id card to clock in and out. If you left it at home it was a huge hassle to get a temporary id card. Forget it too many times and they started to take disciplinary action. I'd rather use my fingerprint to 'clock in' than try and remember to bring my id card every day when the only function of that card was to clock in and out.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    2. Re:What else should I do? by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      Forget it too many times and they started to take disciplinary action.

      ...put it in your wallet, or on a keyring (if you can hole punch it)?

    3. Re:What else should I do? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Others may not have the same concerns...

      Yes, it's those people who don't give a damn that will make it harder to get a desirable job without those requirements. Yeah, go ahead and take my rights. I'm not using them anyway. Resistance only makes things more difficult.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with an economy that isn't doing that great, the employers can simply hire someone who is willing to comply. Trying to fight something like this might work better if the job is something where they can't just pick another person. Universities and colleges though are full of people who need a job.

    5. Re:What else should I do? by benjamindees · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No one is forcing you to.

      Actually, you stupid fuck, they are forcing him to. That work study job, and most of the educational system, is funded by tax dollars, which are forcibly extracted from productive workers. When he graduates into the real world and has wages and assets that can be expropriated by a bullshit incompetent gangster government, they will force him to pay in the exact same way, regardless of whether he submits to their Orwellian privacy violations or not.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    6. Re:What else should I do? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree .. if you don't like it .. don't do it. No one is forcing you to. Others may not have the same concerns and would be more than happy to do that job, so I'm sure it won't bother them too much.

      Those others and their indifference is part of the problem. If this university is doing this, you can bet that others have considered it. If this is successful and does not receive much opposition, others will follow suit. The result is that the people who do care about privacy are going to have fewer ways to protect it. So no one is forcing you to support this right now but when every such institution adopts these requirements, that will change. Of course by that time there'll be little or no hope of doing anything about it because it will be entrenched.

      It's similar in some ways to the relative uniformity of cellphone service plans in the USA despite the multiple competing companies that offer it. A few such companies established pricing and service plans and were successful, so others adopted similar business practices. The result is that there's little actual innovation in the industry. None of the cellphone companies has any incentive to rethink their pricing, so I as a customer cannot vote with my wallet if I want, for example, text messaging prices that realistically reflect the actual cost of delivering SMS.

      I'm sure there is a whole litany of reasons why an institution wants biometric identification. I'm sure that some of those justifications are reasonable enough. I just don't care, to be honest with you. I don't want to live in a surveillance society. If that means a few more unauthorized users gain access, or if that means a few more criminals avoid detection, I'm fine with that and more than willing to take my chances. Only cowardice would make me feel differently. It is obvious to me that a surveillance society is like a totalitarian state; it is created by means of baby steps. Each baby step down that path looks harmless enough at the time and plenty of useful idiots will sing the mantra of "I've got nothing to hide, so I'll surrender my privacy to anyone who asks." Stop this early when it seems minor and benevolent and you avoid the tremendous problems that become inevitable otherwise.

      I used to work at a job that required using an id card to clock in and out. If you left it at home it was a huge hassle to get a temporary id card. Forget it too many times and they started to take disciplinary action. I'd rather use my fingerprint to 'clock in' than try and remember to bring my id card every day when the only function of that card was to clock in and out.

      I'm sorry but I believe in fixing problems at their source. This is simple forgetfulness that a little self-discipline can easily solve. The privacy of every member of society that is never coming back once lost is far more important than the very minor inconvenience to you of learning to bring your ID card to work. To say otherwise is supreme selfishness and amounts to forcing your beliefs about privacy on everyone else. Those who like privacy appreciate that about as much as you'd appreciate being forced to practice a religion you don't believe in. I don't think you really are this selfish; I just think you're not considering the full implications of your position.

      Privacy is a good default; anyone who doesn't want it can always become an exhibitionist with their personal information if that's what they want to do. I won't try to find ways to stop them since it's their choice and, unlike this slippery slope, doesn't affect me in any way either real or potential. Anyone who thinks that this won't grow and expand if it isn't stopped, who believes that the companies producing biometric machines won't seek new markets and new customers, who really thinks that no one would ever want to retain and datamine such detailed information about your habits and whereabouts, is frankly rather naive.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:What else should I do? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They should tell them what it is and how it works. Clearly. In a little brochure. Does no one care about employee relations anymore?

    8. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      YEA RIGHT, drop your pants your anus is going to be scanned, if you don't like it find another job. no body is forcing you

    9. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked in the public sector, including state government, for over 12 years. Getting fingerprinted is a part of background checks--including one run by the FBI--required by the state every 2-5 years.

      If I were you, I'd be way more concerned about the spyware-laden computer you're using to browse the interweb. It's probably stealing your soul, or at least your Amazon account, right now... quick, run away!

    10. Re:What else should I do? by dlgeek · · Score: 1

      It's work study. That means that the job is a requirement of his federal financial aid package. If he quits, then he can't pay for school.

    11. Re:What else should I do? by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your rights to what exactly?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    12. Re:What else should I do? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Thank's for bringing the crazy to the discussion!

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    13. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're remiss in calling people who aren't upset cowards. Howling "1984" every time somebody uses something about you to identify you is sure to get you flagged by your peers as somebody who loves to hear his own voice. Your fingerprints are no more private than your hair, and both can be found all over your office desk. Having no issue with using a fingerprint instead of an ID number or the honor system isn't cowardice, it's sensibility. If the government wanted my fingerprints, they've have them, end of story. Maybe they already do! There are hundreds of legal ways to acquire all sorts of PII about me, and using a fingerprint scanner to get into work is the least of your worries.

    14. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever had your picture taken?

      Were your eyes open?

      You've been Id'ed for life. Sucks, but true. Best bet now is to go for information overload -- worked pretty well for the underwear bomber. Too much information is worse than not enough, because if you don't have enough information the person trying to find something specific is forced to step back and *think*. Too much information and people just wait for the computer to tell them what to do.

      Beep! Valid. You may pass.

    15. Re:What else should I do? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you define as crazy. There are sincere anarchists out there that truly believe that that is the answer, and I find them no more deluded than the average man. At least they have principles, which is more than you can say for the mainstream political movements in most cases.

      --
      SSC
    16. Re:What else should I do? by kenj0418 · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's work study. That means that the job is a requirement of his federal financial aid package. If he quits, then he can't pay for school.

      No, it means he'd have to go find an real, UNSUBSIDIZED job for himself. (Or get a loan, or any number of other solutions.)

    17. Re:What else should I do? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      We already lost the war for privacy. All we can hope for now is a society where no one has secrets from anyone, rather than a society where the police state government has everyone's secrets. Police states aren't where dissenters disappear for no reason. They're where they disappear for conveniently constructed reasons. All above board, in courts of law.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    18. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peter is Canadian. He probably enjoys taking it up the ass. Anyone who doesn't, therefore, is crazy.

      Why he thinks his opinions are of any merit in a discussion of the rights of Americans, I have no idea.

      Bend over, Peter! We're running low on oil! We got veteran's healthcare benefits to pay for!

    19. Re:What else should I do? by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      And with an economy that isn't doing that great, the employers can simply hire someone who is willing to comply.

      Yes, that is how the free market works. You get to quit and go work for someone who doesn't have (perfectly legal) policies that you don't like. And your former gets to hire someone who doesn't whine about policies they think are in their best interest.

    20. Re:What else should I do? by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To say otherwise is supreme selfishness and amounts to forcing your beliefs about privacy on everyone else.

      That seems like what you're doing. The problem is that others are willing to trade off some privacy to get some convenience. Look at Facebook.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    21. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start looking for another job..

      I agree, you should quit if you are able to. If the school has a problem, this is probably not the right solution.

    22. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I currently wr0k at a place that fully fingerprinted me and had FBI do a background check. And it's a contract position. Don't want it, don't take it---that's how I view it. I wouldn't contact the "local news" about the practice either, 'cause that would just be... silly and pointless.

    23. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree .. if you don't like it .. don't do it. No one is forcing you to.

      You know, that's the same thing bosses used to tell secretaries that didn't want to give them sexual favors back before that kind of thing was made illegal.

    24. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course by that time there'll be little or no hope of doing anything about it because it will be entrenched."

      Yep, he's right... Don't listen to the twinkies. This is the slope that ends all hope. If you give in to this bull at your workplace, it's hard to know where it will end. I suspect it doesn't end well. Does your job require a security clearance? If not, why does your institution have this high level of paranoia?

      Come to Alabama, where the people are more laid back, and the tuition is lower...

    25. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does using statistical information about your fingerprint for timekeeping purposes fall under the category of a "surveillance society"? Who is surveillance you, and what do they gain?

      Why does your finger print need to be private? Does having summary information about it really violate your privacy more than simply knowing what you look like?

      I'm bound to be in the distinct minority here, but I think that the government should actually take everyone's DNA at birth and link that to their ID. Knowing who you are is far different from monitoring where you are, or what you do.

      Now, knowing who you are can make it easier to monitor you, but it doesn't directly lead to doing so. And generally speaking, if they are interested in monitoring you, then they could know who you are and get your fingerprint or DNA anyways.

      So, long story short, there is nothing for you to gain by fighting this battle.

       

    26. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ow is that related to his privacy concerns?

    27. Re:What else should I do? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It it my inalienable right to only leave my fingerprint on everything that I touch, not in some database.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re:What else should I do? by skade88 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have been using a finger print scanner to clock in and out of my jobs for the past 10 years. As the IT guy at some of these jobs, I know that its not actually storing the full image of my finger print. It stores a few critical points to make sure it has it and not the full image. But if someone really wanted your finger print, it would be easy for them to lift it off the door knob when you enter your office, or from a coke can you throw into the trash or from your keyboard when you get up to goto the bathroom or anything else you touch in a given day. It would be much easier than hacking the time clock or a server to get your finger print.

    29. Re:What else should I do? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Who the hell is Peter? Please stay on topic.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    30. Re:What else should I do? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      This inalienable right is stated where exactly? And what happens when they can more easily gather DNA evidence by say a simple electronic scan? You are dropping DNA with every step.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    31. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent assumes a black and white situation with this (e.g. fingerprint: they have you!! no fingerprint: you're free), but because of the ties to the university, this is just not the case. I am a student at another large state university, and I can tell you right now that even just by attending my school, the administration has tons of data about me. While it's true that none may be quite as private/serious as a fingerprint, anyone who who wanted to steal my identity (or something else just as malicious) could EASILY do so with the data that is already in the system. They have my social security number, home address, picture ID, drivers license number, a few credit card numbers to pay my bills, and even the MAC address of my computer so that I can log onto the network.

      You're looking at this the wrong way. If someone had bad intentions, then the extra addition of a fingerprint would really have very little effect in the grand scheme of things. The slippery slope argument in the parent just does not hold up in the modern world. If you really wanted to be "safe", then you would have to somehow deal with the large amount of data that is already there in the system(s).

      Just as in all the cases in years past, there needs to be some level of trust established for certain organizations (like universities, for example, or the government) or else our society could never function. An unaffiliated company using these machines? I'd have a problem with that, because I don't necessarily trust them. The accredited university that is giving me a degree? Sure, I'll trust them with sensitive information.

      You can't artificially draw the data-gathering line at biometrics.

    32. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree .. if you don't like it .. don't do it. No one is forcing you to.

      In a tight labor market, even if you're a frugal person the definition of "force" may not be quite the same as the Free Marketers would like everyone to thing it is.

    33. Re:What else should I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work-study is a tax free position on campus under FAFSA designation. If this is system-wide for the school, this is a problem. I have work-study at UW-Whitewater and there is no such requirement for fingerprints on a time-clock. The system uses KRONOS to log time punches, which is sufficient enough for this kind of procedure.

    34. Re:What else should I do? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The privacy of every member of society that is never coming back once lost is far more important than the very minor inconvenience to you of learning to bring your ID card to work.

      That's a bit over the top--especially considering most systems use the finger print record IN CONJUNCTION with the ID card. For the DoD you have to insert your ID card into the reader, then supply your finger print. On the more secure systems, we then have to apply a password, and even a PIN on other areas.

    35. Re:What else should I do? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      Are you also saying that my working for less money than you would takes away your right to make a lot of money? Grow up...if someone will do a job in a way you won't but that the employer wants, it's your fault and only your fault.

      And remember ... just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you....

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    36. Re:What else should I do? by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      WOOOOSH

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    37. Re:What else should I do? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      Just because someone has an opinion that situation X would be better than situation Y doesn't make it fact .. it's an opinion. If the majority are willing to live with a situation, then it's the minority that are the problem, not the majority.

      And .. to be honest .. I don't care about people's paranoid belief that giving their fingerprint to be used for identification for clocking in and out is a big deal. We give out our home address, contact information, social security number, and even our picture. And let's not forget any job that requires a security clearance. But not a fingerprint??

      Some people just need to realize that there are plenty of other people who will be more than happy to give out their fingerprint and go find another job. Sorry that someday all jobs will require it. I'll be employed and still won't care.

      And what the fuck do you know about my ability to remember things. I'm 50 now, and have had problems like this my entire life and tried all sorts of things to fix it. To add that up to 'self control' is nothing more than your ego saying that that you know best, which shows up in the rest of your post. My issue was more a result of ADD than it is 'simple forgetfulness'. I can remember my badge, and five minutes later walk out the door without it because I was thirsty and went to get a drink. Most of the time I'll remember. But some days I walk out the door without my cell phone, some days without my wallet, some days without my keys. At least I can't get in my car without my keys and have to go back in to get them before I get too far.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    38. Re:What else should I do? by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      This was modded insightful AND troll. That probably sums me up in a nutshell. :-)

  4. find another job. by ChapterS · · Score: 0, Troll

    Please.

    1. Re:find another job. by benjamindees · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Listen, buddy, it's way past the point of 'find another job'.

      This type of Orwellian crap comes directly from the same people who run the same banks that ran our economy into the ground, and who literally rob from the rest of us in order to support their stupid police-state bullshit.

      Ten years ago, when the big banks started requiring fingerprints for everything, I might have said the same thing, "find another bank". In fact, that's what I did. Let me tell you what I got out of it: jack-fucking-shit.

      Banks that aren't backed by the legal fraud of the Federal Reserve system don't get to print money out of thin air. They don't get to hand out million-dollar mortgages to illegal immigrants with no incomes. They don't get to fund companies and work-study jobs that have no chance of ever turning a profit.

      They don't get to do any of those things because they have to operate within the laws and within economic reality and can't rob savers and taxpayers at every fucking opportunity.

      So, don't tell the rest of us to 'find another job' as though we live in some type of free-market meritocracy that respects property rights or anything else for that matter.

      Because, as far as I'm concerned, those who can't manage to stand up for others when their rights are being trampled can just find another fucking country at this point.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, as far as I'm concerned, those who can't manage to stand up for others when their rights are being trampled can just find another fucking country at this point.

      As long as they take you with them.

    3. Re:find another job. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Because of the banks I owe student loans, credit cards, and need any job I can get ... including a job that require finger prints. Infact I had to do this for my last job which I use to pay the banks my credit card debt. (I make 0 profit)

      You can't fight the system and if you do then your employer will find someone else who will do it. The world owes you squat and you owe the world the right to exist. You need to work no matter what it is to make sure you are not in debt and by the balls by the banks in order to pay the bills.

       

    4. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy, you are mighty upset over fingerprints. Did you realize that your bank could also get your fingerprints off the pieces of paper you signed getting an account there? Your fingerprints really aren't that private. Anyone who's physically interacted with you can probably get them, much as they know your hair color, eye color, body shape, etc.

      By the way, I have an account at Bank of America, and I didn't have to give them fingerprints or anything, despite being an immigrant. So you might want to look a little bit harder.

    5. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a Federal Work study employee myself I can understand where your coming from. It's basically impossible to find a Work Study job, especially in the middle of the semester. And then if you don't take advantage of Work Study, the government will determine that your ineligible for it. I don't get why people are giving him such a hard time, he has a legitimate concern. Considering it is a FEDERAL program and you get paid by the STATE, the fact that this job is fingerprinting you, no matter how they store the fingerprint, is kinda of scary. I am guessing these people would rather have him be clueless and not question anytime he is asked for personal information?

    6. Re:find another job. by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's get something clear here.

      They are NOT finger printing him. They are having him clock on with a biometric finger print scan. There are certainly concerns with this sort of thing, but it's not the same.

      Certainly there are issues with biometric scanning in regards to the quality of the scanners and what you do if your biometrics get compromised(which is possible), but biometric scanning is not the same as being fingerprinted. They'll only ever take one finger, and generally speaking the resulting hash probably won't even be useful outside the proprietary hardware it's running on.

      As for looking for a new job, after making a huge fuss about this and accusing them of acting like a police state in the papers, they're more than likely to sack his ass anyway.

    7. Re:find another job. by sam.haskins · · Score: 1

      Your bank fingerprints you? My banks (and they're two of the top 10 largest banks in the USA) most certainly do not.

    8. Re:find another job. by Homburg · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure "Insightful" is the mod I'd give the parent, but I suppose there's no "Delusional" mod, so you've got to go with what you're given.

      Seriously, though "Ten years ago, when the big banks started requiring fingerprints for everything." Except, they didn't. No bank requires fingerprints for regular services, like opening an account or depositing or withdrawing money.

      Or "the legal fraud of the Federal Reserve system." What is this even supposed to mean? "Hand out million-dollar mortgages to illegal immigrants with no incomes"? Again, something that has never happened.

    9. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are NOT finger printing him. They are having him clock on with a biometric finger print scan.

      Cute.

      Don't complain when the police don't "torture" you, but "enhanced interrogate" you, and you aren't "deprived of your right to Habeas Corpus" but "indefinitely detained", and you aren't "rounded up into a concentration camp and gassed" but "found to be an enemy combatant and executed by order of a military tribunal".

      If only some prominent writer had already coined a phrase for this sort of thing...

    10. Re:find another job. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Wow - even more crazy. You wouldn't have a small plane pilots license would you?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    11. Re:find another job. by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This type of Orwellian"

      Oh, holy shit! I'm as much concerned about privacy as any other next guy and then probably more, but this is crystal clear:
      1) Do you think there's a need for authorization (you can go in, you can't go in)?
      2) If yes, then you need authentication. As in you *need* authentication or else no one will be sure the authorized guy is the one meant to be authorized.
      3) If you need authentication, then biometrics is quite a good candidate (while not absolutly great: once it gets tampered there's no easy replacement)

      Privacy is not about nobody tracking your steps; it's about nobody tracking your steps except for really valid reasons and only for as long as those valid reasons stand valid.

    12. Re:find another job. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There is no reason for a bank to take fingerprints, nor have I ever heard of such a thing.

      However, implemented properly it could help prevent identity theft.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    13. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get some fucking personal responsibility. Did the banks force you to go to school or run up a credit card debt? Ever think of getting a job while you were still at school, or did the banks stop you again? No shit the world owes you squat, what exactly did you think you were entitled to? Stop blaming banks and 'the world' for your own failures and take some responsibility for yourself, fool.

    14. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Universal health care is a good thing. It's not socialist.

      Haha, that's rich. I can almost see the tiny hamster in your head, running on a wheel turning the little gears:

      Socialism == bad. Universal health care == good. Therefore, Universal health care != socialism.

      Must communicate this insight to the outside world somehow...

    15. Re:find another job. by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      If only some prominent writer had already coined a phrase for this sort of thing...

      You mean like: "Making a mountain out of a molehill" (John Fox - 1570)

    16. Re:find another job. by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      Your bank fingerprints you?

      No but someone else's bank did take a thumb print once when I was cashing a check. (Company that wrote me the check was the customer of that bank, I was not). My understanding was that it was for non-repudiation purposes (since they had nothing to compare it to for identification purposes).

    17. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use your credit cards to pay off your student loans. Then declare bankruptcy, and default on your credit cards. You'll end up with about the same credit rating as you would if you had just made a couple of late payments.

      While you're at it, you should have like a half a dozen kids. Just find some fat chicks to fuck. They're usually pretty horny because all those corn products make them extra fertile. If there aren't enough fat chicks, you can import foreign brides.

      Then you'll get lots of gov't benefits and tax write-offs for dependents and such. Don't worry about raising the brats. That's for the bitches and the social workers to sort out. If you can keep the cows around for a while, you can sign them up for like housing assistance and student loans for nail painting college and whatnot.

      Before you know it, you'll have like five houses and all the food stamps you could want. Then, you just get you a used Cadillac and a pimp cane and drive around the neighborhood selling prescription drugs to local teens. You'll be back on your feet in no time!

      This country is basically going down the toilet anyways, so let's run this shit into the ground!

    18. Re:find another job. by puto · · Score: 1

      You have never lived in another country I take it. Many south american countries will take a finger print when you open an account and cash a check.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    19. Re:find another job. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly why I am not worried about a government takeover. Because we, as Americans, are so paranoid about the most insignificant little thing, that if someone actually DID try to take over the government, they would rise up in force against that party.

      --
      Qxe4
    20. Re:find another job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen some banks require a fingerprint when cashing a check or perhaps it was a deposit. It wasn't my bank, I use a CU, but I HAVE seen this done for "normal" services and thought it was a complete crock - just as I do now.

      As for his comments regarding the Federal Reserve... there are many people who find the Federal Reserve quite fishy. Books have been written on it in fact and having perused a few they aren't quite as tin foil hat as you might think. Read up on this and you will find out that the Fed has a whole lot more power than you ever realized. They do pretty much print money out of thin air as you'll note our tender is no longer gold backed. Food for thought but I wouldn't be too alarmed just yet.

    21. Re:find another job. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      This type of Orwellian crap comes directly from the same people who run the same banks that ran our economy into the ground

      The Democratic party?

      Don't mind me. I am expecting troll even though the parent straight out lied about the big banks requiring fingerprints and got a +3.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

      http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html

      These were the ones from the top 10 (non-you-tube / video / blog) results from my google search of "democrats freddie mae"

      But then, the search is probably specific to me since I "signed away my privacy" to Google and plan to continue to do so for every search and email I receive :)

      I used to worry about my figerprints being taken. In Texas they require a fingerprint (forget which finger) to get a driver's license.

    22. Re:find another job. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Universal health care is no more socialist than is the public school system or the judicial system.

      You are confusing publicly funded social program with socialism. An easy mistake for someone who gets all their information from Fox news.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    23. Re:find another job. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Why not just refuse and cash the check in your own bank if it was of concern to you?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    24. Re:find another job. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      No I have not (visited though - beautiful places in South America).

      Like I said, if used correctly it could be a good tool to help prevent things like fraud and identity theft.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    25. Re:find another job. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like when you put the name of your wife and her birth date in for a work password. You've given that information to the system, but your employer hasn't collected it. Both of course are shitty passwords.

      The fingerprint scanners for a biometric check don't take enough information for someone to have your fingerprints, they generally only take a print for one finger, and the print is usually not able to be removed from the system, so you haven't been finger printed.

    26. Re:find another job. by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a concern for me at all. (It was the person I was replying to that was concerned.)

      Frankly I don't get why this story is even a story. I don't have a problem with my bank or my employer having my fingerprints. And the government already does. (From a previous job in IT at a mutual fund)

    27. Re:find another job. by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are fingerprinting him on a daily basis. Any other way to look at it is replacing reality with wishful thinking.

  5. What University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you want to get the word out, give out the name.

  6. You're dumb by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its a time clock. Many jobs have them along with your address, phone number, date of birth, and social security number. Welcome to the working world. I could just as easily steal your fingerprints from your car door handle or the can you threw in the trash. After this fiasco don't expect the job offers to roll in.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:You're dumb by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Solutions like this are often used to prevent someone clocking-in for you. I used this type of solution at a sports club which used to go to, where you would enter your member number followed by you finger print. Chances are this is another closed system, so it the finger prints probably won't get much further than the database.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. It is best to bend over with plenty of lube to anything any employer or potential employer wants from you. Workers rights? Fsck that! They KILL jobs! /sarcasm

      PS. I think it may be time for new unions to start to be formed.

    3. Re:You're dumb by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 1

      However it doesn't mean someone should make it easier for you to do so.

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    4. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Are you an idiot or only playing one on the internet?

      These days there are these things called "computers" that store information and share it with other "computers" on a thing called a "network". In fact, there is an international network of computers called "The InterWeb". Fingerprints and other information stored on one one "computer" can be accessed from other "computers" sometimes without the knowledge or permission in charge of the information.

      As of yet, no one has bothered networking my door handle or the can I threw in the trash.

    5. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My company does this, because people used to take turns staying for the full 8 hours when everyone else left early. This is just the result of people stealing from their jobs, and everyone suffers the consequence. Just read over the agreement for using the scanner, it should just be a hash or something stored locally, nothing for you to worry about.

    6. Re:You're dumb by maxume · · Score: 1

      Fiasco? Really?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded - let's hope there's a hiring boom in the getting-the-word-out-about-privacy-concerns industry....

    8. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would bet good money that whatever format they store data in is not compatible with software used by law enforcement. Besides, what incentive does an employer have to volunteer their employees prints?

      Ease up on the nerd rage for now, this is just a timeclock.

    9. Re:You're dumb by pnewhook · · Score: 1, Troll

      Fingerprints and other information stored on one one "computer" can be accessed from other "computers" sometimes without the knowledge or permission in charge of the information.

      Are you an idiot or only playing one on the internet? You do realize that a fingerprint biometric scanner doesn't actually STORE a fingerprint?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    10. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it stores a hash based on key bits of info about the fingerprint. Just like law enforcement databases do. Those do actually STORE a fingerprint image, but they also store a similar (maybe identical) hash based on key bits of info. So when a search is done of a fingerprint, the system hashes it in a similar way, then looks for matching hashes rather than individually comparing each fingerprint (with each one in the database flashing by until it makes a match, just like on TV, snicker) against it. If a match is made, it brings up the rest of the data associated with that fingerprint hash, such as the fingerprint image. So, in other words, this hash could be put into a law enforcement database and could be searched just like any other fingerprint and, if a match came up, it could give his name, age, sex, social security number, etc. and just show "image not available" or something similar for the actual fingerprint image.

    11. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compatibility isn't really an issue, even if the algorithm and hash don't match the ones in law enforcement databases, there's no reason it couldn't be added. The law enforcement software goes like this (roughly speaking) scan the fingerprint image, run an image recognition algorithm that produces a hash, then search for that hash in the database and bring up that person's info and fingerprint image if it's a match. So, all that has to be done is add another set of tables with the "incompatible" algorithm, populate it with data from these time clock systems, then when the law enforcement software is run to match a fingerprint, scan the fingerprint image with both algorithms and compare against both databases.
      Frankly, I find it hard to believe that isn't the case with law enforcement fingerprint matching software already. There have to be lots of databases with data from software from different vendors, etc., all being made to work together, so when a fingerprint check is done, it probably runs multiple algorithms and does a multi-database search.

    12. Re:You're dumb by seifried · · Score: 1

      Why not just fire a few people since you were obviously over staffed? Or better yet simply allow people who are done work to go home early.

    13. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're dumber. Just because you bend over and take it in the ass for the man makes it more the miserable for everyone else.
      You passive lazy fucks are the reason interviews are like gang rapes, and companies do credit checks, criminal checks, and these badges allow companies to have so much power and control.

      You sound like an arrogant fuck who popped out some flipper babies, and wants all the entitlements, and makes some sort of excuses involving your spawn to get other people to do your work.

    14. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that none of the AFIS/LiveScan/Henry machines will do a true match. They select the n number of probable matches based on the data they have and displays them to an examiner to make the match. With that said, the more databases you link to run, the longer the probable match will take and the more candidate matches that a person will have to look at to compare. That's the limiting factor here, nobody would want to pay what it would cost for the number of qualified fingerprint examiners to make those final matches. Getting back to the original situation, the quality of most of the fingerprint scanners that the time clock would use, especially one purchased by a university for time accounting, getting anything that would be of use in a fully automated match are somewhere between slim and nil. Even with a perfect fingerprint roll, the possibility of getting an exact match automatically is not that great. There still has to be the person looking at the screen to make the match and unless you're already a suspect in a major crime and they know what databases to look at, you're just not worth the cost. Thanks, CSI for teaching people how AFIS "really works" /sarcasm

    15. Re:You're dumb by ooooli · · Score: 1

      [...] so it the finger prints probably won't get much further than the database.

      Phew, that's a relief

    16. Re:You're dumb by lordholm · · Score: 1

      At one place I worked at we had to pass a rotating gate that only opened for one person when he swiped his badge. If you where in a car you had to hand your badges to a guard, and if someone did not have a badge, they had to check in with the security guards.

      While it may have been technically possible to cheat the system by faking temporary badges and hope the guards would not look at your face, I think it would be to risky and to much hassle to bother.

      No fingerprints needed. By the way, I think it should in general be illegal to use information that is left behind everywhere for normal identification and security purposes. Besides the obvious privacy implications that people raise with fingerprints and DNA (which is a bit of a social issue, though still very important for me), there are several concrete issues related to the problem such as, if fingerprints are left behind they can be faked with relatively little hassle. I recall that the Chaos Computer Club managed to capture a german ministers fingerprints and they produced a cheap kit that could be used to fake it. If added biometric security is needed then stick to face-recognition, iris or retinal scans. The later two are safer and more secure than fingerprints and have zero of the privacy implications since you don't leave behind iris or retinal prints on everything you look at.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    17. Re:You're dumb by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      NO, this is misinformation. A fingerprint scanner used for time clocking does NOT keep or display any image of your fingerprint. This is simply INCORRECT.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    18. Re:You're dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, why would a time clock have social security numbers? That seems completely unnecessary and unwise.

  7. As long as you are assured that your privacy by ragethehotey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as you are assured that your privacy is protected...this is a huge non-issue. Fingerprint scanners are the best (In terms of ease of implementation) way to prevent people from clocking in and out for each other, even though they are obviously easily defeated by anyone sufficiently motivated.

    1. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      sufficiently motivated.

      to press their finger against a piece of sellotape.

       

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by ragethehotey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sufficiently motivated.

      to press their finger against a piece of sellotape.

      And with an inkjet printer and blank check paper, you can commit bank fraud. How is the fact that you CAN cheat relevant?

      At literally every hourly job I have ever held in my life, people "clocking in" to cover for friends has been a huge problem.
      Its outright theft from the employer, yet people that would never steal physical property, will cheat a time clock without thinking twice.

    3. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by MacroSlopp · · Score: 1

      Governments illegally read email and tap telephone calls. So don't worry about being assured that your privacy is protected.... it isn't.

    4. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0
      Wow. You win the prize for the most self-contradictory paragraph I have seen this month.

      As long as you are assured that your privacy is protected...this is a huge non-issue. ... even though they are obviously easily defeated ...

      Just as obviously, neither your rights OR your time clock is protected if the system is "obviously easily defeated". And they are, of course.

    5. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      And with an inkjet printer and blank check paper, you can commit bank fraud. How is the fact that you CAN cheat relevant?

      At literally every hourly job I have ever held in my life, people "clocking in" to cover for friends has been a huge problem.
      Its outright theft from the employer, yet people that would never steal physical property, will cheat a time clock without thinking twice.

      Uhhhm, you asked the question and then answered it yourself - that was on purpose right?

      The fact that you can cheat this system and that there is plenty of motivation to cheat it means it will be cheated.

      Chances are the vendor selling the system promoted it as being cheat-proof. That's been my experience with these finger-print timeclocks.
      But if it is relatively simple to cheat than it has no benefit over the older system which was cheaper, just as prone to cheating but less invasive.

      So who really wins here? Employer pays out a good chunk of money that, at best, only buys a temporary reprieve from cheating and may even create a false sense of confidence such that more cheating goes on without getting caught. Employees lose yet another piece of their privacy. Vendor sells another shiny new box and the salesman gets a big fat commission.

      Not many winners in that scenario.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is the fact that you CAN cheat relevant?

      It's relevant because the fact that it is *easily* cheated disproves claims that it is being done to *prevent* cheating.

    7. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      At the call center that I work, our attendance is based on a point system.

      If you are 5 minutes late, you get 1 point. If you are 1 hour late (our need to go home early) you get 2 points. If you are out for the whole day, you get 3.

      9 points in a year get you on a verbal. 15 points move you to a written. 18 and you are on a final. Anything after that is termination.

      9 points may seem like a lot until you get the flue or pneumonia. And this job, nor any of call center job I have worked for, take doctor notes in lieu of points.

      The only way not to get a point is to get on FMLA. This is stupid of the company because most docs will write it up for anything and then the employee suddenly has 90 days worth of unpaid sick time versus the 3-5 days out for having the flue.

      People cover for each other not to "steal," but to keep their jobs.

      Last month I left for work 30 minutes early. There was a wreck and I, along with 90% of the call center was late to work (since the wreck was on the exit for work.) We all got the point (some that did not leave early got 2.) We watched the salary managers come late in joking about how bad the traffic was while telling the hourly people that the point system is set up to allow us to be late when there is a traffic jam.

      This has been at every call center job I have worked at. In San Antonio, if you are unskilled labor, call center is the job you get.

    8. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Fingerprint scanners are the best (In terms of ease of implementation) way
      > to prevent people from clocking in and out for each other...

      No. Competent supervision is the best way to prevent people from clocking in and out for each other. If their management is so incompetent that they need this to prevent such things they have problems a fingerprint machine won't solve.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    9. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by houghi · · Score: 1

      Where I work they had the brilliant idea to do fingerprints for this as well. My ideas where first the famous "Myth Busters" show where they showed this won't work. Next I could see that what would happen would be that managers instead of checking if people were actually there, would start believing the machine that the person was there.

      So I come in at 09:00 and leave at 09:01 and come back at 16:59 to log out at 17:00. Manager sees that I was there.

      Staff not attending is a social problem. Don't solve it with a technical solution.

      Luckily for now they have halted the project. I am sure they will pick it up again in April or so.

      And one question I had was never answered: "So you want a trail of how much extra time people do, which can be used in court, even though at this moment you decide not to pay those extra hours?" As I live in Belgium, the moment they fire me and this system is in place AND I want to screw them, I can just ask for all those extra hours from the moment I started working there (not from when they started measuring) and they will have to pay me AND pay all the taxes on top of that as well. A quick calculation of 1 hour extra per day: 200 hours or a bit over 1 month per year.

      For them that will be 1 month x 3 per year (double pay and all the extra's on top), or somewhere a So if I work there 4 years they would have a cost of 1 year extra or 25%. Now there are several hundred people working with us in Belgium.

      And this even goes for all people who leave the company. So would you REALLY want such a thing?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by ameoba · · Score: 1

      We're talking about part-time work-study jobs for college students - don't you think that biometric timeclocks are a little overkill? There's maybe a dozen employees, all part-time, performing menial clerical jobs, making nearly minimum wage, with 80% of their wages getting subsidized through their financial aid.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    11. Re:As long as you are assured that your privacy by winwar · · Score: 1

      "We're talking about part-time work-study jobs for college students - don't you think that biometric timeclocks are a little overkill?"

      Not really. They needed some kind of timeclock system to track hours worked. So I assume they chose one that best met their needs. It seems to require no paper, no codes or tokens to lose and it is hard to punch in for a friend. In short, it's easy to administer for the people in charge.

  8. No contradiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I checked into these before. The scanner records a description of your fingerprint, not the image. The description is used to match. It's a form of message digestion.

    Most scanners of this type do not even record enough detail to qualify as evidence. Those that do must have their data shared with law enforcement, making them a hard sell as a biometric time card.

    1. Re:No contradiction. by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most scanners of this type do not even record enough detail to qualify as evidence. Those that do must have their data shared with law enforcement,

      Do they have to just volunteer all the data automatically, or only if law enforcement asks? (If the former, [citation needed].)

    2. Re:No contradiction. by Protocol16 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup, exactly correct. Scanners will store a "hashed" version of your fingerprint based off of an algorithm. It just stores the "fingerprint" as a random string of data. The more secure versions store the hash on a Smart Card, which you have to authenticate against. The DoD uses this type of system on their ID cards for Contractors, Civilians and Military personnel. If you're worried about how bad this situation is, you need to watch a specific myth busters episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4Xx5Noxyo Nothing to worry about, no privacy being broken, etc.

      --
      Don't click here...
    3. Re:No contradiction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most scanners of this type do not even record enough detail to qualify as evidence. Those that do must have their data shared with law enforcement, making them a hard sell as a biometric time card.

      Having worked on biometrics projects (like US Visit), I partially concur. Access control print scanners usually do not provide enough resolution for legal (read criminal justice) uses. Criminal and government systems must have input image resolutions of at least 500 pixels per inch (ppi). Many systems are now 1000 ppi. However, you can easily buy scanners of this quality and use them without having to share the data with anyone.

    4. Re:No contradiction. by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      Others have said this - but just for the to clear this up - it is *not* a hash, digest or any other form of cryptographic data - though the fingerprint template may be encapsulated in such form for storage, e.g. PKI utilized at the DOD.

      Short answer: The fingerprint data template is a series of polar graph points which are compared each time for accuracy.

      Long answer:
      Fingerprints are enrolled into the system using an image feature extraction algorithm which extracts the minutiae details into a template set of polar points. Each time a fingerprint is scanned for authentication, the same procedure is reproduced to form a comparison point set, which is then compared against the template for completeness, locality and minutiae point type. A weighted calculation is then determined to produce a percentage match to determine authentication pass or fail.

      Hope this explains the process well enough!

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  9. Welcome to the new world by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Same as the old one... My wife's workplace has this system. Works terribly but somehow it got past some CxO. Not sure if the privacy issue is a big deal however. You train the system in the system (if it's the same one). The print doesn't go out to the big Gov.

    Not saying that they couldn't do that, but you do realize (being an aluminum foil shielded card carrying Slasdotter) that 'they' can get your fingerprints, DNA and bog knows what else without much of a problem these days.

    Hell, at least it's pretty unlikely to show up on Facebook.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Welcome to the new world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is not if they can get it. Of course they are physically capable of getting it. Just like I can get your ADN or your fingerprints or your phone number without much effort if I'm geographically near your. If the government wants to get you fingerprinted, it's easy as pie. But it's also illegal unless there's a very good reason for it. The question is whether we should *consent* to giving that kind of personal data. THAT's what this is all about.

      My personal opinion is that you should not consent. I don't care if it's a digest. Don't do it. Tell them to give you the option to enter using a code and a password. If I were an external researcher invited to your institution, I'd refuse to give my fingerprint or a digest. If left no other choice, I'd refuse to do the job and I'd leave, no matter how important the job might be.

    2. Re:Welcome to the new world by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Not saying that they couldn't do that, but you do realize (being an aluminum foil shielded card carrying Slasdotter) that 'they' can get your fingerprints, DNA and bog knows what else without much of a problem these days.

      That's fine. If, for example, they've done some good police work and identified me as a suspect, then they should be able to get biometric information in order to prove/disprove that suspicion. The unpleasant part is for there to be a large database they can search without having done any police work first. That makes everyone in the DB a de facto suspect of every crime, and if your fingerprint code happens to match a criminal, then you may be falsely accused with "strong" evidence of guilt.

      The timeclock DB may not communicate with AFIS, but Government can obtain the DB with only the consent of the employer. If a crime is committed on the employer's property, do you think employer will be reluctant to providing that consent?

  10. Disney World by crow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At Disney World, they require finger prints when you enter the park if you want to be able to re-enter or switch to another park (if you have a ticket that allows that). At least the government doesn't directly get them, but who knows what they're doing with them or how long they keep them. (This was several years ago; I don't know if it's changed.)

    1. Re:Disney World by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      At Disney World, they require finger prints when you enter the park if you want to be able to re-enter or switch to another park (if you have a ticket that allows that). At least the government doesn't directly get them, but who knows what they're doing with them

      Every night after the park closes, they dust every door handle to see who went where, and if anyone attempted to open "Employee Only" doors. Or maybe the park high mucky-mucks are fingerprint fetishists? Or maybe, just maybe, there's nothing sinister about it.

    2. Re:Disney World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When my girlfriend and I were at Disney World, we assumed it was for the reason of tracking pedophiles or other predators that enter the park (unofficially, of course)...

      Even if that isn't the reason, it would be easy for the police to provide finger prints of known pedophiles in the area after a kid is snatched to see if he entered the park.

    3. Re:Disney World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to live in Tampa and had a year pass to Busch Gardens. That park also has finger print scanners however the employees do not make it obvious that using them is optional (If one refuses they will ask to see ID to be sure that the names on both the pass and ID match) but the vast majority of people just give over their fingerprints (as well as the fingerprints of their children). While I don't think that there is anything sinister about it, the more common practices like this become the less people will think about the implications of handing over personal data such as this.

    4. Re:Disney World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every night after the park closes, they dust every door handle [...]

      Yes, with magic pixie dust!

    5. Re:Disney World by maxume · · Score: 1

      No, Disney is pretty fucking sinister.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Disney World by MadCow42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and I was equally concerned with them using these at Disney World! Thankfully they don't collect fingerprints from kids - maybe they're also concerned with the potential legal issues?

      Hint - at least at Disney World you can decline. You simply have to show picture ID. Don't be a sheep - at least ask what your options are, how your privacy will be protected, and what THEIR liability is if there is a breach in that privacy.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    7. Re:Disney World by mackthespoon · · Score: 1

      Fingerprints are not required (as is confirmed on their website). When my son and I went there last summer we simply had to check in with the customer service the first day we arrived and then inform the gate attendants that we opted out of the fingerprinting.

    8. Re:Disney World by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      They don't require kid's fingerprints because they are oily, sticky and highly inaccurate. A child has a much smaller fingerprint than an adult and the DPI of the optical finger scanners are all geared for adults. Oh, and it's just bad publicity.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  11. For the fossils by stokessd · · Score: 4, Funny

    And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a
    study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm
    singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
    situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a
    situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
    the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
    anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.".

    1. Re:For the fossils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that pile of garbage.

    2. Re:For the fossils by stox · · Score: 1

      And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
      wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
      guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
      KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
      he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
      yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
      sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    3. Re:For the fossils by catherder_finleyd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And now for the rest of the story:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_7C0QGkiVo

    4. Re:For the fossils by arc_orion · · Score: 1

      I never thought I'd be considered a fossil at the age of twenty-four.

    5. Re:For the fossils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. I'm only 22 and I've known this song since I was 13/14 or so.

  12. Acid by EightBits · · Score: 3, Funny

    Use acid on your finger tips to remove the prints and use that for ID. The only problem is that you are now linked to hundreds of crimes where no traces of fingerprints were found. But at least they wont be able to identify YOU when they find your actual fingerprints somewhere.

    1. Re:Acid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Use acid on your finger tips to remove the prints and use that for ID.

      Did not go so well and now I have no fingers you insensitive clod exclamation point Windows Vista speech recognition is scrap
      period start new line START NEW LINE!
      Now let me get back to editing my perl scripts

    2. Re:Acid by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      Now let me get back to editing my perl scripts

      WIN +10

    3. Re:Acid by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How did this get moderated up? A weak alkali is much better at removing fingerprints and much less painful than an acid. I didn't have fingerprints for much of the last two years of studying chemistry at school as a result. My fingerprints are still quite faint; it took the scanners at the US border four attempts to register mine. I had to press really hard to get it to admit that I existed at all.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by Tepshen · · Score: 4, Informative

    The way that most modern fingerprint scanners work is by using matching algorithms. They scan your fingerprint and translate that into a numeric value and then store that. Not a copy of your fingerprint itself. This numeric value cannot be used to recreate your fingerprint but it can however be used to match the output that only your fingerprint will produce when scanned. To be perfectly candid its far easier to steal your fingerprints by stealing something you own than it is to take them from a fingerprint security/tracking system.

    1. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by EightBits · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's not really the point. Once that hash or checksum or whatever of your fingerprint is stored and linked to you, they can still track you by pulling fingerprints from the items you own or touch. All they have to do is get your fingerprint from something and run it against the database with these stored values.

    2. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All they have to do is get your fingerprint from something

      like your finger? Look, if "they" want your fingerprint, they're going to come get it from you. If you're a suspect you will be fingerprinted. This time clock is not connected to a federal black-helicopter database, no matter how exciting that might be.

      making a stink about something trivial like this makes legitimate privacy concerns look bad

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    3. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      they lift your print off something, why the fuck would they need anything out of this dinky database? all it's going to tell them is when you clocked into work.

      big fucking deal.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      It's a stand-alone time clock. You can buy them at Office Depot. I've never seen one with a mechanism for getting any sort of hash or minutiae data from it. It's certainly conceivable, but why would anyone go to that trouble? Anyone that intent on violating your privacy could pick up a latent print from some other object much easier. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with some very innocent-seeming task that would let you get a full set of prints from a job candidate without them ever suspecting anything.

      Personally, I'd trust an employer less with my social security number - at least with the time clock I could be reasonably certain no one was going to accidentally release that information.

    5. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by synaptik · · Score: 1

      They scan your fingerprint and translate that into a numeric value and then store that. Not a copy of your fingerprint itself.

      That's a superfluous distinction. *Everything* stored in a computer is a 'numeric value'. Once in computer memory, a 100x100 image of your fingerprint is indistinguishable from a 10,000 bit number (assuming 1 bit per pixel, for sake of argument.)

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    6. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be missing the point. This isn't about "stealing" your finger print, this is about having your finger print on file somewhere with your name attached to a certain sequence that can identify you. Yeah, someone could steal your finger print from a piece of trash and put it in their data base, but no one is going around stealing the finger prints of random people. Should someone "find" your finger print they could then take that finger print that would normally be anonymous and check various companies' finger print data bases in order to identify you.

    7. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat response... wacky, but NOT out of the question.

      1) Employer takes fingerprints for timecard scanner.

      2) Employer falls on hard times, is bought out by Evil Corp, and decides that it can make some money selling off it's database of names/fingerprint info to a marketing firm. Alternatively, they go bankrupt and their servers are bought at auction by said marketing firm. Alternatively, someone hacks into their network and steals the data. Alternatively, a disgruntled employee steals it and sells it... and on and on.

      3) The government is LEGALLY allowed to purchase data from 3rd parties that it can't legally obtain by itself. It does this and adds your fingerprints to a national database.

      4) Now you can be instantly linked to anything using a handy search tool, even if there's no other evidence. Have nothing to hide? Well, maybe a disgruntled cop wants to find the guy that's been doing his wife... and on and on.

      Sorry... any private company just HAVING that type of biometric data is a concern to me. Despite best intentions, not everything works out as planned.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    8. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's a fingerprint. You leave it on everything that you touch. Or do you wear gloves every time you leave the house and not remove them until you are back home?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Look, if "they" want your fingerprint, they're going to come get it from you. If you're a suspect you will be fingerprinted.

      Fine. Good. This is the way it's supposed to work: in order for them to want your fingerprints, they must have some reason. Some other thing aside from you being a breathing resident of USA that brings their attention on you. If you're in that circumstance, then yes, they can (and should) be able to get your fingerprints. If you're in that circumstance, your fingerprints may even be exculpatory. Big win

      The privacy issue is the pre-existing database of fingerprint or fingerprint-like identifying information (in which you may or may not overlap with other individuals). The pre-existing database means that you can be, and are, tested as a suspect without any reason. That's not right.

      Others have pointed out that there may be professional requirement for fingerprinting, and this is usually associated with positions of significant trust, or significant power. Power or trust which may be easily abused and merits special surveillance. Keeping track of people because of their special position is very different than keeping track of everyone.

    10. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The fingerprint I leave on a door or a counter is not usually tied directly to your name, your address, your phone number, your social security number, and a list of your emergency contacts. That organized information is quite valuable, for legal and illegal purposes, but usually not for a purpose that you or I would actually want.

    11. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by Digicaf · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      I understand there are a ton of reasons to be concerned about privacy these days, but this is definitely not one of them. So a timeclock/doorlock/whatever wants your prints, get over it. This is the way it works. Employers (even one for a workstudy) do this kind of thing. They've also got your name, address, social, date of birth, etc...

      Leave the freaking out to people with real privacy problems.

    12. Re:Modern Fingerprint Scanners dont keep prints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It tells them if the fingerprint they lifted is the same as the one in their dinky database, dinky brain. It facilitates tracking, like EightBits said.

  14. Get Back To Us by longacre · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...when your boss starts asking to personally take samples of your reproductive DNA. Until then, there's nothing to be upset about.

    1. Re:Get Back To Us by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Health insurers require blood samples these days prior to coverage. That contains more than enough of your DNA for any purpose. If the majority of greedy, ignorant, short-sighted Americans had their way, health insurance and these types of privacy violations would have been already forced on the rest of us by now.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:Get Back To Us by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      when your boss starts asking to personally take samples of your reproductive DNA...

      Then just hand him/her your keyboard.
           

    3. Re:Get Back To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My boss is a hot chick, so no problem!

    4. Re:Get Back To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh. (What kind of DNA? Yeah. Bad joke.)

    5. Re:Get Back To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that depends. is it a hot lady boss? theres nothing to be upset about there either.

    6. Re:Get Back To Us by PTBarnum · · Score: 1

      I guess you better not apply for a job at the King County Medical Examiners Office. The head of that office paid his employees for sperm samples,

      http://www.king5.com/video/featured-videos/Reports-says-laws-were-broken-in-ME-Office-83308672.html

    7. Re:Get Back To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.. I had a boss that I wouldn't have minded giving some semen samples once...

    8. Re:Get Back To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless she's *really* cute!

  15. It used to be worse by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    When I was in High School (loooong before most of you were born) I got a part-time job as "page" at the city library (I put books back on the shelf). In order to get it I had to get a physical, be fingerprinted, and sign a loyalty oath. At least you didn't have to turn and cough.

    1. Re:It used to be worse by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Really.. you had to pledge loyalty to the mayor? Is this in case of attack by a neighboring city-state?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:It used to be worse by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      No, I had to promise not to overthrow the US government. It was never explained to me how my job would make it easier to do so (by placing communist books in the new books section perhaps?).

  16. It's like storing a hash. by HiggsBison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently what it is storing is a statistical summary of the biometric information (if that's not redundant). It doesn't store the fingerprints themselves anymore than an operating system will store your password. With the password, whatever you type in has to have a hash which matches the hash associated with your account. With the scanner, the summary generated each time you plop your hand on the scanner has to match (to a significant degree) the summary on file.

    But, yes, if someone finds your fingerprints somewhere else, and they have access to this data, they can be reasonably certain it is you.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    1. Re:It's like storing a hash. by davester666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're really opposed to this, but also really want the job, bribe one of the medical students to cut off a finger and give it to you. Then you can use that finger to clock in/out instead...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:It's like storing a hash. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      KRYTEN: Logically, sir, there is only one way you could have possibly have opened that door. I feel quite nauseous. Where is it?
      LISTER: Where's what?
      KRYTEN: Oh, sir!! You've got it in your jacket!!
      LISTER: I got us out of the hold, didn't I?
      KRYTEN: Sir, you are sick! You are a sick, sick person! How can you possibly even conceive of such an idea?
      LISTER: Cheer up! Or I'll beat you to death with the wet end!
      KRYTEN: Sir, if mechanoids could barf, I'd be onto my fifth bag by now. You're a sick person! Sick! Sick!

    3. Re:It's like storing a hash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is NOT like storing a hash for a password. For properly hashed passwords the only attack is a dictionary attack (or sniffing or phishing). It is more like protecting passwords by encryption , where they use rot13 for encryption. Formally true but almost no real protection.

      Standard fingerprint algorithms, and as far as I know all commercial algorithm, have templates that are effectively invertible. There are multiple published papers showing how to get back a fingerprint image from the templates. So the company and university are misleading people. There is ongoing research on protected templates and a few companies doing it but I don't think any time and attendance system uses it.

      You should ask them to see the formal privacy and data protection policies. Ask how they are protecting your personally identifiable data. The rules for protecting your Social Security Number should also hold for your fingerprint, but they probably are doing that in the time and attendance system. If its a public institution there are probably state laws about protecting university storage of identity data (After their long standing problems with SSN). Try using that on them.

    4. Re:It's like storing a hash. by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      ...
      LISTER: High Five? I can do better than that! I can give you Fifteen.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    5. Re:It's like storing a hash. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      A lot of "operating systems" store passwords, with badly written applications. Go take a look at "The-25-Most-Dangerous-Programming-Errors" thread a few days ago on Slashdot, and the long thread I started there about how most setups of Subversion store your passwords in cleartext, on the server for svnserve, and on the UNIX and Linux clients for svnserver, HTTP, HTTPS, and some SSH access.

    6. Re:It's like storing a hash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that a Markov model of your fingerprint is not your fingerprint, is akin to saying the a jpg of a photo you took of me is not a picture of me. Both are mathematical simplifications of real world information where some information (like depth, precise wavelength and light intensity) is being lost in digital quantification. If it is a useful model of his fingerprint, it is his fingerprint. You naive to say otherwise.

  17. Biometrics... by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 0

    Way of the future. Seems like a trap, but probably isn't. Your actual prints are not stored anywhere. There's no image they send off to the CSI guys to zoom and enhance. When you register a finger, the software scans an image (a very bad one) and translates it into an alphanumeric string which is stored in a database and associated with your user account. That's why it doesn't work as good as it seems like it should. Roll your finger on the sensor a little to the left and the string generated by the sensor is off by a character. No paycheck for you. Of course if they hand you an inkpad and a 3x5 card, you might want to question it more...

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  18. Quit by tix6174 · · Score: 1

    If you don't like the terms of work then don't work there.

  19. When was this??? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    and sign a loyalty oath

    Was it during McCarthyism or post-9/11? *joke* *I think*

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:When was this??? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      It was a hold-over from McCarthyism.

    2. Re:When was this??? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Since it's so in fashion these days to attach a "Neo" to some old catchphrase when we repeat something stupid, maybe we should call that Neo-McCarthyism?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:When was this??? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Well, since it happened around 1970, it isn't very "Neo".

    4. Re:When was this??? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, that is now relabeled Retro-McCarthyism because that Neo-prefix has to be used for the most recent one. You can't trump Neo. Didn't you see The Matrix?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:When was this??? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I love how we got this term "McCarthyism" as if Senator McCarthy was in charge of the House Unamerican Affairs Committee and not, you know, concerned entirely* with 100-200 communists in the State Dept. who might have had loyalties to foreign countries, specifically USSR. Of which, the released Venona records reveal probably were actually communists, and many of which genuinely were spies.

      *ok, and a lot with grandstanding. But his targets were all within a federal agency with immense power.

      But yeah, don't worry about traitors in the department charged with diplomacy and state security or anything. That'd be like, some kind of -ism and like, race-bating or something. It's not like they can hurt you with a bad treaty or anything. Oh.. wait...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:When was this??? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Of those who actually were spies, how many were Protestants? Catholics? Jews?

      Follow the evidence rather than trying to gain political power by having everybody looking over their shoulder. A lot of people in Hollywood were blacklisted - what great state secrets did they have?

      The loyalty oath I had to sign was real proof of the absurd and incompetent government action over the "communist threat". As if somebody who wanted to overthrow the government would mind signing such a document.

      But don't let my personal experience interfere with your standard talking points.

    7. Re:When was this??? by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      I don't know if his point has merit or not, but I think you missed it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    8. Re:When was this??? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Either he has only a limited understanding of the era or he was trying to create a straw man. It's not as if Senator McCarthy was chosen at random to represent US government abuse of its citizens.

    9. Re:When was this??? by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Sigh. No, I think it likely that he wasn't chosen at random.

      Still, you fell right into his trap. He drew a distinction between the House Un-American Activities Committee and McCarthy. Then, instead of attacking McCarthy for his own activities, or showing a connection between the two, you proceeded to attack McCarthy for the Committee's activities.

      Do you see it now?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    10. Re:When was this??? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "you proceeded to attack McCarthy for the Committee's activities."

      Nope.

  20. Oh no! by ChinggisK · · Score: 1, Informative

    I bet there was a handle on the door to their office too, wasn't there? Now your fingerprints are all over the door handle too! It's a conspiracy!

    Seriously though, of course privacy is a huge issue these days, but worrying about your school stealing your fingerprints? You're a little extra special paranoid.

    1. Re:Oh no! by Cwix · · Score: 1

      See article about high school taking pictures of students in their home via webcam. Just beacuse your paranoid doesnt mean there isnt someone out to get you. Yes, Yes I know it was a high school, and this was a college, I could still see potential problems.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:Oh no! by Angstroem · · Score: 0, Troll

      With all due respect, you are a dumbass.

      Here's one guy who still uses his brain for thinking, and he just doesn't see what this fingerprinting (which you may have forgotten was used as a special treatment for criminals in former times) is all about.

      If they want to check his presence, logging him in and out, there are other methods to do that. They don't need his fingerprints. It worked perfectly well with badges and/or company ID cards.

      And, yes, his fingerprints are all over the doorprint. Together with a gazillion of other fingerprints. And withoug registration that makes him one of the anonymous crowd.

      Before all this "we need your fingerprints for this and that" nonsense, of course, as his fingerprints weren't not registered.

      Now they are.

      It's easy to ridicule people as paranoid. Instead, however, you should be thinking "why the heck are they requiring my fingerprints".

    3. Re:Oh no! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You still touch door handles with your hand? I see you don't have your towel with you.

      I bet you also still push the elevator buttons with your finger instead of your knuckles...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Oh no! by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

      It is much easier to hand a friend your badge or ID card and have them log you in than it is to hand them your fingerprint and do the same. He's a student working in some office at his school, not at a big company that has security guards checking the picture on his ID or something. This is just a quick, easy and convenient (no more forgetting badges!) to make sure he's clocking in on time.

      How are they going to violate his privacy with his fingerprints, other than saying 'oo we have your fingerprints now'? Are they going to use them to track his browsing habits? No. Record his phone conversations? No. Steal his identity? Doubtful. It'd even be pretty damn hard for them to falsely accuse him of something with just those, because as you said, his fingerprints on anything will be mixed in with a gazillion others. And as other posters have pointed out, if someone really came up with a good reason to steal his fingerprints, it wouldn't be too hard to do anyway.

    5. Re:Oh no! by physicsphairy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they want to check his presence, logging him in and out, there are other methods to do that. They don't need his fingerprints. It worked perfectly well with badges and/or company ID cards.

      How exactly does an ID card verify his presence, rather than simply that someone possessing the card happened to run it through the machine?

      And, yes, his fingerprints are all over the doorprint. Together with a gazillion of other fingerprints. And withoug registration that makes him one of the anonymous crowd.

      As long as no one goes to the extraordinary effort of pre-emptively wiping the handle clean.

      It's easy to ridicule people as paranoid. Instead, however, you should be thinking "why the heck are they requiring my fingerprints".

      What I am comparing this to is, for example, using a social security number for identification, which seems to generate a large current of opposition here on slashdot precisely because it such a non-physical, easily reproducible security feature. I want anonymity as much as the next guy, but the one place I don't want it is in verifying my identity. (I would think most people could see the inherent contradiction in wanting both at the same time.) Ideally only one person will be able to gain access to things under my identity, that being me.

      Fyi, pretty much any job working for the government or with children is much more invasive--you will actually have your prints submitted to a database for a background check, rather than simply having checksummed on the given machine. The latter doesn't seem that controversial to me.

    6. Re:Oh no! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I bet you also still push the elevator buttons with your finger instead of your knuckles...

      Knuckles? Come now, there's far more creative ways to think of for pushing elevator buttons, they really aren't all that high up...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    7. Re:Oh no! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I know, but I don't want to get into trouble for indecent exposure again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Oh no! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Fyi, pretty much any job working for the government or with children is much more invasive--you will actually have your prints submitted to a database for a background check, rather than simply having checksummed on the given machine. The latter doesn't seem that controversial to me.

      However, there are a huge litany of rules and restrictions that protect you and the information you submit for a government background check.
      No such rules apply in a situation like this.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  21. fingerprints by wizardforce · · Score: 1

    Temp companies are doing this as well. Which to me is a good reason to establish property rights for privacy. In that case, you would be the sole non-transferable owner of your fingerprint scan among other data and have sole discretion over what is done with it. They would upon your consent store one single copy of the scan on the device which if copied or otherwise removed for other uses without your consent would now have legal consequences. The beauty of the concept is that you could also establish similar rights for the contents of mail and internet connections which could possibly address the net neutrality issue as well.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:fingerprints by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      They'd just make you sign a contract giving them an unlimited license to store, transfer, or sell. Property rights won't do jack shit. If you want to stop it, you make it a criminal offense to transfer that data for any reason and don't allow them to hide behind the corporate veil. Anything trying to use property rights and contracts will fail as miserably as it does everywhere else.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:fingerprints by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      That is why I noted that there should be limitations on what can be done with them. Lessons can be learned from copyright "property rights" and applied to privacy.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  22. Wait until you get a job by codepunk · · Score: 1

    I have been at places where it required a badge, hand geometry and finger print
    to gain access.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Wait until you get a job by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The question is actually why we put up with that shit? I mean, it hasn't been an ultimate requirement 20 years ago (mostly because, well, it was impossible without access to NASA-esque hardware), but suddenly we all need to be fingerprinted, X-Rayed, retina scanned and DNA-probed just to get to our workplace? I mean, I could see if this workplace was some sort of superspecialawesomeultrasecret shady black ops government sponsored (but definitly denied) lab developing the next generation I-win button for international warfare. But your average clerk job in some no-security biz? Get real.

      Where does this extreme "security" concern come from? And, most important, how does it increase security if it's done in a business where visitors are frequent who have basically the same liberty to run around as you, the anal-probed company property, do?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Wait until you get a job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it needs to exists for the reasons you're complaining about. Any datacenter worth a damn requires a badge and biometrics for entry to prevent people who shouldn't be there from getting access to private data.

    3. Re:Wait until you get a job by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As I said, I can see the need for biometrics where elevated security needs make them necessary. But in areas where any Yahoo Random can waltz in because "he has an appointment" with one of the markedrones?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Wait until you get a job by codepunk · · Score: 1

      In the case of using biometrics to punch in and out for time and attendence that
      is another thing entirely. It is just a way to make sure that you are not
      either screwing your employer and or not being compensated properly for overtime
      hours worked. If that is what you are trying to get away from then work a job
      with a salary that does not require punching a clock.

      --


      Got Code?
    5. Re:Wait until you get a job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Where does this extreme "security" concern come from?"

      It's cheaper than putting a rent-a-cop at every fucking door to compare your face with the photos on file.

    6. Re:Wait until you get a job by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How does it help me ensuring I get compensated correctly for overtime? How does the biometric scanner keep my employer from tampering with the data I often cannot even examine, let alone ensure its not been altered?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by gerf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently if you visit Brazil, Europeans and Brazilians go through one line. Americans, we can all step over here to get fingerprinted, retina scanned, etc.

    Why? We do it to them, so they do it back. F.

    1. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by ivoras · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An it is only fair - I wish other countries will do the same. There should be no reason not to reciprocate any such nonsense requirement.

      --
      -- Sig down
    2. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      It is because americans do the same when foreign people visit USA, So brazilians got tired of that discrimination and in response gives the same treatmen that americans give to brazillians. Argentina took a different aproach, now Argentina charges a fee, for all the visitors whose country charges argentineans. Usa claims a 123 usd fee in order to request a visa, (that can be denied with no reason nor refound) so argentina charges americans a 123 usd fee. Think that as a way to make citizens of other countries how they threat to foreigns.

    3. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by akma · · Score: 1

      If only we could do the same type things in other ways to people from other countries. I'd love to put up "no foriegner" signs in a few places like in Japan for example.

      --
      akma
    4. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Apparently if you visit Brazil, Europeans and Brazilians go through one line. Americans, we can all step over here to get fingerprinted, retina scanned, etc.

      Why? We do it to them, so they do it back. F.

      Of course it backfires, since the American-only line tends to be shorter. So even with the additional data gathering, they get through faster.

    5. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      You mean it's the people that we vote into office to make these choices for us?

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    6. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by rafaelolg · · Score: 1

      Although most of the Brazilians would agree with the action, the decision here in Brazil for the payback was made by politicians. And It is no more a decision up to the politicians. There is a law in our constitution that establishes the rule of reciprocity. At least we are also reciprocal to other countries that make severe requirements like Spain.

    7. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Australians, Africans, Asians, South Americans, Canadians, Central Americans - basically everyone except US Americans. It's a reciprocity thing. Brazil only requires visas for Americans because the USA requires visas for Brazilians.

    8. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "It's our politicians, not the majority of our people"

      It is precisely the majority of your people the ones that empowers your politicians.

      "How many average American citizens say, "Oh, I just love all this security theater that ultimately does nothing to protect us?""

      How many average American citizens use their ballot power to have the thing go away? Or is it that, after all, they are not so averse to all that theater?

    9. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      The majority never see the best political candidates (eliminated during primaries by large minorities), and they aren't that appealing, either. Our whole election process is one big false dichotomy (largely imposed by the parties and by plurality voting). That's ignoring the vote fraud that might be rampant. (The widespread incompetence makes it hard to see how many malicious actors there are.) You complain about security theater? That's relatively benign compared to "election theater".

      Does that answer your question?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    10. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      It's not Brazils problem if your government doesn't represent the will of the people.

    11. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Placing "no foreigner" signs in a few places you would make you no better than the a%$holes that place them in japan. Placing "No Japanese" signs would be reciprocity.

    12. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Not all of the people in office were voted in, and even when they are, there is no guarantee that they will do as they say. The choice then becomes the evil that we know of vs the evil that we don't. And plus, even if 50% + 1 thought that we should have these crazy restrictions, what right do they have to impose that on anyone? If other governments wanted to stop this, they should subject our politicians to the same treatment when they visit. That might end up getting their attention, more so than groveling before them and asking if they would please consider not invading our privacy on a massive scale.

      --
      SSC
    13. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      How many average American citizens use their ballot power to have the thing go away? Or is it that, after all, they are not so averse to all that theater?

      How many major candidates at any level have campaigned to end security theater? Very few. Many of them latch on to it, because an imagined crisis helps them get votes. "Vote for me or those evil people will bomb us!" That line, in so many forms, has resulted in unimaginable evils becoming common and everyday occurrences.

      --
      SSC
    14. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by aylons · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, that is right. This is due to Brazilian Constitution, which says that all diplomacy must be reciprocal. E.g., for every country which demands a visa from Brazilian people, Brazil demands a visa for their people to get in Brazil. If the government, the Federal Police or the airport authority decides to do any different, they will get sued.

      --
      This comment may contain speech figures. Reader discretion is advised.
    15. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      the other way round: since 50%+1 (or less actually, given the way the US elections work, plus you've there's the young, the non-voters... my guess would be more like 25% of all US citizens) impose cumbersome+costly restrictions on ALL (not 50%+1) foreigners, imposing the same on ALL US citizens seems logical.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    16. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      Yep. France has a funnier system for presidential elections, with no official primaries, so the first round of presidential elections often has 10-15 candidates, with special-interest parties (hunting...), fringe ones (all the flavor of communists, several flavors of far right...) and several mainstream candidates (greens, socialists, center, right, often several candidates for each). We had a tragic episode a few years back when the mainstream-left party came in third to the mainstream-right and extreme right... That DID get a point across, though I'm not sure I actually liked the point being made.

      Also, it's very strictly a one person = one vote system, which the US system isn't with the intermediate 'state' level.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    17. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      You mean it's the people that we vote into office to make these choices for us?

      You must be new here...

    18. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Electoral College ("intermediate state level") is a throwback to earlier years. We really should get rid of it, but there doesn't seem to be any real interest in doing so. It would require a constitutional amendment and they don't see the point to going through all that effort. Besides, this means they can focus their campaign dollars in a much more geographically targeted fashion.

      France - two phase runoff? I can't imagine. I'm guessing that means that they either make you vote twice instead of using a ranked-choice ballot, or it means they ignore the fact that a ranked-choice ballot can do IRV. Still, it makes more sense than either straight plurality or the Electoral College.

      France has still got to have primaries in some fashion, though. How do the parties choose candidates? I'm sure that anyone who shows up at the election offices and says they want to run for office must go through some kind of vetting process before they wind up on the ballot.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    19. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      candidates need some signatures from town mayors (or equivalent elected officials I think; I don't remember if it's 200 or 500). That doesn't seem too onerous, I'm not sure I've ever heard of someone not making the count: if you're on the right, the left will gladly help you out, and conversely, with the goal of making life harder for the other side.

      it's indeed 2-phase runoff.

      how each party's candidate is chosen is left entirely to each party. there is a push for primary, which do sound better than the usual backroom deals, but it's by no way the rule, and the modalities vary widely.

      pat

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    20. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one that thinks this is awesome? If every country did that to America maybe they'd quit being douches.

      Then again; every country in the world might then have biometrics and run with it :/

    21. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, because the non-voters agree with everything that comes up by default.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    22. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one that thinks this is awesome?

      As an American I don't find Brazil's reciprocity in this matter particularly onerous. Reciprocity is not always a bad thing. If someone does find reciprocity to be a bad thing then they probably don't consider turnabout to be fair play and are probably not accustomed to taking what they dish out.

      If every country did that to America maybe they'd quit being douches.

      Being douches is hardly something exclusive to America. You neglect to say what country you're from. Care to tell me so I can opine on whether you and your countrymen are douches?

    23. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      ... if you're on the right, the left will gladly help you out, and conversely, with the goal of making life harder for the other side.

      Oh, how nice of them.

      <lecture>

      Of course, things would be different if IRV ever took root. Oh, hey, France! It just might be possible to implement the Condorcet Method. He was a Frenchman, after all. (If Wikipedia can be believed, he was given an honorary, empty casket in the Pantheon in '89) Most countries would resist such a "radical" shift, but since you're already doing a runoff, and with the help of National Pride?

      The Condorcet Principle is the most rational election ideology that I've ever heard. While there can't always be a Condorcet Winner due to Arrow's Theorem, there are methods to deal with the inherent ambiguity (most of them better than 2-phase runoff). I personally hold the (closely related) Smith Criterion as my benchmark for acceptable election methods. (a high bar that I don't think any nation comes close to)

      </lecture>

      Sorry about that. I feel better now.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    24. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^
      Awesome. I like the Brazilian constitution :D

    25. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's true of many countries. There is a "working holiday" visa in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, etc. Americans can't work in Canada so easily, because the US won't let anyone do working holidays in their country. Also, Japan now required fingerprints of foreigners coming in the country, but they copied this idea from the US after all.

    26. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by gerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My point being that we (US) treat others like crap for NO reason, we get shafted back. I'm currently getting my 4th work visa in my 3rd country, and I really do think it ends up being a detriment to come from the US.

    27. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      How many average American citizens say, "Oh, I just love all this security theater that ultimately does nothing to protect us?"

      My evening news never has any trouble finding someone to interview who will say that the latest TSA restriction "is inconvenient, but it makes me feel safer flying." TSA has introduced about 1-2 new "theatrical" restrictions each year since 2002, and I can't recall any of them being rescinded. Oh, maybe nail clippers. That speaks of a weak or ineffective public backlash and suggests that average American citizens are perfectly happy with the security and don't consider it theater at all.

    28. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like its time for the "well armed militia" to take on the inner enemy.

    29. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "How many major candidates at any level have campaigned to end security theater?"

      Yeah, I see. You are one of those that think ala Homer Simpson. Democracy (and Republic, for that matter) is quite a different think than going to a shop and having to choose among what's offered. You can make the difference. Saying "but there's no candidate I'd vote for" is never the proper answer.

    30. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was more of a show of discontempt, but as a law student I find your explanation much more interesting (not to mention amusing). I guess I should read more comparative constitutional law!

    31. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, because the non-voters agree with everything that comes up by default.

      Claiming that non-voters agree with everything that comes up by default implies that the man in the street in the USSR agreed with Soviet policy by default, that North Koreans today agree with Kim's shenanigans by default, and that Cubans agree with the Castro Brothers' prattling by default.

      In the USA, if one votes, one gets about 1/300 millionth of the benefit, and bears 100% of the cost of voting.

      Besides, US statutes are enacted by a majority of a grand total of 536 individuals (435 in Congress, 100 in the Senate, and the President). That means that the other 300 million of us agree with whatever that elite minority enacts by default.

    32. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Claiming that non-voters agree with everything that comes up by default implies that the man in the street in the USSR agreed with Soviet policy by default, that North Koreans today agree with Kim's shenanigans by default, and that Cubans agree with the Castro Brothers' prattling by default.

      No, it doesn't. There is a huge difference between something people aren't allowed to do and something people voluntarily choose not to do, often because they don't care.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    33. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. It's the people voted that agreed to abide by the outcome of the vote. You have no idea if the people who did not made such an agreement or not.

    34. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, because the non-voters agree with everything that comes up by default.

      Most issues ("thing"s in your parlance) have a minimum of two sides. Which side do the "non-voters" agree with? Like it or not, you are using the rhetoric of a statist. If voting entailed gaining rights. e.g., "you voted against this tax and do not have to pay it (or benefit from it)" then you might have ground to stand. As is, voting gains almost nothing - not even the assurance that "no new taxes" will mean "no new taxes". I take it you can't complain because you voted for Obama - or not. Either way, I suspect 70% of the voting age population voted for Obama or did not vote. This means he has a mandate when the other side could say 67% voted for them or did not vote? What the fuck are you thinking?

    35. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point being that we (US) treat others like crap for NO reason, we get shafted back.

      For NO reason? Or maybe there's a reason but you're just unaware of it or choose to ignore it?

      If the US was in the habit of treating others like shit for no reason then I think that we'd have handled a lot of things during the past decade a whole lot differently than we did. The reason I say this is because there are a lot of others who have given us many reasons to treat them like shit but that have gotten off extremely lightly.

    36. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      What part of "the non-voters agree with everything that comes up by default" is so difficult to understand?

      And no, I haven't voted for Obama. I voted for the German Pirate party, if you must know.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    37. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Brazil is mandatory to vote.
      'non-voters' means something like less than 3%.

    38. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by akma · · Score: 1

      No. That just assumes I was only trying to get back at Japan. I have a much longer list.

      --
      akma
    39. Re:It's all stupid, and for stupid reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because Brazilians are filthy monkeys, and we need not trust such criminals in our society.

  24. When did they first tell you about this ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    Was it before you committed to the job ? If it was after - then it is a change to your contract, why do you need to accept it ? Unless it is a change in the law in which case you need to bend over and let yourself be shafted.

  25. Not working there is not a solution. by EightBits · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not many posts yet but I already see a LOT of posts pushing the idea of not working for this employer. This is not a solution. If we don't fight it and win, it will be adopted by more and more employers until it snowballs into something too big to fight. If we think this is a bad idea, it needs to be fought now while it's still in its infancy.

    1. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I had to submit fingerprints in order to get a job working for the U.S. federal government. I don't even have security clearance (although I did have to go through a background check as I hold a "position of public trust"). If the federal government is allowed to take fingerprints as a condition for employment, I don't see how other organizations could be limited in this regard.

    2. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Not many posts yet but I already see a LOT of posts pushing the idea of not working for this employer. This is not a solution. If we don't fight it and win, it will be adopted by more and more employers until it snowballs into something too big to fight. If we think this is a bad idea, it needs to be fought now while it's still in its infancy.

      I hope you understand that 'not giving them' a fingerprint for privacy concerns is a relatively moot point.

      If someone that employs you or works with you (or even not working with you, but knows of you) wants your fingerprint they can simply grab up any of the many things you touch on a daily basis.

      Most people don't wear gloves when they leave the house.

      Your fingerprints are all over the place. If I wanted them, I could get them.

    3. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, try living in another country or possibly even visiting for a length of time. You'll get investigated by all sorts, and give up a couple sets of (full) fingerprints...

    4. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Or they will just fire you and replace you with someone who wouldn't mind doing it.

      In this economy there are millions including myself who would be happy to do it. Its the free market and unfortunately thanks to free trade billions are available for dirt cheap.

    5. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by EightBits · · Score: 1

      Understood, Mr. Hawke. However, there is no reason to make it easy as a matter of policy. If it is made illegal to use fingerprints, then while you may still be able to get my prints, I can also catch you in the act. This, of course, adds risk to the equation for you. Merely making this illegal will be enough to deter many employers from attempting it. It will also make people who want protection more likely to try to find out who's doing this.

      And I agree with some other posters that this isn't really a concern. I personally don't care if the government has my prints. But the OP and posters who think you shouldn't work for that employer because of this probably *DO* think it is a problem. They are the ones who should be fighting it, not running from it. History has shown that governments and corporations tend to be predatory. We all know if you run from a predator, it will chase you.

    6. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by tftp · · Score: 1

      If the federal government is allowed to take fingerprints as a condition for employment, I don't see how other organizations could be limited in this regard.

      In my experience mostly governments want your fingerprints. For example, you leave your thumbprint when you get a driver's license, or when you get something certified by a notary public, or when you buy a firearm.

      On the other hand, fingerprint scanners are common on notebooks, including those used in business. They are not mandatory in most places, and you program them yourself. This laptop that I'm typing this on has a scanner, and I use it all the time when it comes out of sleep. But I can also type the password.

    7. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not many posts yet but I already see a LOT of posts pushing the idea of not working for this employer. This is not a solution. If we don't fight it and win, it will be adopted by more and more employers until it snowballs into something too big to fight. If we think this is a bad idea, it needs to be fought now while it's still in its infancy.

      Get a grip. They aren't asking for the fingerprints (which they COULD if they wanted) they are asking the guy to show up and run his finger over a biometric scanner. As was already pointed out, they don't even take an image of your print, and as already pointed out they already know a hell of a lot about you including your SS# and more, and as already pointed out if they wanted your print they could get it from a thousand things you touch each day.

      It sounds like the document was simply prepped by someone who either didn't understand, or didn't realize how many people don the tinfoil before getting out of bed.

      But go ahead and raise a stink if you must, if you're persistent you can probably get them to change the paperwork to say "biometric identification" instead of "fingerprint", and if you push REALLY hard they might actually consult with a professor and change it to read that they need a "numerical hash" of your "biometric information".

      There's plenty things out there to be paranoid of, this isn't one of them.

    8. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      ...I already see a LOT of posts pushing the idea of not working for this employer. This is not a solution. If we don't fight it and win, it will be adopted by more and more employers until it snowballs into something too big to fight. If we think this is a bad idea, it needs to be fought now while it's still in its infancy.

      1) Not working there IS how we fight it (if we are so inclined).
      2) I don't get what the freak-out about your employer having your finger prints is about. If it was DNA I'm with you - since that reveals personal details I might not want an employer to have. Fingerprints reveal.... how many fingers I have. Other than that its just another way to identify that I'm me and not someone pretending to be me.
      3) This is NOT in its infancy. Most employees at any brokerage company (and probably many other financial companies) are required to be fingerprinted. This was the case when I was hired by a mutual fund, 15 years ago, and I'm pretty sure it was a rule that had already been around for a while.

    9. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like if you're a foreigner visiting the US and they fingerprint you like a criminal?

    10. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      How the heck did that get modded Insightful?

      It's a fucking time clock. Not a sinister plan to steal your identity. It hashes one of your fingerprints and compares the hash to the one on file.

      The SSN, photo ID, home address, telephone number, bank account number, family member names/addresses/phone numbers you already gave the employer would work much better for identity theft than the one-way hash of one of your fingerprints.

    11. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hundreds of thousands of jobs in the government require fingerprinting. All military are fingerprinted. All law enforcement/justice. etc.. That's a different situation from trying to use a simple scanner for biometric authentication. Get over it. If you can't handle it, go to another country, or get another job. There is no "win" against this kind of system. It's too easy to hand your ID card to a friend to clock you in/out, and simple biometric authentication helps keep our tax dollars spent correctly.

    12. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by houghi · · Score: 1

      When complaining about it, just using 'privacy' will not be enough. What you need to do is look at the price, look at the price of alternatives and see what the advantages/disadvantages are. And then come up with the system that will be more price efficient.

      What you need to know is how much they think people abuse the current system, then ask how they came up with that number.

      What most likely is, is that they noticed one or two people logging in for others, think that everybody does that and use everybody as a parameter. Also they assume that if they use this system, nobody will be able to cheat. So you are fighting with falsified numbers and decisions that are already take before any calculations are done.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re:Not working there is not a solution. by selven · · Score: 1

      And not working for the employer is exactly how you fight it. The free market gives everyone the right to vote with their dollars, and we should exercise that right. If enough people oppose this the employer will back down. They're out there to help themselves, not hurt you, and if they realize that all of their new workers are people who can't find jobs anywhere else they'll rethink their policies.

  26. Easy Fix For You by hduff · · Score: 1

    Reynolds Wrap fashioned into a stylish chapeau. Works every time, guaranteed (unless you hear that from a government employee, then all bets are off).

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  27. I recommend... by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...that you stop being such a whiney bitch. So they want your fingerprints to ID you...so what? What is it that you're worried about that they're going to do with them, other than use them internally for authentication purposes?

    I am in the process of contacting the local newspaper...

    Are you for real? Other than than the fact that they likely won't give a rats ass about this, you are treading on very thin ice. I'm not sure what it is you're planning on doing after graduation, but being labeled a well-known whistle-blower isn't going to do you much justice when you're out looking for a job.

    1. Re:I recommend... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I dunno about him, but I'd be worried about the question why a no-security area needs so much information about me. It makes very little sense to take prints in a non-secure working area.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the system is one that uses a identifier that cannot be changed. In a badge based system, if the badge is lost or there is clerical error when entering data then order a new badge. How does one obtain new fingerprints?

    3. Re:I recommend... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Humor me:

      How much information about you is encoded in your fingerprint, exactly?

      If someone gained access to your fingerprint could they, for example, empty your bank account? Take out a loan in your name? Give me an example here.

    4. Re:I recommend... by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      The problem is the system is one that uses a identifier that cannot be changed. In a badge based system, if the badge is lost or there is clerical error when entering data then order a new badge. How does one obtain new fingerprints?

      If you've lost your finger prints, I'd imagine there are more pressing things to worry about.

    5. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whistle blowers at least expose problems. This guy's just cyring about nonsense.
      It would actually be awesome for him to go ahead and make a stink, at least people will know who to hire. I surely don't want to work with this guy.

    6. Re:I recommend... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      If the bank views your fingerprint as a unique identifier for you, then yes.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    7. Re:I recommend... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Give me an example here.

      Well, of course those evil-sounding "they" could take a can of a soft drink from your trash can at work and plant it at a scene of crime to frame you. But, unfortunately for the OP, this can't be done with a scan of his fingerprint, but can be easily done with no tools whatsoever (except, perhaps, a pencil to pick up the can.)

      Every other scenario that was offered in comments above is equally contrived. As long as it is trivial to get access to your real fingerprint, any derivative hash doesn't make a difference - it can be easily computed by "them." Biometrics is used for thousands of years to identify people, so I just can't see him overturning this. People must be uniquely identified to exist in this (non-hive) society. Even Borg used some ID.

    8. Re:I recommend... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I cannot foresee the future, my crystal ball is still in the laundry.

      But fingerprints are seen as some sort of unique, personal and "unloseable" identification tool. Banks on the other hand are trying their best to shift more and more work onto the customer and technology. A few years ago you had a clerk handing you the money and taking it from you. Now you have ATMs and machines reading cheques. It's only logical that this trend will continue.

      Today a signature is used to seal the deal when you take out a loan. Now, fingerprints are harder to forge than a signature, and this will be used as the justification to make the switch. Then add that you could technically fill in all that info needed for a loan application yourself, add a terminal and you're basically set.

      Yes, it's not that way yet. At least not that I'd be aware of. But we do have the technology already and it would cut cost considerably, so I doubt the whole "security" concern will keep it from happening for long.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:I recommend... by potat0man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      being labeled a well-known whistle-blower isn't going to do you much justice when you're out looking for a job.

      We need a +1 coward moderation.

      There are plenty of arguments about why this guy shouldn't be concerned about using his finger print to clock in and out, but being worried about being labeled as a honest man who fights for his principles isn't one of them.

    10. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beats being a little bitch like you.

    11. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can reasonably replicate your fingerprint, then they can frame you for a crime...

    12. Re:I recommend... by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Sign out of work . . . early!

    13. Re:I recommend... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Are you for real?

      Right. This is a university. Find a tenured professor with an ax to grind who sits on the right committees, then set him loose on this like any sensible person would.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:I recommend... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      He's probably afraid they lifted his prints from the doorknob to that apt he burgled in high school to get some money to buy weed.

    15. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local Detective: Sir, we've matched your finger prints to a murder weapon recovered at a crime scene. Could you explain where you were last Tuesday night around 10:30pm?

      Innocent people have been convicted on less, even with a valid alibi.

      Yea. No reason to be concerned who has your fingerprints at all.

    16. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My recommendation is that pak9rabid go fuck him/her-self.

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565&rec=1&srcabs=667622#

    17. Re:I recommend... by Lehk228 · · Score: 0, Troll

      principles of being able to commit time-clock fraud?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    18. Re:I recommend... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ah, the mythical 'they.' Mind telling who exactly you think is this mysterious group of people who are trying to prime some pump?

      --
      Qxe4
    19. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They -could- assassinate an important envoy and (using specialized latex transfer devices, of course) plant your fingerprints on the murder weapon. What then? I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison because I didn't protect my fingerprints properly. At least that's what television tells me.

    20. Re:I recommend... by jittles · · Score: 1

      No, but it does link the OP to all those dorm room panty raids he's trying to keep hidden from the university...

    21. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me an example here.

      Frame you for a crime.

    22. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could frame you....
      If I don't like you, and have access to your prints, I could easily frame you for something you didn't do (murder, arson, whatever).
      Of course, in this particular case it's a non-issue since any respectable fingerprint scanner does not store images of a print.
      Rather, it stores the 'identifying points' of the print - enough to identify the owner of the print, but insufficient to reconstruct their print.

      You have nothing to be worried about.

    23. Re:I recommend... by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 2

      By using an image of a fingerprint? In fact, not even an image, a statistical summary of one?

      Nah.

    24. Re:I recommend... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > People must be uniquely identified to exist in this (non-hive) society.

      It is nearly impossible to uniquely identify people. The usual methods of authentication don't come close to doing it (nor do they need to).

      Hint: "indentification" != "authentication".

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    25. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone hasn't watched Back to the Future 2 recently.

    26. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How much information about you is encoded in your fingerprint, exactly?

      My whereabouts and history of touching things at possible future crime scenes.

    27. Re:I recommend... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Hint: "indentification" != "authentication".

      Sure, m-w to the rescue:

      Identity (3): the condition of being the same with something described or asserted

      Authenticity (3) : not false or imitation : real, actual

      In other words, you authenticate documents (who are just there) and identify people (who assert that they are so and so.) As part of identification you may need to authenticate something, or you may only need to look at or talk to people you personally know, or to compare their other biometrics (like {finger|palm}print).

      That's why you are asked "Your ID, please!" or "Identify yourself!" and not "Authenticate yourself!" :-)

    28. Re:I recommend... by Dirty+Fool · · Score: 1

      Let's be real, if they are going to be hiring you, they will have your SSN, full name and address etc. All of this data is much more useful to wrongdoers and surely stored is a less secure way. In addition, for most purposes other than a full backround check, your SSN, address and full name are all you need to dig up all sorts of information. I have used a fingerprint scanner for a college job once, and it was nothing fancy, just matched some fingerprints to what we trained it on. Furhtermore, if someone were able to lift a digital copy of your fingerprint from the device, whta could they do with it? Most places that use fingerprint encoding for access will require you to scan on the spot with a real finger. I would think they would notice if someone was trying to use a print-out or someone else's finger. Save your breath for bigger issues.

    29. Re:I recommend... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > If someone gained access to your fingerprint could they, for example, empty your bank account? Take out a loan in your name? Give me an example here.

      I shouldn't be replying to someone in a conversation this old, but... Empty your bank account? Conceivably. Take out a loan in your name? why would they need a fingerprint from you?

      They'd have one authentication component for any other system that needed your fingerprint... and used a comparable scanner and analysis system. Presumably, some of those could be security related. Potentially governmental security.

      That's a big lot of ifs. But it's also an authentication component you can't easily change if it becomes compromised. And if there is no second authentication component, you are well and truly ... well, you get the idea.

    30. Re:I recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone gained access to your fingerprint could they, for example, empty your bank account?

      Ummm, yes?

      Give me an example here.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=atm+fingerprint

  28. Those things don't work by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

    We had one, after the first couple of weeks people started punching it instead of "punching in". They're supposed to also have a keypad so you can manually enter an access code, since the reader is known to be undependable.

    If you want to mess it up, each time you stick your finger on it while it's "registering you" (it needs more than 1 scan), put your finger in a different position, different angle, or even use a different finger (people generally don't notice). After 5 failed attempts, they'll give up. Or, if they "insist" o "helping you" place your finger, tell them that as far as you're concerned, their broken machine is their problem, and that touching you is common assault and you'll file charges.

    1. Re:Those things don't work by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      We had one, after the first couple of weeks people started punching it instead of "punching in". They're supposed to also have a keypad so you can manually enter an access code, since the reader is known to be undependable.

      Undependable because people keep punching it?

    2. Re:Those things don't work by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After the first two weeks, it kept saying (in a REALLY annoying voice) "Please try again ..." "Please try again ..." "Please try again ..." "Please try again ..."

      It was tempting to just hack into the PC it was running on and just update the stupid database manually, but that would have been too much work to maintain, running after everyone and asking them what hours they wanted to show on the timesheet.

      And if you did more than 12 hours, it got confused.

      And if you forgot to punch out the night before, it would SAY you were punching out the next morning when you punched in, but in reality it was punching you in, since you had exceeded the 12-hour limit. So people would quickly "correct" it by punching in, and it would SAY that they were now punched in, but in reality they just punched out. And 8 hours later, when the went to punch out ... it would say they just punched in.

      And it didn't update when the time changed between DST and EDT, and vice versa.

      After a few weeks of that, it's understandable that people began beating on it.

      It also must have had a math aversion - it couldn't add up time properly. I would take the numbers on the print-out, add them up manually, and get an hour LESS than I was being credited for. It can't add. Not if one day had 10 or more hours worked, but less than 12 - it would throw in an extra hour, giving 11 hours worked. for example, a 4-day week, 4 x 10 hours, is not 44 hours.

    3. Re:Those things don't work by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      For the 40 versus 44: I'm betting it counted anything over 8 hours as "time and a half", so a 10 hour day would get shifted to 11 hours for figuring payment... but like everything else, it sounds like they coded it wrong and just increased your hours in total.

    4. Re:Those things don't work by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      No, I thought of that and checked the numbers. Anything between 10.05 hours and 11.95 hours in a day had exactly 1 full hour added to it. Very badly done.

      And then those days that went over 12 hours, guess who gets screwed?

      It got to be a running joke. The accountant would print out the time sheets, and we'd spend half an hour reconciling them (because they were THAT badly done) before handing them back in. It ended up costing a lot of money in wasted time (not to mention that I was the only one who bothered to correct the over-payments as well as the under-payments, so I don't know how many thousands in over-payments were made to everyone else ...)

      I'm not a clock-watcher - I usually rounded my time in the following fashion: If I came in at 8:05 am, I'd mark my starting time as 8:15 am. If I left at 7:05 pm, I'd mark my exit time as 7:00 pm. On average, I under-reported about 15 minutes a day, or a couple of hours every two weeks. No big deal, because I enjoy coding.

      When they put in the time clock, all of a sudden I'm no longer "rounding" in their favour, so it actually ended up costing them an extra hours pay for the same amount of work. When they asked why I, unlike everyone else, didn't hate the time-clock, I explained that it meant I was accumulating an extra 4 to 6 hours a month of bankable time off for the same amount of work, so why should I complain?

      The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

  29. that nobody again! by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    Nobody can prevent war, famine and suffering.
    Nobody can save the economy.
    Nobody can brush your teeth for you.

    Vote for Nobody!

    Unfortunately, it's also true that "nobody has access to your fingerprints". :-O

  30. Do yourself a HUGE favor by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    " I am in the process of contacting the local newspaper, getting the word out to students everywhere"

    Do yourself a favor and hold off on that. All I can think of while reading your submission is one of those tea baggers holding up a sign that reads "MORAN."

    1. Re:Do yourself a HUGE favor by SCSI-Wan · · Score: 1

      This is probably a good idea... Before drawing attention to yourself make sure you understand this situation as well as you think you do.

    2. Re:Do yourself a HUGE favor by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      Every think the tea baggers with signs that say "MORAN" might mean this guy:

      http://moran.house.gov/

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    3. Re:Do yourself a HUGE favor by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1
  31. No black helicopter over head = swipe your finger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, this is jumping the gun a little. Now, I am doing some side work for a company that requires me to submit to a polygraph on request, and I had to have a full set of ID photos and turn in two fingerprint cards to be able to do this job ONE DAY A WEEK. You are being asked to sign in to a computer/time clock using the numerical value of the sum of the points of your finger. It is not like they asked you to provide them with copies of your fingerprints to keep on file to make sure you didn't touch your bosses prized [insert whatever the boss prizes]. Take a step back - there is no reason to become this upset over something so simple. I had to have my fingerprint scanned in when I >WENT to school, because it was used for accessing the chemical cabinet in the bio-lab. Wow... what a rant... maybe I should have just summed it up with call Johnny Cochran...

  32. Pick your battles. Settle for knowing... by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...that the next time a pompous administrator says in public "nobody has complained about that," you know that he is lying. Settle for not just knucking under without saying anything at all. Settle for knowing, if you do know, that your complaint has reached someone who sets policy and that you're not just making things hard on a bunch of other ordinary workers whose job is to keep things running.

    This is not nothing at all, but it's a small thing.

    You can't change the world through indignation. You really have only three choices. First, be docile and do nothing at all. That's often a good option by the way. Second, make sure your concerns have been heard, even if they are dismissed. Or, third, be prepared to devote at least a year or two of your life to the cause of fighting this thing.

    If you feel that spending a year or two toward the goal of getting the university to stop using fingerprinting gadgets for access to work-study jobs is worth it, and is what you want to do with that chunk of your life, you can probably achieve your goal. I dunno how. Work through the union if there is one? Start a union if there isn't one? Make appointments and personally talk to one administrator after another, calmly, until you figure out how to get the policy changed? Personally work out an actual proposal, including costs and benefits, for alternative security, so you're presenting them with something positive and their work all done for them, instead of just saying "don't do what you're doing?" Find a faculty committee that's interested in the question that you can swing to your side? I dunno.

    1. Re:Pick your battles. Settle for knowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In our company we have several (maintenance) positions which require you to travel to the US, Japan and other fingerprint-taking countries. And I kid you not, our HR dept. has difficulties finding staff because of that.

      Now this may be a part of our business culture, but you are not the only privacy conscious human being on this planet. Choose wisely!

    2. Re:Pick your battles. Settle for knowing... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Well my guess is if he is applying for a job then he needs money.

      You can't fight the system when you have student loans, rent, food, and things you need to consume to survive. I used to hate the system too and being unrehirable or hirable is going to scare any HR department from ever hiring you.

      We live in a conservative capitalist society for all but the super wealthy (they live under socialism) in the US.

      I am sorry you hate employers doing these things but you have to "pick your battles". This is not one of them unless your parents are well off. Reading your title of the post I came to the exact opposite conclusion.

    3. Re:Pick your battles. Settle for knowing... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "You can't change the world through indignation. You really have only three choices. First, be docile and do nothing at all. That's often a good option by the way. Second, make sure your concerns have been heard, even if they are dismissed. Or, third, be prepared to devote at least a year or two of your life to the cause of fighting this thing."

      Well, four choices, if one includes the Joe Stack Option.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  33. GENTETIC Testing by hackus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait till they start genetically testing everyone with DNA requests for security purposes.

    Thats when the fun will begin.

    Expect to be denied loans based on life span and proclivities to all sorts of diseases they find you will contract.

    Effectively they can prevent your student loans/grants to save money as they certainly do not want to invest in anyone who won't be around long enough to pay back that 100K.

    All sorts of monkey business is planned. If you have a kid right now, the blood of every baby born in US hospitals MUST be saved by the department of homeland security for a genetic test for identification.

    -Hack

    PS: NO, they DO NOT tell you about that last part.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:GENTETIC Testing by Paktu · · Score: 1
      If you have a kid right now, the blood of every baby born in US hospitals MUST be saved by the department of homeland security for a genetic test for identification.

      Pardon me for being skeptical, but could you provide a source for that claim?

    2. Re:GENTETIC Testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A quick search turned up this:

      http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html?hpt=Sbin

      http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=476

      http://infowars.net/articles/february2010/080210DNA.htm

      I have no idea of the validity of these claims.

  34. Re:I sign in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pygmy feet? Ba dum ba, sorry couldn't resist ;)

  35. Middle schools in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... require kids to give their fingerprints for lunch. Because a card or money is "too hard". Shyeah right. But this is modern times, so no complaints please. Oh, and the relevant privacy protection agency said the parents had no say in whether schools fingerprinted their kids, because this was ``something between the school and the pupil''. Who is the legal guardian of those pupils again?

    Also, many, many countries now require people to submit fingerprints for the "biometric" part of the RFID passports. And maintain central databases of all citizens' fingerprints obtained that way, naturally. Did I mention that in most such countries all citizens already had to have an ID card or passport anyway? This goes way deeper than some stupid agency deploying a fingerprint reader to clock in and out of work. Biometrics are becoming endemic. Live with it, or bitch to your senators. Best start now, if it isn't already too late.

    1. Re:Middle schools in England... by dragisha · · Score: 1

      There is nothing stupid in this for companies selling biometric sensors. Demand has exploded, probably due to money they paid to senators/whatever so they can promote this false security agenda.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    2. Re:Middle schools in England... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Because a card or money is "too hard".

      Or more likely, more easily stolen.

  36. For other professions too by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

    It's jarring - to be sure. But consider that most public schools demand fingerprints from their teachers now. It would be nice if there was indication that this sort of privacy challenge was peaking - but i think it's only accelerating.

  37. No big deal by venkateshkumar99 · · Score: 1

    I work on campus at my university at the food court. We too require to scan our finger (right thumb) whenever we punch-in and punch-out. I guess this is a reasonable arrangement to thwart proxy punch-ins.

    1. Re:No big deal by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Sellotape & some graphite dust.

      Iris scanners: Photo of iris.
      Facial scanners: Photo of face.

       

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:No big deal by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      For hygiene reasons, you should take your own fingerprint in ink (at home), scan it into your computer, and print it out with a laser printer. Cut that into a little loop that you can put over a glove and tape it together. When you arrive at work, put on one of those finger-condoms, put the fingerprint loop over it, and scan that.

      That way you won't have to worry about how many people touched that thing without washing their hands (and after going to the rest room) since the last time the device was cleaned. As an added bonus, if Mythbusters are to be believed, there's a good chance that you'll get a better read off the paper than your hand...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  38. biometric time clocks by linuxbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I installed these at a client.
    The issue was the employees would take an afternoon off to go to an appointment, and get buddy to clock them out at the end of the day - The emplyoee would then get paid for an afternoon they didnt work.

    The time clocks have a fingerprint scanner. You place your thumb on the device as you punch out. Now buddy cant swipe out for you, and you cant defraud your employeer.

    They also had biometric locks instead of prox cards on the doors. Much more convieient then having to remember a card the few days when i was on site.

    1. Re:biometric time clocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the love of god people, If your employees are doing this, don't install biometric scanners - just fire them.

    2. Re:biometric time clocks by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I installed these at a client. The issue was the employees would take an afternoon off to go to an appointment, and get buddy to clock them out at the end of the day - The emplyoee would then get paid for an afternoon they didnt work. The time clocks have a fingerprint scanner. You place your thumb on the device as you punch out. Now buddy cant swipe out for you, and you cant defraud your employeer.

      This fails the same way it fails in the movies: the buddy can cut off your thumb while you go to the dentist and use your thumb to clock you out. Joking aside, this is one of the few places where biometrics make for a good idea. Unfortunately, thumb scanners are a bad idea. Facial recognition during clock-in/out makes more sense, since a "fail" can be checked later by the boss.

      They also had biometric locks instead of prox cards on the doors. Much more convieient then having to remember a card the few days when i was on site.

      This fails the same way it fails in the movies: the baddy can cut off your thumb while you go to the dentist instead of just swiping your card. Now instead of just losing some files/equipment to the baddy, the company has also lost an employee to blood loss (or at least his thumb).

    3. Re:biometric time clocks by tftp · · Score: 1

      If your employees are doing this, don't install biometric scanners - just fire them.

      You can't fire people for wrongdoing without evidence, even if the law permits dismissal for no reason. You'd get hit with a lawsuit.

      Every HR person knows that in order to safely fire a troublemaker you need to gather plenty of evidence and give him plenty of warnings. This time clock is providing evidence.

    4. Re:biometric time clocks by seifried · · Score: 1

      The solution to social/management problems is rarely technical in nature.

    5. Re:biometric time clocks by linuxbert · · Score: 1

      Some Addtional Comments:

      there are 3 ways to Authenticate someone - Something you Own, Something you know, and something you are. Choose 2 for best results.

      The something you own didnt work. Adding something you know (like a pin) wouldnt work because there is no benifit to keeping it private - on the contrary - you get paid an extra half day for disclosing it. - persumably your bank account has money in it, so you are motivated to not disclose the pin. Therefore the best option is something you are - Most people would not cut off their thumb for a half day of pay.

      With the comment about fireing people - Its a unionized shop. this makes it more dificult, and you actully have to catch the culperts before you can peanlize them.

    6. Re:biometric time clocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now buddy cant swipe out for you, and you cant defraud your employeer.

      No, you're just less likely to get caught now because your employer is convinced that cheating is now impossible and takes whatever the time clock says as gospel.

    7. Re:biometric time clocks by lordholm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Put in a rotating gate that only let one person pass at a time, then it will be more or less impossible to swipe two badges at the same time.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    8. Re:biometric time clocks by houghi · · Score: 1

      and you cant defraud your employeer.

      Wow! Where you in their sales department? Say I have a holiday I want to go to. I get in at 13:00 after my Lunch. I leave. I explain later IF they actually look at it that I forgot to log out, because I was in such a hurry getting the kids from school, packing stuff and what not.

      Obviously my cow orker who previously logged in and out for me will testify now that I was there indeed (so he can come in late and 'forget' to log in after a party).

      And every time between 13:00 and 17:00 I can do whatever I like and the same in the morning. If I am really smart, I will be 'forget' to log in and/or out when I KNOW the person who will check on me can testify I was there. "Oh, that houghi, always forgetting to log in and out. Typicial.". Hey that is how I know people are doing it now.

      So what will the employer do? Will he realize that dishonest staff is a social problem that you can not solve with a technical solution or that there needs to be MORE surveillance? At this moment we have a RFID key that opens the door, but is not used for measurement of any kind.

      And using cards is not an issue where I live. Everybody has a walled where I live. They put the card in their wallet or any other easy to reach place. (I know of people who put it in their phone) and hold that to wherever you enter. So no need to 'remember' the card. Now we have something you put on your key chain. So have your keys and you shall pass.

      So I would say it is a slippery slope towards more control of honest people making them feel as if their boss does not trust them, while the dishonest ones will figure ways around it or do disthoest things in another way. They will be there, but do nothing or just steal stuff or whatever.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:biometric time clocks by winwar · · Score: 1

      "You can't fire people for wrongdoing without evidence, even if the law permits dismissal for no reason. You'd get hit with a lawsuit."

      Then don't fire them for cause. Lay them off and allow them to collect UI. The chance of getting sued is low because it costs money (even if a lawyer takes the case on contingency).

      I might also suggest firing the supervisors. If you need a time clock to determine/prove your employees aren't on site they aren't their job either.

      "Every HR person knows that in order to safely fire a troublemaker you need to gather plenty of evidence and give him plenty of warnings."

      Any HR person that holds such an opinion is a moron. And should not be employed. There is no safe way to fire someone. There is no way to prevent a lawsuit. If the person you fire is the litigious type, you will be sued regardless of precautions.

    10. Re:biometric time clocks by tftp · · Score: 1

      Then don't fire them for cause. Lay them off and allow them to collect UI. The chance of getting sued is low because it costs money (even if a lawyer takes the case on contingency).

      Sorry, that's not at all how it works. I had all this stuff explained to me by the Director of HR when I was working in a relevant position. Wronged workers can and do sue, and it doesn't matter how you call it. Once in discovery, they will find out that you hired someone else to their old job, and your goose is cooked.

      I might also suggest firing the supervisors. If you need a time clock to determine/prove your employees aren't on site they aren't their job either.

      You are seeing this from a position of a cube farm dweller, where your coworkers are highly educated, interested in results, and NOT paid on hourly basis. You indeed don't need a time clock at a cube farm; often the opposite is true, you need to chase workers away after hours.

      However there are many (majority!) jobs which are paid per hour. These workers must maintain a record of attendance because a real money is paid for every number they put down. Also most of those workers can't care less about the job, and the end result is not something they worry about. And there is also overtime. So the union at a UPS sorting facility, for example, will *want* time clocks, because it documents beyond any doubt the hours worked - and that protects the worker as much as the employer.

      Any HR person that holds such an opinion is a moron

      Sorry, your statement has no weight, unless you are a lawyer or a judge that specializes in such things. Myself, I'd rather listen to an HR veteran.

    11. Re:biometric time clocks by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

      Them not being there while they are clocked-in is evidence, get their supervisor to write them up for absenteeism and then go through standard disciplinary process.

      Knowing that someone is in the building isn't managing the amount of work people do. There are so many cases where someone is "in the building" but still goofing off that relying on clock-in and clock-off is actually mostly a waste of time. If you run a company and people are abusing clock-in and clock-off then you've got more serious problems than trying to make it a little bit harder to circumvent. You have supervisors who aren't supervising, and you have employees who don't care about getting to work on time or staying until the end of their day. Fix those two problems first rather than try to blame the security of the clock-in mechanism.

  39. University & Biometric ID by SCSI-Wan · · Score: 1

    My university uses palm scanners to identify students to allow them access to the campus gym. To my understanding, instead of using an actual image, it generates a unique ID based on sample points within the palm image and then discards the original. From that point forward it just compares the generated ID. I guess, it can technically store an image, but the system would likely need to be modified (cracked) to function in a way the manufacturer did not intend.

    If you have doubts about the storage, usage, or security of your information, you have the right to question the system. A good question to ask yourself is "what could someone do with this information if it were abused or compromised?" This may help put such situations into perspective.

  40. I understand by FartKnockerz · · Score: 1

    I understand your reasoning for being concerned. However, sometimes there are certain things that we must do in the modern workplace to maintain/continue/engage employment. Sometimes that means giving up something like your fingerprint. However, I would recommend that you ask student services and/or your student rights council as to how this information is going to be used or disseminated and if your biometric information will be deleted upon you leaving your work/study position. But be assured -- this type of information is not uncommon in corporate situations. Biometrics as an additional authentication mechanism besides passwords (one time or otherwise) are not uncommon. I've had OTP passwords/Secure Certificates/Biometrics all on one card many times in the workforce.

    1. Re:I understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are really concerned about this you have only one option.

      You must opt out. Of everything. Choose not to be part of the herd. This means earning your right to freedom.

      Free people are encumbered by very few restrictions. If you are financially secure you do not have to choose employment. If you are a highly skilled and talented individual you can dictate your own terms as an employee or contractor.

      I realised four years ago exactly what is happening, and it is a slippery slope. You have no hope of changing the system. The only option is to elevate yourself to a powerful position where you are not encumbered by any of it. Unfortunately the way to power is the same old chestnut, the answer to 99 out of 100 questions: money.

      The way I found was to become a derivatives trader. This means I can work anywhere in the world, and for as long as I am successful I am in a very secure position financially. I have no investors, no employees, and most importantly no employer. In a few years I will properly retire. I can live anywhere in the world and all the time is my own. I can choose when or if to work. I do not have to submit to such nonsenses any more. Almost all of the inconveniences can be avoided. Sometimes this means moving country, but when you can earn your living from anywhere with an Internet connection....

      Most of the "gotchas" seem to arise in the course of either employment, borrowing, or seeking state welfare. If you require neither employment or debt and can choose your own location - a lot of this goes away.

      Not everyone will make it as a trader, and it is my view that this particular profession offers the most freedom of all, but there are options for everyone.

      They key is that you must abandon what is mainstream. Leave it for the dumbed down herd.

      Your particular situation: forget about campaigning and changing it for others. Accept that you currently do not have the influence, and if you did you would focus on larger issues. Instead, refuse to comply. Suffer whatever consequences. Some of them may not even be negative. If you are forced to find employment elsewhere, this may be a blessing in the long run. Above all, plan. Plan your way out of this. Look at how society is developing, and think of your worst case scenario for norms in 10 years- then plan what you will do to avoid it. This could involve moving abroad.

      You have to take all the responsiblity yourself to reap the benefits - if you follow the herd you will eventually end up at the abattoir.

      Good luck.

      (capatcha: tightens - how apropos)

  41. Leave your thumb behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our university requires students to leave their left thumb as the enter the building. They can pick it up as they leave. We only storage it temporarily, and do not make copies of them.

    --dmg

  42. Spoon. by headkase · · Score: 1

    I prefer nodding my head, going along, working my way through the system. Then when the day comes that I can and understand it enough to not get caught, I sabotage it. Of course posting here I'll never get to do that in a dramatic fashion but I can inspire anonymous cowards can't I?! ;)

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Spoon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as one, your thoughts just make you seem more delusional than inspiring.

    2. Re:Spoon. by headkase · · Score: 1

      I'm trying for a +1 funny and some day I *will* get my +5 troll.

      --
      Shh.
  43. You must resist! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Gattaca! Gattaca!

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  44. They don't store your actual fingerprint by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not the image anyway. They store the relative positions of specific details of your print. 2 minutes on Google would have told you this.

    The question remains though whether you want them to hold a representation (of any kind) of any part of your body on file.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by goaliemn · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've installed systems that work like this. They store afew statistical points of your fingerprint. If someone actually got those points that they stored, they still couldn't make a complete fingerprint.

      This type of system is usually implemented due to former employees punching in for each other. This is a way that makes that more difficult.

    2. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is a big deal. You're working for the government, so naturally they want to make sure who you are (i.e. not a terrorist, or Russian spy, or other creep). I had to do this for an FAA temporary job (one year) and simply drove to the local police station, asked them to fingerprint me, took the inked paper, and mailed it off to the FAA.

      I also had to fill-out a 7-year-history for a background check. Of course that means it's on permanent file with the U.S. government, but in exchange I got paid 110,000 dollars plus another $250,000 (so far) on the followup job with a private contractor.

      My compliance opened-up new opportunities and is certainly better than living off Welfare or doing the Walmart shuffle. I have nothing to hide, so why does it matter if they have my fingerprints? I'm not planning to blow up anything, and even if I did, the fingerprints won't tell them anything they don't already know (see your SSI files sometime). I see no reason for concern.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by AlamedaStone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have nothing to hide

      I suppose some people will accept a lot of money to surrender their freedoms. It must be nice to live in a little world where the only thing that matters is the size of a paycheck.

      Everything costs something, I guess.

      My compliance opened-up new opportunities and is certainly better than living off Welfare or doing the Walmart shuffle.

      Yes... those are the only two options available. Surrender your privacy or go on welfare. Service guarantees citizenship!

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    4. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by certain+death · · Score: 1

      Queue mushroom stamp comments...

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    5. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Zerth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This type of system is usually implemented due to former employees punching in for each other. This is a way that makes that more difficult.

      Only if you work for a security conscious facility who is willing to deal with the hassles of running such a system. Both places I've been at that used it for just timeclock purposes either turned the discrimination down so far that at least one other person could fake for them, or gave up on the high false negative rate and switched to "type in something you wouldn't want your coworkers to know, like your SSN".

      I left the latter place real quick.

    6. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Anrego · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I totally agree with commodore64_love

      I don't want the government tapping into my phone, spying on my Internet traffic, or searching through my house without just cause.. but we're talking finger prints here.

      And while I do agree.. saying the only alternative is welfare was a little extreme.. you are definitely limiting yourself by refusing to allow any intrusions into your precious privacy.

      I suppose some people will accept a lot of money to surrender their freedoms.

      This is completely true.. and I think in a lot of cases.. people are better off for it. Everything is a balancing act.. certain jobs (especially government) require a fair degree of background checking.. this is of course an invasion into your privacy.. but you are compensated for it (both financially and in terms of getting to work on some really cool stuff).

      It's not about completely selling out your privacy.. but it's not about living the life of a paranoid delusional who thinks the world is out to get them either. It's about finding a balance you're comfortable with.

      As someone who has "given up" a lot of privacy in exchange for a very enjoyable career.. I've felt no ill effects from it. What exactly do the tin foil types of the world think the government / Illuminati / whatever .. are doing with this information.. and specifically.. how do they think it's going to realistically effect their lives in an actual concrete way (vice some paranoid "when the commies come back" throb).

    7. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by MikeV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And... just what "freedoms" are being surrendered? The contents of our lives are sequestered already in many dozens of places. Our complete physiology in doctor's files. Tell me the government is hands-off with those? Pictures on our driver's license - how is that different from a "picture" of your fingerprint? Nowadays even that is digital and contains a lot more information about you than your fingerprint. Surely you have a driver's license, doncha? So, what freedoms have you surrendered? You get to do what? Drive. Anywhere. Sounds pretty free to me. You guys are freaking out over nothing when other governments in history have done a lot worse with far less already. There is no such thing as true freedom in any society. No such thing as a utopia when people have to live with each other. Life is about compromise and meeting each other half way. And do you think people on welfare have more privacy than those who are not? What planet did you arrive here from? The only way is to completely drop out of society altogether and go squat in some forest or out in the jungle and live as a hermit. If that is what you want, well - that's freedom for you. Freedom for me is being able to live a lifestyle that allows me to explore my potential and raise my family. Guess what? Even people in China do that. There is always something to gripe about no matter what society you find yourself in. But while you are focusing on the worst, you are missing the best. Live your life to the most that it can be lived - it's far too short to spend it imagining all the bad things - like that nitwit who flew an aircraft into the IRS building, as if that would change a single thing and did nothing more than murder a 9-5'er, leave his wife and kid homeless (and no doubt in debt for a burned home they can't collect insurance from) and he's a hero to no one - only one big loser. That's the road you walk on when you spend all your time whining about how the government wants to take away all your freedoms and live your life as a victim. Guess what - the government is going to do stuff you disagree with no matter how much you cry about it. Deal with it and move on. There's life to be lived - live it. Vote where you can, try to make your part of the world a better place where you can, and live your life.

    8. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I suppose some people will accept a lot of money to surrender their freedoms..

      I fail to see what freedoms you are giving up by positive identification used legitimately for preventing fraud. If you are concerned about your information being in a database somewhere, you should not have been born in a civilized country where your information has been on file since birth. This is a means of identifying you, one of many that exist, and if you do not wish to be identified, it begs the question of what is it you wish to hide, or perhaps you are one of the perpetrators of the actions this system was designed to prevent? What is it you fear will happen by using a piece of unique information that is readily accessible to you for identification? It seems people are overly sensitive about "privacy concerns" these days, taking them to the extremes of germophobes who keep bottles of hand sanitizer and latex gloves on them at all times in the event they might use a doorknob someone else might have touched in the time it has been in existence.

      Posting anonymously because human beings can be very spiteful when their favorite stances are disputed, something I consider a legitimate reason for anonymity. You may not agree with it, but at least I gave an actual reason.

    9. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by SECProto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, them having videotapes (digital representations of your whole body) of you entering and exitting work daily sure is an issue.

    10. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by 4181 · · Score: 1

      ... and switched to "type in something you wouldn't want your coworkers to know, like your SSN".

      or "I HAVE HERPES"?

    11. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by pete6677 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, but this being Slashdot it is critical to play up the paranoia aspect for all its worth. Don't let facts get in the way of a good tinfoil-hat conspiracy rant. We must maintain the illusion that any and all privacy will be lost forever if any employer uses a fingerprint time clock.

    12. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by benchbri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. I just pulled out my Pennsylvania drivers license, and it has on there my eye color, height, and *sex*.

      That's a privacy concern.

      OH MY GOD THERE'S A PICTURE OF ME ON HERE TOO

    13. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by rflii · · Score: 1

      The question remains though whether you want them to hold a representation (of any kind) of any part of your body on file.

      Thats why I wear a mask for my student ID card. Everyone thinks I am Richard Nixon's twin brother.

    14. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think we've let enough intrusions in our "precious privacy"

      Too much.

    15. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by sharsa · · Score: 1

      Another reason I've come across is when there are multiple employees that are short term, but require access to locked doors/areas/time clocks/whatever. It isn't practical or cost effective to give lots of temp people badges, keys, or complex ID numbers easily faked or forgotten. So biometics allows for a signature that they bring with them. The application of this I ran into was an optical iris scanner, not fingerprint, but the concept can still be applied.

    16. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Surrender your privacy or go on welfare."

      Where are people getting the idea that you don't have to surrender your privacy to obtain welfare? If you apply for welfare they are going to want to know everything about you, including wether or not you're having sex with your flatmate.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by RivieraKid · · Score: 1

      As I see it the problem isn't so much that it's just another "picture", it's the fact that your fingerprint is high-value.

      The huge level of implicit trust given to fingerprints by the government means that a fingerprint is considered absolute proof of identity. Show me a company that produces a foolproof fingerprint scanner and I'll show you a company who has only ever had themselves test their product. Anyone can invent security that they cannot crack, it takes a whole hell of a lot more work to create security that nobody else (or a reasonably high proportion of everybody else) can crack.

      These things are not infallible, and when they fail, or are cracked/bypassed, well if it was your fingerprint - too bad, you've just been pwned for the rest of your life. You can't get another fingerprint.

      I'm sorry to break this to you, but no biometric is reliable, either in the capture, or the matching to a database. The systems are vulnerable to attack and abuse. The privacy angle isn't always about what you are giving up today - it's about what you will be giving up tomorrow, next week, next month, next year. It's about the appalling level of trust given to so called high-tech products that claim to give everything but in reality give nothing of practical value.

      anime-expo.org engadget.com anishshaikh.com schneier1 schneier2 schneier3 schneier4

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    18. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by RivieraKid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So first you bash people's legitimate desire for privacy, than you claim to have a legitimate reason for anonymity? You *do* realise, don't you, that anonymity is just another aspect of privacy?

      So, either you're for privacy, or you're not, but stop pretending you have a legitimate reason for abolishing it while taking full advantage of it.

      Required reading for those 'I've got nothing to hide' people.

      Also, perhaps you can explain how somebody chooses not to be born in a particular country?

      Not posting anonymously because I'm not scared of what people have to say.

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    19. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are people getting the idea that you don't have to surrender your privacy to obtain welfare? If you apply for welfare they are going to want to know everything about you, including wether or not you're having sex with your flatmate.

      Interesting. Do they ask about that if your flatmate is same sex? What if you have more than one flatmate? IIRC polygamy is illegal in lots of places.. do they ask if you do other illegal things, like murdering the ex-flatmate who 'moved out last year'? Cripes, once they start probing your personal life, its like opening Pandoras box..

    20. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose some people will accept a lot of money to surrender their freedoms.

      Most people will surrender their freedoms for intangible benefits of trivial value. Phone and address for a chance to win a car, TV, or free lunch. TV viewing habits to be thought "a nice person" by a phone surveyor. DoubleClick cookies, Google cookies, Facebook. It makes me suspect that no one under 25 appreciates "privacy," having only recently left the panopticon of helicopter parents and primary education. Privacy and anonymity are not the same thing, but on the internet, where transactions necessarily identify the specific hardware you're using, they're pretty close.

    21. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by theaveng · · Score: 1

      An employer is not required to let you into his premises. It's his place, and you must meet HIS requirements, else your job offer will be retracted.

      If you don't like it, become a farmer or other self-employed person, so you can remain completely-and-totally private. (Also rather poor.)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    22. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > The question remains though whether you want them to hold a representation
      > (of any kind) of any part of your body on file.

      Such as, to choose a random example, a photograph of your face?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    23. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was refering to Aussie welfare forms. Of course they don't ask about sex directly, but they do want to know if your sharing accomadation with a spouse and if so who that spouse is.

    24. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by magarity · · Score: 1

      This type of system is usually implemented due to former employees punching in for each other. This is a way that makes that more difficult
       
      That's silly. All you have to do is loan the other person your finger.

    25. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      An employrer cant also hire whites only. Why? Because its wrong.

      There are things employeres are NOT allowed to do.... Letting them in your building is an obvious job requirement. I'm not sure giving blood, penis size, and cum loads per week are required by employers if they ask. Would you take a job if your boss insisted you log your ejactulations weekly?

      I mean what are you hired to do???? IF you DO IT.. thats all that matters. Pay me for the job done, not pay me for whatever privacy invasion you want.

      Slavery was abolished for these reasons. Its wrong to have complete control over your workforce. Labor Unions were formed because of this....

      And you want to just hand over power. Spoken like a true employer.

    26. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      And THIS is why, if I am ever in a position to hire people, I will insist upon a background check. I don't want kooks such as yourself inside the building.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      A higly enjoyable career today might turn into a nightmare for you tomorrow, and I'm sure all the private information you've given up will make having you dissapear easier. Being self-employed is the only sensible option today, it can be both intellectually and financially rewarding if you fo it right.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    28. Re:They don't store your actual fingerprint by smash · · Score: 1

      Hint: if people are going to make you 'disappear' they can get your fingerprints off the fingers they have of yours after the kidnapping.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  45. It's a non-issue by galfridus73 · · Score: 1

    I've used the same sort of device for my student assistants to clock in and out with. Your fingerprints are scanned, but not stored. A pattern is built for the computer to scan in the future when you use the timeclock - your print isn't there.

    They're using biometrics because they're concerned about students logging each other in. That was my rationale (what are you going to do? Cut off your finger for your friend to clock you in?).

    That said: Those scanners suck, especially with smaller fingers (my female employees had great trouble with that thing). I moved to a keypad-based device. It takes a touch more babysitting to keep everyone honest, but I leave it in a fairly public area.

  46. Keep up the fight by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile how much do they pay? What are the benefits? etc?

  47. Get used to it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fingerprints and a full background check are becoming required for more and more jobs. The state of Florida fingerprints everyone that handles state funds, works with children, or is in a profession that requires licensing (like doctors and nurses). While geek jobs may be among the last to fall, do not be surprised (especially if you are a government employee or contractor) if you have to give up a real set of your prints someday. So, this set of prints that will remain internal to the biometric machine would be a nice way to get used to the intrusion!

     

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. They are right your fingerprint is not stored... by Foo2rama · · Score: 1

    Your prints are not stored, a geometric design made from identifiable parts of your fingerprint are stored.


    Your making a big deal about nothing. Besides as other people have pointed out I can grab your fingerprints from your car door, or from a soda can in your trash. FYI your bank has your fingerprint, and odds are that your parents had your fingerprints taken at some point in your life as you are in college.

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
  50. Go get a gun license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a concealed pistol license. That way your fingerprints will already be on record with the police and the FBI, and you won't be losing anything by being fingerprinted at work.

  51. Almost everywhere now by smd75 · · Score: 1

    Ive been seeing those things almost everywhere now. You type in a pin number and put your hand in the machine. Most of the time its right hand down, one company I worked for said someone asked what if you dont have a right hand. It works just the same left hand up.
    This was in a hotel. I just saw one at the library the other day. Im pretty sure it isnt about your finger prints, but the shape and contours of your hand in combination with your pin.

    Its not like you can hide much from the government, its a Federal Work Study job.

    --
    Im a troll because I disagree with you.
  52. RFID in the anal cavity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so they can find out who takes the longest shit

  53. what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What else should I do?" Well, if you don't want to work there, you might consider applying elsewhere.

    If you do want to work there, you might want to reconsider alarming the news media and anybody else who'll listen.

    There are consequences to your choice. You'll find it's like that a lot in life.

  54. Shocked by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    at the wide acceptance of this on Slashdot. There is NO NEED for biometric passkeys. For all those parroting ' it only stores a hash' , is it really that far out of the realm of reality to think that at some point they can flip a software switch and you have fingerprint pictures?

    --
    Good-bye
    1. Re:Shocked by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The reason there is so much acceptance is we asked ourselves two questions:

      1. What could they do with one of my fingerprints? (pretty much nothing. We all have to provide far more sensitive data to our employers to keep the IRS and ICE happy.)
      2. What other way could a 'bad guy' get my fingerprint? (There's a billion ways and most of them are far easier then getting the hash out of a time clock and re-creating a usable fingerprint).

    2. Re:Shocked by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

      How about when your car requires a fingerprint, and your front door, and your bank atm, and your club, and all the shops etc? When giving fingerprints becomes common place then it is much easier for a "bad guy" to get a working copy of your fingerprint. We already see compromised chip and pin machines which keep a copy of your bank pin; you can bet that once fingerprints become valuable that there will be compromised fingerprint scanners.

      Using a fingerprint for authentication means that once it's broken once it's broken for everything. When it's used for everything there is an incentive to break the system, be it the gummy bear attack or a ink jet printed photo attack. At least with a bank card and pin you can revoke them, you can never revoke your fingerprint.

      If scanners get to the point where they can't be fooled by the "gummy bear" attacks and work 100% of the time, you can find yourself in the situation where you'll be kidnapped so that criminals get use your fingerprint. At least with a bank card and pin you can give that up to them under threat of your life; when it's your finger you don't have that option (easily).

      Overall, fingerprints are a really bad idea as a generic means of authentication. It should be reserved for only the most serious and highly controlled situations, where the consequences of getting authentication wrong can seriously threaten someone's life. Clocking-in for studies does not meet those requirements to me.

    3. Re:Shocked by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      When giving fingerprints becomes common place then it is much easier for a "bad guy" to get a working copy of your fingerprint

      Unless you wear gloves 24/7, it's already incredibly simple for a "bad guy" to get a working copy of your fingerprint. You're leaving them everywhere.

      At least with a bank card and pin you can revoke them, you can never revoke your fingerprint.

      Which is why the fingerprint time clocks require a pin as well as a fingerprint.

      If scanners get to the point where they can't be fooled by the "gummy bear" attacks and work 100% of the time, you can find yourself in the situation where you'll be kidnapped so that criminals get use your fingerprint.

      Doubtful. It's far more effort to keep the kidnapped person restrained than it is to simply cut off the relevant finger.

      This, btw, is one of the big two reasons why fingerprints will never be "universal keys" that unlock everything. #2 is that the scanners will always have a false reject rate.

      It should be reserved for only the most serious and highly controlled situations, where the consequences of getting authentication wrong can seriously threaten someone's life.

      That's a terrible time to use them. Because it's in those critical situations where the "bad guys" have sufficient incentive to start removing digits.

      If you can come up with a system where someone can:

      1. clock in/out
      2. not be clocked in/out by a friend
      3. not use biometrics in some form

      Go for it. You'll make a fortune. Just keep in mind we tell our friends all sorts of things, and even if someone is watching the time clock, they're not likely to spot you typing in someone else's SSN.

    4. Re:Shocked by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      If you have a problem with employees clocking each other in and out, thats a HUMAN problem, not a technology one. Structure your organization (managers, reporting in, meetings) so that things like that cannot occur.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Shocked by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Hi. I'm with reality. We'd like to point out that having everyone 'report in' is the very reason they invented time clocks. Otherwise, you need a lot more management per rank-and-file.

      And the objection to using your fingerprints, which you literally put on EVERYTHING you touch is what exactly?

  55. not that strange by GarretSidzaka · · Score: 1

    You act like this is an unusual thing. I know that my brother attended work study and im sure he had to get his fingerprint card. Also anyone remotely working for the state has to get fingerprint clearance. what that means if you are clean record is the state has your fingerprints on file. And if you have a previous felony, you won't be approved for the job at all, because you won't get state clearance.

    Dystopian, yes. Unusual for us in Arizona, no.

  56. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government has been collecting people's biometric information for awhile now.

    I worked as a bank teller in the 1980s and one of the requirements was that I submit my finger prints to the FBI. No finger prints = No Job.

    You also have to give your finger print to get a driver's license in California. No finger print = No Driver's license.

  57. Testing organizations can be worse by izomiac · · Score: 1

    For my own specialty, the licensing organization that everyone is required to use requires fingerprints and SSNs. They also exert copyright over one's memory, which I find rather disturbing (apparently reading is a form of copying the data from the paper to your mind). Fingerprints are used in case you ever want to leave the testing area, tested upon check-in for everyone (???), then upon exiting, and upon return. SSNs are collected for no discernible reason since they assign their own ID numbers (still mandatory though).

    Throw in the credit card number I had to use to pay their fee ($550; oh how I wish for them to have competition) and they have enough information to really be worrisome. Thankfully my information is secure so long as nobody guesses the zip code for my hometown... That and they don't lose the data (encrypted only in transit), nor ever decide to change their rather vague privacy policy about their indefinite data retention...

  58. Right, but *anyone* can already do that by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Finger print scanners are cheap now. Have a look on ebay.

    You can lift a print using sellotape. So anyone who sees you touch something can log your fingerprint into a database and then share that info and use it for comparison.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Right, but *anyone* can already do that by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      The problem is by giving your hashed prints to a database, anyone can take any random print (using cellotape like you said) and run it through this database to see who it belongs to. This is a risk, because the database might not be well controlled.

    2. Re:Right, but *anyone* can already do that by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You can lift a print using sellotape

      Jelly babies are better. They have a similar texture to skin, so the cheap scanners (and a few of the expensive ones) will just read the fingerprint directly from the sweet.

      Now you know why The Doctor always carries them...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  59. cut off finger? gummy bear can beat the system and by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    cut off finger? gummy bears can beat the system and the myth busters where even able to beat high tech lock with a copy on paper.

  60. There are a LOT of government jobs with a catch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cannot get a job without a background check at minimum and that will require prints going to the FBI at minimum. I have on file somewhere prints with local police, prints with FBI, DIA, all branches of the service, and I forget what all. I've been scanned nude to get a security clearance. I've had the inside of my mouth photographed, I recall one of them wanted and got palm and foot prints. Retinal scanners were not reliable then.

    If they are using the prints in a biometric device inquire politely if the data in it has a high degree of security because you don't want your prints to be compromised. If they treat it like classified data that is the best you can hope for.

    You have a choice. You can work anywhere that does not require prints. I won't stop you.

    I will support you if you wish to restrict this to ONLY government and/or contractors with the provision it's considered classified. I do not support this for any other purpose.

  61. Concerns = big waste of time by rcolbert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of all the things in the world to worry about, a fingerprint reading timeclock is very close to the bottom of the list. Your fingerprints are not stored, nor are they uploaded to some evil master government database. You fingerprints are not DNA. They can't be used to predict if you'll get colon cancer by age 50. Quite frankly, they're not even private. You leave them all over the place every single day. I don't think this rises to the level of concern of someone taking a picture of you and putting it on an ID card. And we all know about how much evil has been done with misappropriated badge ID photos.

    1. Re:Concerns = big waste of time by Animats · · Score: 1

      Of all the things in the world to worry about, a fingerprint reading time clock is very close to the bottom of the list.

      True. The internal representation isn't a picture, anyway. It's a compact representation which can be easily matched by a simple algorithm. Most one-finger systems aren't good enough to uniquely identify individuals from a large population. Tens or hundreds of people, yes. Millions, no. Some numbers claimed for low-end systems are false acceptance rate < 0.001%, false rejection rate < 1.0%. There are high-end systems that supposedly do better, but a time clock won't have them.

      California DMV takes a single fingerprint, but not a full set. Even my gym now has a fingerprint reader. I haven't had a full set of prints taken in years, though, not since I was in the DoD security-cleared world.

  62. Tin Foil is Your Friend by jbengt · · Score: 1

    I've had to have my fingerprints taken three times for my job, That was not required by my employer, but their clients. And not just for biometric access, but for background checks. I was a little worried the first time, partly because I wasn't sure if my arrest record had been really expunged. The second and third times, they really didn't care if you were arrested, but only if you were convicted, and for most crimes, only if it was in the last ten years. But still, these are the compromising you will probably learn to make to keep food on the table. It isn't good, but the alternate could be letting someone convicted of computer fraud walking around unescorted in a credit card data center or someone convicted of bomb-making access to the baggage area of an airport.

  63. Not stored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice several comments "it doesn't store anything" it has to store something or what's the point of using it? While it may not be your actual fingerprint it is a point match at minimum, some police use point matches as low as 12, others higher and IMO this is even worse than taking your fingerprint because there have been several incidents where points have matched more than one persons fingerprint.

    Don't think it doesn't get shared with the authorities databases either, both the UK and the USA are in the process of building DNA and fingerprint databases of innocent people, they get the DNA at birth, you know where they get the fingerprints.

  64. Paranoia Strikes Again! by b4upoo · · Score: 0

    Why on Earth is any non-criminal worried about their fingerprints being known to the world? Frankly this privacy paranoia is an illness. I am not ashamed of any place I go nor of anything I have done and I could give a hoot if the worst moments in my entire life were put on TV for all to view. The reason why is simple. I have miserable moments just like everyone else. Their bad moments are nothing but boring to me and I am fairly certain that my bad moments would bore them to tears.
                      And as far as commercial interests targeting me with advertising or whatever I could care less. Target away. I have only so much money to spend anyway so it is highly unlikely that advertising will get more out of my hide.
                      In some ways these privacy nuts remind me of the guy shaking in his boots

    1. Re: Paranoia Strikes Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read "The Hangman." http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles6/hangman_by_maurice_o.htm

  65. Pedantic ecurity point by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

    With the password, whatever you type in has to have a hash which matches the hash associated with your account.

    Whatever you type in + a salt should match the hash associated with your account.

  66. Wait Is this for MIT ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah They clone all the good students and keep them around for TA positions.

  67. They could go even further... by pentalive · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They could do even better than that, they could take relative position information you described and then hash it. Hashes are one way, no one can recover the respresentation once it is hashed.

    To login BonesSB would present a finger, the same information points would be measured, then hashed then the two hashes compared.

    I am not saying that they did go to that extent, but they could have.

    1. Re:They could go even further... by netsharc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ehm, wouldn't that still enable identification via fingerprint? Get the prints off a drinking glass, measure the points, input the data, and see if the hash matches one stored in the database?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    2. Re:They could go even further... by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't work, for technical reasons.

      Both major algorithms need to be able to compare the data from an authoritative database against the test sample.

      The reason for this is no two scanners, in fact even the same scanner will not produce identical results for the same fingerprints. There will always be "fuzziness" to the data that the algorithm must interpret.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    3. Re:They could go even further... by bratgitarre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could do even better than that, they could take relative position information you described and then hash it. Hashes are one way, no one can recover the respresentation once it is hashed.

      even with a "secure" hash, if the recorded data has low entropy, you can still guess it in an offline dictionary attack. If you believe otherwise, please post your /etc/shadow for us, thanks!

      But seriously, it's besides the point whether they store hashes or high-res pictures of your fingers. Whoever gets their hand on the database can still identify the prints you leave everywhere. High-res pictures just make it easier for them to impersonate you to other fingerprint scanners.

    4. Re:They could go even further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This leads to the principle flaw of biometrics: If someone manages to reproduce the key (synthetic fingerprint for example), there is no way to issue a different key to the owner of the original. Anywhere you authenticate with a fingerprint, the people who control the system can gather all information which is needed to create a fake fingerprint, plus there are countless other ways to get a person's fingerprint, and you still only have that one set of fingerprints that you can't change. What are you going to do then?

    5. Re:They could go even further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      root:$1$nRQNoubj$9BOuMCwDy9kOVa82HmfXu0:13576:0:99999:7:::
      daemon:*:13576:0:99999:7:::
      bin:*:13576:0:99999:7:::
      sys:*:13576:0:99999:7:::
      sync:*:13576:0:99999:7:::
      games:*:13576:0:99999:7:::
      man:*:13576:0:99999:7:::
      lp:*:13576:0:99999:7:::
      mail:*:13576:0:99999:7::: ...
      other, less important passwords.

      Have fun.

    6. Re:They could go even further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not possible. No two scans will get the EXACT same readings of the fingerprint. The comparison algorithm takes this into account when comparing two scans.

      One of the main features of a (good) hashing algorithm (such as SHA-1, MD5, etc) is that similar inputs do not have similar hashes. Therefore, it wouldn't be possible to determine how close to the baseline a particular scan is based off of a hash comparison.

    7. Re:They could go even further... by Herby+Sagues · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hashing would work if the scanners were taking absolute, binary measurements without error. But they are not, not a single biometrics unit has or can have that sort of precision. If you capture your fingerprint parameters with the same device, with the same process, two or three times in a row, you'll see significant changes in the parameters from one time to the next. While the detection algorithms are designed to cope with such scanning errors, hashing would make relative comparisons fail 100% of the time. And there lies the problem with biometrics: once you use them once (or even before you do), your "parameters" are no longer a secret under your control. If you give your fingerpring parameters to your bank, your school and your employer, each of them can in theory authenticate as you to the others. That's why I always say: biometrics are technically useless as an authentication mechanism. They can be used for identification (replacing your username) but not for validation (your password) because they are NOT a secret, they CAN'T be revoked, you don't have the option to use different ones for different organizations and they are easy to fake. Of these issues, only the last one can be improved with better technology, the rest are intrinsic to the concept.

    8. Re:They could go even further... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then taking pictures of people's faces to identify them will never catch on.

    9. Re:They could go even further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that was a boring hour and a half.

      I ran MDCrack on $1$nRQNoubj$9BOuMCwDy9kOVa82HmfXu0, which said it was a FreeBSD hash. I have no idea what the salt is, or enough familiarity with that hash algorithm to know if I'm using MDCrack right. But, I'm guessing 13576:0:99999:7::: is a reference ID for the root hash, or possibly a timestamp used by the random salting algorithm (unlikely). MDCrack didn't like that string of numbers and colons so I omitted it.

      Either way, my feeble attempt reached 28 million hashes at 5 consecutive characters when I gave up, with 2.92e+011 years remaining. It listed 1-15 characters as the range, and I assume the default characterset is uppercase and lowercase alphanumeric, no symbols (based on what I saw).

      I found an interesting benchmark for my system as a result of this. I compared my 5000 h/s to MDCrack's reference systems, and my performance is fair for a single system (I've got an Athlon 64 X2 Dual 3600+). It'd be really cool to see how fast my my video cards (SLI 8800GT's) could generate hashes, if MDCrack supported nVidia's CUDA, or I could find some other program that supported it.

    10. Re:They could go even further... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ehm, wouldn't that still enable identification via fingerprint?

      Yes, but that isn't the same as being able to replicate a fingerprint.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:They could go even further... by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      And it wont... How many times has this failed? All too often, and hence why people try to use DNA instead of facial recognition when associating a crime. If the picture is even slightly blurry it becomes useless.

      A picture ID is there to cross reference the human to the card. Not cross-reference the picture to the person. Sounds like details, but a big difference.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    12. Re:They could go even further... by isorox · · Score: 1

      you don't have the option to use different ones for different organizations

      I have 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, so I guess that I could use different ones to a point

    13. Re:They could go even further... by tburkhol · · Score: 2, Informative

      If "the system," being time-clock or Federal database, uses a specific, formulaic derivation of your fingerprint to establish identity, then storing that formula result is, from a privacy perspective, equivalent to storing your fingerprint. It's a means of identifying you, personally, by extracting your hash from a database of all hashes based on the hash of an unknown fingerprint. That the algorithm is one-way (ie: you can create the hash from the fingerprint, but not the fingerprint from the hash) is irrelevant. Maybe if the has space is small enough that many fingerprints give the same hash value - ie, the has provides sufficient uniqueness for a population of 50 or 100 employees, but not is not unique over a population of 1,000 or 10,0000 - although that seems to compromise its value as an employee identifier.

    14. Re:They could go even further... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      My face is already public, so there's nothing extra to lose. They might as well just look at me, anyway.

    15. Re:They could go even further... by Simmeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why fingerprints should be usernames, not passwords.

    16. Re:They could go even further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.
      Discretization and hashing hate each other.
      One quantum more difference could mean completely different hash.

    17. Re:They could go even further... by profplump · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't a flaw of biometrics so much as it's a flaw of any dongle-based, single-layer security system.

      For example, you have the same problem with a door with the same key issued to 1000 people -- yes it technically can be changed, but it's quite expensive, so in practice it's never done. That leads to people who should no longer have access still having access, and the ability to easily copy the key and use the copy without detection.

      The solution is trivial. If you combined a password with a fingerprint there would be a secret bit of information that's easy to change AND a physical bit of security apparatus that's harder to reproduce/copy than a password. This same solution also solves the key problem above. And it's the same solution already used in all sorts of applications where security is actually important.

      It's not in use for this timeclock system because the problem they're trying to solve is not a high-security application. They're going from the honor system for clocking in to a single-layer physical-dongle security system, likely in an attempt to raise the barriers for clocking in a co-worker. If they were relying on this system to allow you to make changes to your direct deposit account it would be a problem, but for the stated application I don't see why it's a concern.

      Now, you could be concerned about them having your fingerprints on file -- I understand the desire to keep people from collecting information about you. But honestly, unless you wear gloves all day long, they could already have your fingerprints if they wanted them; fingerprints are not secret information in the first place.

    18. Re:They could go even further... by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why fingerprints should be usernames, not passwords.

      That's why they are on our (government) systems.

    19. Re:They could go even further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This isn't a flaw of biometrics so much as it's a flaw of any dongle-based, single-layer security system. For example, you have the same problem with a door with the same key issued to 1000 people -- yes it technically can be changed, but it's quite expensive, so in practice it's never done. That leads to people who should no longer have access still having access, and the ability to easily copy the key and use the copy without detection.

      Your analogy doesn't apply to biometric credentials, where the issue is not cost in re-issuing a credential... but the complete inability to do so at any cost. This problem is actually quite unique to biometric systems. Any non-biometric "dongle" can be expired and re-issued if it's found to be compromised, whereas you have a limited number of fingers and when they're all used up you cannot under any circumstances issue a new fingerprint.

      The solution is trivial. If you combined a password with a fingerprint there would be a secret bit of information that's easy to change AND a physical bit of security apparatus that's harder to reproduce/copy than a password. This same solution also solves the key problem above. And it's the same solution already used in all sorts of applications where security is actually important.

      Multi-factor authentication doesn't resolve the problem that biometric credentials can't be re-issued. Once your biometric credential is compromised you can't reissue a new one, and you no longer effectively have two-factors.

      Now, you could be concerned about them having your fingerprints on file -- I understand the desire to keep people from collecting information about you. But honestly, unless you wear gloves all day long, they could already have your fingerprints if they wanted them; fingerprints are not secret information in the first place.

      The problem isn't people having your prints, it's a combination of 1) If their use proliferates, you have to give them to every organization you interact with. 2) Those organizations do stupid things like use them as a sole authenticator. 3) Criminals steal the biometric signature and and use it to authenticate as you. It's the social security number debacle all over again, and I don't believe people who say this stuff will only ever get used in systems that require physical proximity. Applications will start shipping these biometric sigs or their hashes over the network, and there will be flaws where you can impersonate someone if you have the sig, and the sigs will get compromised and collected by criminals, and you won't be able to re-issue them cause they're stuck to your body. If you need a dongle, just a re-issuable one... otherwise use another authenticator like an ID card.

    20. Re:They could go even further... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "What are you going to do then?"

      Get a finger transplant?

    21. Re:They could go even further... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If "the system," being time-clock or Federal database, uses a specific, formulaic derivation of your fingerprint to establish identity, then storing that formula result is, from a privacy perspective, equivalent to storing your fingerprint.

      Nonesense. Hash(X) is not the same as X.

      Maybe if the has space is small enough that many fingerprints give the same hash value

      Maybe it isn't.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  68. As a biometrics professional... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is a government run college you are okay. If it is private you are screwed.
    The government has very clear and defined limits on what they can legally do with your fingerprints. And what they can't legally do they can't prosecute you for. They also are subject to "Freedom of Information" requests to divulge what they know.
    Private industry is not covered by any requests for information beyond "Discovery" requests in a lawsuit. They can supply your fingerprints to any government, any private agency. And they can do whatever they want with that information up until it offends the ethics of management to the point where they will chance never getting a job in private industry against their conscience.
    The government employees who are ethically offended and whistle-blow tend to get fired and fined. And in extreme cases jailed for a time. But they don't get as bad treatment as corporate whistleblowers.
    Welcome to the real world. Tread lightly.

  69. From a grateful fossil by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Exceptin' Alice.

  70. This might seem extreme by JThundley · · Score: 1

    This might sound extreme, but it's not as bad as it sounds: mutilate your fingers. Just take a razor blade and *gently* cut off your skin where your fingertips are. This shouldn't hurt at all, you don't want to go deep. The result will be a bald finger with no prints. Your fingertips will be a little sensitive while they heal for a week or two.

    1. Re:This might seem extreme by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      fingerprints grow back if you remove the epidermis. if you go deeper than that, you'll just create a new fingerprint with a new unique signature.

      i guess you could keep cutting them every few weeks. the result of that would be you couldn't clock in to work most of the time. pretty much the same result as not taking the job in the first place ... and a lot more painful.

  71. No substitute for good management by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The purpose of this device is to keep people from cheating on their hours. You can get all Big Brothery all you like, but there is one and only one technology that can reliably ensure that people come to work and do the jobs they're paid to do.

    It's called "management". The way it works is, you know your employees' names, you stop by their workstations, both to help them with problems they're having and to check to see that they're doing their jobs. You build up a culture of trust, so that when they need to leave work they *tell* you, and you arrange for them to make up the time.

    Or you can treat them like condemned criminals, and let them be monitored by machines while you sit in your throne of an office eating donuts and browsing bmw.com. It's really up to you.

    1. Re:No substitute for good management by julesh · · Score: 1

      let them be monitored by machines while you sit in your throne of an office eating donuts and browsing bmw.com

      You really should have labelled that NSFW. That's like... middle-management porn. ;)

    2. Re:No substitute for good management by houghi · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightfull. Nothing beats a social solution for a social problem. And with good management, you will gain more then the half day a dishonest person will steal. You might find out he is dishonest and kick his ass out of the company, or know why he is unhappy and turn him into a profit for the company. From the companies point of view a win-win situation.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:No substitute for good management by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I've been in the federal system now for over 17 years, and I've never "clocked in". I fail to see how this is to prevent me from "cheating on my hours" when nobody cares about how many hours I work in the first place.

      The reason you have to give fingerprints for a federal job is to pass the security background checks required for the job.

  72. Re:They are right your fingerprint is not stored.. by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

    Why would a bank have your fingerprints? Mine doesn't. A bank I once worked for does (or did; that was a long time ago and they fingerprinted all employees because it was a federal requirement even in the 1970s).

  73. You know you leave those everywhere, right? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

    Unless you wear gloves whenever you are out in public, your fingerprints are widely available -- on door handles, coffee cups, newspapers, pens, resumes, handrails, elevator buttons, ATM keypads ... Modern techniques are amazingly effective at reconstructing very detailed prints from sources that you would think would be compromised (see, e.g. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/22/1245243), especially if they can collect a few of them.

    The conceit that this is private information does not at all compute in my mind. How can something that you literally leave everywhere you go be private? Fingerprints are no different that the outside of your clothes or the shape of your face -- they are freely observable to anyone that wants to know them. Nor are they particularly personal in any sense, being just a random collection of ridges that don't reveal any intimate details about your life (palm readers notwithstanding).

    Finally, these factors go against using them as any kind of 'secure' biometric authentication. If anyone can grab my prints just by following me an picking up my trash, I would prefer that they can't make a mold to deplete my bank account. Iris scanning seems much more appropriate in situations where we want verifiable authentication.

    1. Re:You know you leave those everywhere, right? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Any fingerprint system that does not require both human skin and a pulse is an inferior solution. Most palm print readers are only good when monitored by a guard to prevent the use of anything except a real palm.

      However, fingerprint readers that do require both human skin and a pulse are available. Using an optical reader which allows simple fakes - like a "gummi finger" - is just plain silly. All of the "testing" that has been done showing how these devices are easily spoofed has all been done with optical readers, not the RF based ones.

    2. Re:You know you leave those everywhere, right? by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      Fingerprints are no different that the outside of your clothes or the shape of your face -- they are freely observable to anyone that wants to know them.

      I would contend they are not freely observable to anyone that *wants* to know them. It's an important distinction that one is not otherwise compelled to show their face in public, wear otherwise identifiable clothes in public (they'll look at you funny for being wrapped in a garbage bag) or leave your fingerprints anywhere in public. People choose to do so of their own free will or ignorance.

      That the kind of freedom (choice) people are talking about when they talk about freedoms being eroded. And the choice to hand over fingerprints or give up a job is not on the same scale as the choice to hand over your fingerprints or not.

      Certainly not a black and white scenario, but not a foregone conclusion like you seem to suggest.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    3. Re:You know you leave those everywhere, right? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      But so are lots of other fingerprints. Most of the coffee cups I use have no way to associate them with me unless someone's actually spying on me.

      A recording of your fingerprints associates the fingerprint with a specific person on a database.

      Honestly I doubt it matters. These things aren't that reliable and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of false positives for a given fingerprint.

    4. Re:You know you leave those everywhere, right? by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

      +1

      Yes, you leave your fingerprints everywhere you go. Currently there is no real incentive for criminals to collect them. However when fingerprint authentication become common place then suddenly the cost-benefit for criminals shifts.

      So either we make the decision that fingerprints are only used to authenticate people for trivial things where misuse has no real consequence (but then why would you really need fingerprint authentication for that anyway). Otherwise we should ban the use of fingerprints for authentication to situations where it massive consequences and thus where protection against misuse is something that can be justified by the consequences of allowing a person to incorrectly authentication as someone else.

  74. Get real dude! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait...hold on here...

    "I'm a student at a university in Massachusetts, where I have a federal work-study position."

    Federal...as in the federal government? Dude...get real! They know EVERYTHING else about you anyway...name, DOB, SSN, height, weight, hair color, mother's maiden name, address, etc. How is a FINGERPRINT going to hurt your privacy any more??? If someone gets arrested, the cops take their fingerprints. If someone goes through a background check, more often than not they get their fingerprints taken to check through criminal databases. Biometric scanning is arguably one of the most secure ways to access secure areas and clock in/out, so they'll want to keep that server VERY secure anyway.

    C'mon, man!

  75. Remember Alcatraz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that scene in the movie when the warden suspends that guy Doc's painting privileges? He chops his own fingers off in protest. That would show them!

  76. The American Way by YouDoNotWantToKnow · · Score: 1

    You are an American, better get used to it. Of course they should be allowed to do it, think of the terrorists/pedophiles/hackers. Be a patriot and give them all the fingerprints, DNA, retina scans and personal information they want. It is for your own good.

  77. Bank Safety Deposit Box by Pinky3 · · Score: 1

    At my bank, I key in my box number and then place my right hand on a pad with pins for finger alignment. If I am me and using my right hand, the door to the vault opens without a teller required.

    The place where you work probably doesn't want to hire someone to check employees in and out after verifying their identities. A hand or finger scan is probably safer from their point of view (no forged ids) and easier on you (just show up).

  78. Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you so afraid if? That someone is gonna plant your fingerprints, OJ? Quit being such a paranoid idiot looking for attention. It sounds like the particular timeclock they bought uses fingerprints for checking in and out simply because they have had issues in the past with Bob clocking in for John. Get over it and stop thinking the world revolves around you and that the government is out to get you.

  79. Pssst. by Duradin · · Score: 1

    Hey buddy, got a tip for you. They. Already. Know. Who. You. Are.

    And now that you've stirred up this tempest in a teapot they probably aren't all that fond of you.

  80. switch by crossmr · · Score: 1

    to decaf.

  81. Get over it by abarrow · · Score: 1

    Dude, I live in Mexico. I went down to get my drivers license - they didn't require any drivers tests, but they wanted fingerprints. What, I'm not going to drive?

    These days, everybody has everything on file about you. Give them your freaking fingerprints.

  82. Where is there not a choice? by kenh · · Score: 1

    I don't get it - he choose to go to college, he choose this college, he choose this work-study program and he chooses to comply with their requirements or not. He's not forced to do anything.

    So, since no one is forcing him, what is the problem? In reality he simply doesn't understand the technology - they are storing an abstracted "profile" of his fingerprint for purposes of accurately recording his work hours - does he think no one else in any industry does this? Where I work they have a "hand reader" for the janitors to clock in and out (there was a problem/question of others clocking in/out coworkers)...

    I love these folks that think their local newspaper will "shine a light on this grave injustice" - no competent newspaper will cover this non-story.

    --
    Ken
  83. Re:cut off finger? gummy bear can beat the system by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    The devices that were fooled were old optical devices. These are a joke and shouldn't be used for anything, ever.

    The "real" fingerprint reader uses RF to scan multiple layers of skin and detects a pulse in the finger. So a gummy bear finger will not work, and a "decapitated" finger will not work. Really, nothing works except a real, living finger.

    Authentec makes these devices and they are one of the few companies making ones that work.

  84. Re:Non-issue by KJSwartz · · Score: 1

    You have eight fingers - choose a finger with the least identifiable features (pinky finger, perhaps?).
    Leave your thumbs for the Banks and the Mob.

  85. Re:They are right your fingerprint is not stored.. by Foo2rama · · Score: 1

    Well the last 2 banks I have opened accounts with required a thumb print. More then a few banks require them for check cashing. I just looked it up, it is not a law.

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
  86. Biometric identification by brindafella · · Score: 1

    ... university... I need to go to their office and have my finger prints taken for the purposes of clocking in and out of work.

    There are numerous ways to implement biometric identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometrics. I don't need to look at the Wikipedia entry; I have personally had my data taken for systems using: eye scan, hand scan, and fingerprint.

    Some examples of biomerics:
    * I suspect that you have not been to a computer store recently, and seen many laptops have a fingerprint scanner as a security device. It's almost difficult to buy a laptop without such a system.
    * You're probably too young to have been interested in "The West Wing". In that show, a palm scanner is used for access to the secure briefing room.

    So, my advice is, "Get over it." These folk are making some place secure, and that's probably not a bad thing.

    --
    Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
  87. oh noes! by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

    I need to go to their office and have my finger prints taken for the purposes of clocking in and out of work.

    They aren't taking your finger prints. They're registering you in their timeclock machine. It's a relatively cheap, simple way to make sure real human beings are clocking in and out.

    The simplest are just crappy fingerprint readers plugged into a PC running some software... The nicer ones are stand-alone devices.

    Generally speaking, they'll get you set up ahead of time... But your name and employee number and whatever into the machine. Then they hit some button and have you put your thumb on the machine - this registers your thumbprint to your information. Generally it's just a thumbprint, not a full set of fingerprints. Generally speaking, there's no way to get that print information out of the machine. You might be able to load up the whole data file on another machine... But they aren't going to send your prints off to the FBI or anything.

    This raises huge privacy concerns for me

    Because you, evidently, don't understand what's going on.

    They don't want to track your every movement. They aren't going to turn your prints over to the FBI. This isn't some invasive policy. They just want to make sure that it's you clocking in and out... And not some buddy you gave your timecard to so he could cover for you showing up late to work.

    as it should for everybody else.

    Yes, of course it should. Because unfounded fear and paranoia are very useful things.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  88. YAWN-"I'm contacting newspapers" WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deal with it. It's a Federal job and use of fingerprints/biometric info is widespread. If you apply for a full time job with the Fed you will be fingerprinted and GASP undergo a background check.

  89. I was wrong - it's still happening! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    According to Wikipedia, "Loyalty oaths are still required by the California Constitution for all officials and employees of the government of California".

    Unbelievable!

    1. Re:I was wrong - it's still happening! by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1

      They also make soldiers take a loyalty oath. Heck they even make the president take one--in front of thousands of people!

    2. Re:I was wrong - it's still happening! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Once a candidate has been elected President, it's a bit late to worry about him overthrowing the government.

  90. It would be illegal in many EU coutries by L-One-L-One · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know this will surprise many slashdot readers but using your fingerprint as described by the poster for the purpose of clocking you in and out of work would be illegal in many countries accross Europe (with the possible exception of the UK). In France, for example, you can actually get fined by the data protection authority for doing so.

    It's true that most of these devices don't store an image of your fingerprint but rather a "template" : a description of some special features of your fingerprint. But that doesn't change the problem.

    Indeed, many data proctection authorities accross the EU consider that biometrics pose sevreall security and data protection issues and must therefore be used with caution. Fingerprint biometrics are of special concern, in particular when the biometric data (templates) are stored in a central database. The big problem with fingerprints is that we leave them everywhere, on all objects we touch. Someone can pick up your fingerprint and test it against the templates inside the database. (Sounds crazy or technically impossible ? It's much easier than you think : i've tested it myself, that's part of my job). There are other issues whith fingerprint biometrics that I won't detail here.

    In the end data protection authorities in the EU consider that the use of a central fingerprint database is excessive if your only objective is only clocking people in and out. Instead, they encourage the use of a smartcard to store the biometric data : you show your finger to the biometric reader and it gets compared with the data stored in the smartcard. This solution offers the same benefits in terms of security but you keep control of your biometric data.

    1. Re:It would be illegal in many EU coutries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big problem with fingerprints is that we leave them everywhere, on all objects we touch. Someone can pick up your fingerprint and test it against the templates inside the database. (Sounds crazy or technically impossible ? It's much easier than you think : i've tested it myself, that's part of my job)

      I've also tested this as part of my job, and I call bullshit. It is not "much easier than" anyone thinks. It is exactly as difficult as it sounds.

      Yes, it is rudimentary to lift fingerprints from surfaces; Fingerprint kits are not secret technology and you can buy them from the same supply companies that, for example, sell them to police departments. The technique takes practice, and is more painstaking than what you'd see in the typical episode of CSI. You might not get a print of adequate definition the first ten times, but keep trying.

      However, it is one thing to take a flat, two dimensional image of a fingerprint, and a completely different thing entirely to "test it against the templates inside the database" -- that requires someone of serious skill who also has insider access to said database, and insider knowledge of the particular way your particular brand of biometric device software hashes the image of a fingerprint. And you need a backdoor way to input that hash into the database as a query.

      You can't just take a dusted fingerprint card and press it up to a biometric finger scanner. They don't work that way. So you have to be able to somehow bypass the input device and trick the system into accepting the image from some other source.

      So, assuming you have someone who has the skills to (a) dust for prints, then (b) reproduce said prints, and (c) kludge the input mechanism to somehow upload said print image into the database, what do you get, then? Someone who expends serious time and effort in order to clock you in or out at a job site -- a king douchebag, but nothing more.

      The only way I was able to successfully defeat a biometric system was to create latex molds of my fingertips, then fill them with molten gelatin and let it harden. Gummy bears are actually very good for this. The resulting fingerprint impressions were able to trick an optical biometric system (the u.are.u) but was not successful against the copper electrical-resistance types or the "finger swipe" types used on laptops.

  91. Yes and no by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

    On the one hand (pun intended), I understand that if your employer has access control, everyone need to submit to it, otherwise it doesn't make much sense. Ditto if they use one system to record 'attendance', they won't set up a different system for students. That's part of the work experience you're getting, and submitting to it as a student is no worse than having to submit to it as a regular worker. Fingerprint scanners are very convenient for everyone: no card to lose, code to forget, no possibility of cheating...

    On the other hand, yes, it's a bit scary, especially since you've got to assume that any data collected is neither safe nor secure, and will end up is with the worst possible people. Don't be swayed by the argument that the system only stores verification points: if the system is effective, this representation of your prints is as good as the real thing (otherwise the system is useless).

    I'm not sure having a hissy fit about it is any use, and it WILL hurt you with future employers. If it's that important to you, find another employer. And check beforehand, next time.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  92. A "slippery slope"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You read too much Slashdot. Just finish your fucking degree.

  93. Re:Suck up and deal by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    Getting a grip was the problem in the first place.

  94. There ARE privacy concerns, but it's workable. by avaspell · · Score: 1

    First, to those people who make the declaration "Don't be so paranoid, they can take your fingerprints from a door handle or a cup", I retort that you should then have no problem complying with a requirement from an employer/bank/whatever to take your DNA and keep it on file, because obviously they could just get it form a piece of hair or skin you leave around everywhere(welcome to Gattica!). That argument is a batch of crap. The taking of fingerprints is absolutely an invasion of privacy for those who are concerned about malice or undesired use/supeona of the information. And the people making the argument that a hash or encoding of the fingerprint data makes it impossible to use as evidence doesn't understand that law enforcement, etc. can fairly easily obtain that hash, then get a second scan from you and compare the hashes in order to positively identify you.

    All that being said, most fingerprint scanners used for timeclocks, door locks, etc. don't store the data with sufficient precision to use it as credible evidence that the scan was you. This is part of why they are both non-trivial and pretty easy to fake. It's precisely that dual, semi-contradictory nature of fingerprint scanners that make them so useful as a biometric access device.

    Of course, you have no idea if the biometric scanners used by this university have that kind of precision, so it's probably best for both you and the university if they simply modify the policy to state that the precision of data the devices gather do not and shall not be able to qualify as proof of identity of in a court of law.

    Then you're clear. Your biometric data at that point has the same significance as an ID badge. Any use of that data as evidence must be corroborated.

    It might not have been such a good idea to contact a paper or other news outlet unless the university refused to clarify their agreement.

  95. Finger print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a finger Print time clock at work. It reads one finger.
    Take a deep breath.
    Now let it out.

  96. You can forget going to Japan on a graduation trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST23858020071120

  97. Re:cut off finger? gummy bear can beat the system by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    But are they priced at the very high security level and most plces has the lower cost ones that are easier to beat.

  98. Hash? by michael1221988 · · Score: 1

    If it is just a description of the fingerprint, wouldn't it be like a hash. You can verify that the person is indeed who they claim to be (you are clocking in), but they won't be able to frame you for murder, because they can't produce a fingerprint from the description. This seems just like a hash to me.

  99. fingerprint spoofing by UESMark · · Score: 1

    The methods for crafting a usable but false finger for the purpose of spoofing electronic fingerprint imaging systems are well documented, but the fun part comes when you do some additional google searching.
    This is a link to Lee Harvey Oswald's ten card
    Others are available.

  100. an issue regardless of "privacy" by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    The crux of concern may be called "privacy" but isn't necessarily privacy. I don't think that he is necessarily concerned with how much of the fingerprint is retained or if it can be released, blah blah blah.

    The issue here is one of human dignity. He feels (as do many others) that fingerprinting is a violation of his sense of human dignity. That somehow using your fingerprint in this type of operation makes him feel less human, less respected, more like a criminal, what have you.

  101. Why even ask about privacy? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Privacy doesn't seem to be the real issue here, unless they're selling your prints to the Feds. What I would like to know is: given the fact that these things don't work worth a damn, why would they be using a system like this in the first place?

    I mean, if I had to use a fingerprint scanner for identification, I'm the kind of person who would fool with it just for fun. The only way they have been able to make them "reliable" -- that is, reliably accept your fingerprint and not lock you out -- was to loosen up the match criteria enough that they are much too prone to false positives, which in turn makes them easy to fool.

    I would do things like clock in Susan for four hours when she is really on vacation in Hawaii, for example, just to see what happens. Or clock in Sam at 3 a.m. so that when he comes around at noon and scans, he's really clocking out. And so on. Consider it like friendly hacking... you are showing the owners that their system just doesn't work. It's a useful technique when they simply won't listen to reason.

    1. Re:Why even ask about privacy? by vickiweir · · Score: 1

      Are you 12?!

    2. Re:Why even ask about privacy? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, but I do believe that showing people who won't listen to reason the errors of their ways is a valuable public service.

  102. Want a driver's license? by uncqual · · Score: 1

    In California, for a long time, you've needed to provide a thumbprint to get a driver's license.

    The time to worry about slippery slopes is when you're at the top, not hurtling down them as we are now.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  103. explain it as an issue of human dignity by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    I think you should definitely make sure to explain to others that this is an issue of human dignity and not necessarily "privacy (because people will try to find what the privacy violation is and will get confused if they can't find one, if their personal values aren't bothered by one thing or another.)

    Your sense of human dignity is higher--you feel that it is inappropriate to fingerprint individuals who are not guilty of a crime, that somehow fingerprinting is disrespectful or inhuman. That you don't want to be a number on file, because it affects your sense of humanity. I'd cite the example of how the US Visit program caused a significant drop in how many visitors were coming to the US--visitors, who, understandably, didn't want to feel like a criminal just to come to the US and visit NYC.

    It's worth following up with this even if you decide not to go with the job.

    If you decide to go with the job, hopefully the employer is reasonable and will let you log in without your fingerprint, which the machines are damn well capable of. If not, and you want to offer up some passive resistance, say you have eczema. I personally actually have a case of eczema, which wipes out the fingerprints on a couple of fingers. You could possibly use an industrial solution of an AHA/BHA hydroxy acid (cosmetology sites may carry things like that, like 25% glycolic acid) to hyper exfoliate your skin and then use a rough pumice or other type of grimy surface to finish off the prints.

  104. A challenger appears! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For example, they could enter my federal work-study place of work .

  105. Secure biometric login by wizardofawk · · Score: 1

    Not the image anyway. They store the relative positions of specific details of your print. 2 minutes on Google would have told you this.

    Unfortunately this is pretty much the same thing in terms of actual security (see http://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/Publications/Fingerprint/FengJain_FMModel_ICB09.pdf)

    FYI my professor happens to make exactly what you are looking for. In a nutshell, we create a non-invertible biometric template. You can think of it as a kind of "fingerprint hash". If the server is ever compromised there is no way to recover the fingerprint. Plus it's managed like a public key infrastructure, so you can actually revoke it if it's lost / stolen. Here are some of the papers he's written on this technology:

    http://vast.uccs.edu/~tboult/PAPERS/Scheirer-Boult-bipartite-ICB2009.pdf
    http://vast.uccs.edu/~tboult/PAPERS/biocrypt-scheirer-boult-biosymp2008.pdf

    The company he runs has already created a secure biometric login system which uses these secure "biotopes" to automatically log time tracker entries (basically a secure biometric punchcard system). If you have any questions, please contact my professor:

    Dr. Terry Boult < tboult AT vast.uccs.edu >

  106. Why is hashing OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, these things may just store a digest of your fingerprint. It still means that fingerprints otherwise collected can be connected to you.

  107. WTF! by the_hellspawn · · Score: 0

    What did you kill someone and rape the corpse? Who cares little girl. If you want the big 'G', then suck it up little girl! Grow up; because, you are about as much of a threat to a grape as the boy who won't break a grape in a food fight. Little idiots!

    --
    "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
  108. It's nothing by Hutz · · Score: 1

    This is a biometric time clock that is used to prevent "Buddy Punching" or having your friend punch you in or out of a job. The system stores a mathematical algorithm that it can use to make sure you are who you say you are. The owner of the clock cannot see your fingerprint, nor can they download it or use it in any way. If you see anything other than an electronic scanner and they say it is for anything other than the time clock, you need to look into it.

  109. MythBusters beat fingerprint security system by AeiwiMaster · · Score: 1

    try to send them this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4Xx5Noxyo

  110. Easier to steal fingerprint than ID card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Understand the matching algorithms. Cast fingerprint. Work til buddy spoofs your fingerprint [gloves?]. Make biometric scanners a cost prohibitive option and policy will follow. It'll be fun. Intermittently punch IT/boss out early, etc. Distribute what you learn, but be quiet.

  111. just refuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a federal work-study position"

    What if you just refuse? Can't the school find a position for you that won't involve fingerprint scanning?

  112. Comes with jobs, sometimes.. by therealobsideus · · Score: 1

    A lot of companies use integrated suites of hardware/software for timekeeping purposes - a prime example would be Kronos. It does help lower costs on average, but I must say I hate the software part of it :P

  113. And there are plenty of other cases by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Many professions require people to be fingerprinted. It can be for background check reasons, or for security reasons (like your work in a position that might have access to other people's property) or whatever. While it isn't common, it isn't rare. Also there are various things that require it like all concealed carry permits I'm aware of. They take your fingerprints and hold them on file before issuing you a permit.

    Now never mind the kind of information that you have to give for the SSBI to get a security clearance. They want to know everything about you, they talk to your family, friends, teachers, etc.

    What it comes down to is in various cases if people are going to trust you with something, you are often asked to trust them with some information about you. Just how it works. I find it funny that some people think it perfectly natural that an employer should trust them with access to expensive and important data, equipment, resources, etc all while knowing nothing more than what is on their resume, which could all be lies. They get all offended if said employer wants to know more and do something like a criminal background check and credit check. They don't trust the employer with that information, but expect the employer to trust them.

    1. Re:And there are plenty of other cases by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Criminal background check, I get. Have I been convicted of theft five times, and am applying for a job where I'll have access to cash, financial data, or expensive equipment? I'll buy that that's relevant. It's also public record, in any case, as all court records are. But actually, you illustrate an issue right there. A credit check? I've never requested a loan from a prospective employer, and I do not imagine that most of us do, nor is a credit check open to the general public like court records are. Why would they need a credit check?

      As to the stuff on your resume, I can certainly also see doing verifications with the school you claim you went to, the companies you claim you worked for, etc. You can verify that this stuff isn't lies without fingerprinting someone (or, for that matter, running credit checks). You can verify whether someone is actually at work or not by verifying that they're physically present. I see no problem with keeping the invasiveness to the minimum possible, and if necessary, restricting it.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    2. Re:And there are plenty of other cases by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well, there are two things they can get out of a credit check:

      1) Your credit score is a measure your financial risk. Specifically it is created to answer the question of if you take out a loan you can technically afford, how likely are you to default? The lower the score, the more likely a default. However one could state that another way to say it is a measure of your financial experience and responsibility. If your score is low, it is likely you are poor at managing money. Now does that matter? Well to some jobs, presumably those are the kind of jobs that generally do credit checks.

      2) General information about your financial position, how much you owe and so on. This can be important if you are to be trusted with valuable information. In the intelligence community, the reasons for committing treason are summed up as MICE: Money, Ideology, Conscience and Ego. In the corporate world, the most common of those would be money. Well, if you are deeply in debt you are far more likely to sell company secrets than if you are doing well.

      I'm not saying all employers should check credit, or that all that do use the information to make correct decisions. However, there are plenty of jobs where it is relevant, just as a criminal background check is. If a company is going to trust you to have control of large parts of their money, it is reasonable that they would want to know you understand how to control yours. Likewise if they are going to give you access to sensitive information, it is reasonable for them to want to make sure someone doesn't have an obvious level to try and force you to divulge it.

      More or less, the more responsibility you are being given, the more trust you are given, the more the employer needs to know about you. That is, as I alluded to, the point of an SSBI. It is an investigation with the question of would you be a security risk. They see if you have foreign ties, hidden problems, etc, etc. They don't really care about something, unless it is something that can be used to get you to reveal classified data. It is highly invasive, but then it needs to be because the information you are trusted with is so important.

    3. Re:And there are plenty of other cases by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      I guess these backflip justifications are really where regulation comes in. I see some marginal relevance in what you put, but not a tremendous amount. If you want to know how skilled or trustworthy someone is, require experience, and look at how they did in their last job. Managing corporate funds is far different from managing one's own, and one who is good at one is not necessarily at the other.

      Luckily, my state has a citizen initiative process. I know there's already been talk of banning insurance companies from using credit checks to determine rates. Maybe not a bad time to get something on the ballot that says credit checks may be used for the purpose of determining whether to grant credit, and absolutely nothing else.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  114. Chill out, chicken little by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    I used to work part-time as a pizza delivery guy when I was in high school. We signed into the computers at work to clock deliveries in and out using a thumbprint scanner. I didn't mind 'cause we had to sign in and out often and it was faster and more reliable than using a username/password.

    Of course, that was just a little pizza place, not the university that I attended, and they only had a crude electronic copy of my right thumbprint, not the whole set. I'd be a little suspicious if the university brought you in to take EVERY fingerprint.

    For the most part though, I don't think you've got much to worry about.

  115. Whatever... by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

    If this is like the systems I've investigated for work (I work for a large retailer, and "buddy punches" are a major problem) they aren't taking your fingerprint, they're teaching the system what your fingerprint looks like. A subtle difference, but a difference.

    Some time clocks don't ever send the fingerprint outside that box; it's just used to make sure you are you.

    The ones I've seen that I thought were better use hand geometry instead of fingerprints. Nobody feels touchy about the electronic version of tracing a pencil around your fingers.

    --
    The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    1. Re:Whatever... by The+Grand+Falloon · · Score: 1

      I worked at a place that had a hand-scan. Basically it just took a picture of the top of your hand. An outline f the shape. Hell, there were times i would have a bandage on a finger so I would put my left hand in upside-down. And this was at a Food Co-op. AKA, Neo-hippy grocery store. We actually had people who wore tinfoil hats and homemade sandwich boards about chemtrails and bullshit like that. Not the kinds of folks buying Big Brother devices. Unless that's just what they want you to think.

  116. The government already has them by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Along with your DNA the government at one time when you were a child would of had you fingerprinted as part of those "Find your kidnapped baby' scares.

    Get over it, us military folks have our DNA, teeth scans, and fingerprints all taken on joining. It's a federal job. If you dont like it go get another work study, they'll want a piss test probably. Worried about losing urine??

  117. Come on by Dun+Kick+The+Noob · · Score: 1

    Its for authentication and tracking purposes. Its totally valid, if they want to install a fingerprint system to protect property which is obviously a valuable part of their organization. Its just a form of tracking and control no different from having you name and passwords. If privacy is what you want, get off the internet, and stop posting in forums, you have publicly given away your work, location and employee status. Besides you dont need to remeber passwords, clock in, clock out card(which everybody can see what time u clock in and clock out). And you obviously overeestimate the state of sophistication of current fingerprint recognition technology and their ability to record and transfer such informaiton One afternoon in a data center alone with the urge to pee and the machine denying you EXIT will teach you that. You want to oppose fingerprint , oppose on practical grounds, sweaty fingers, authentication failures, position errors....

  118. Proper solution to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The proper solution to this sort of problem is to have a fingerprint scanner in the punch-in system, but make sure that the fingerprint is not stored there and certify the machine that way. Then, every employee gets a smartcard with their biometric data stored on it in encrypted form. The key to unlock the fingerprint is in the time punch device and is sent to the smart card to be used temporarily when the device needs to check the fingerprint. The smartcard does not send the fingerprint data to the time punch device, the time punch device sends its scan to the smartcard and the smartcard sends back a confirmation or denial that it's the same fingerprint along with a hash of the fingerprint data that can't be used to recreate the stored fingerprint data, but does verify that the fingerprint data on the card has not been changed. So, the employee carries a card with nothing but encoded garbage on it if someone steals it, the time punch device doesn't store the fingerprint. If they forget the smartcard, they just punch in a code and the time punch device snaps their picture and a supervisor can spend 10 seconds checking it later, and employees who forget their card too often get a reprimand or something. Alternatively, the scanner could be on the smartcard instead, but that would make the smartcards too expensive (of course, most vendors of systems like this will probably charge 50 times what the cards cost them anyway). There are a number of potential holes in this if used as an access system, but for a time punch system, it should be fine. Now, of course, the machine could secretly record the fingerprint data anyway, but we're assuming a world where the company you work for isn't in a sinister plot to accumulate peoples fingerprints, just our normal everyday world where someday the company behind the time punch system may co-operate in some police investigation and the police will take the opportunity to dump their entire fingerprint database into their own databases. Presumably if they guarantee that they're not collecting the info and actually have a system in place to enforce their guarantee, if it turns out that they're lying, they can be sued into oblivion and maybe face criminal charges (the second is not very likely for 'co-operating' with police, even if what they did was totally illegal, as we've seen) for obvious active malice rather than being able to get away with claiming it was just an accident.

  119. You are all missing the big picture here by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

    The big picture problem is that there is mistrust from employers to employees and employees with the outside world.

    Companies have NO IDEA how to a) recognize talent b) recognize character and because of their failings in this regard they put up all of these countermeasures.
    (Hire people smarter than you, but don't trust them an inch!)

    Employers have an unconscionable amount of power and control over its employees and not taking a stand is the passive, safe, and lazy thing to do.

    If you are playing along with the erosion of your liberties for an employer you may as well consider yourself an indentured servant or a slave and start answering everything with "Yess massah, anything you say massah"

     

  120. Its Only About Getting Sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Admins, local, state and Federal, only care about getting the victum, uhh ... enrollee, to consent to sexual intercorse as a means of "payment."

    If they can't get sex, they will take money.

    If they can't get money, then they will cock-up some BS about National Security and that they are the real "Jack."

    In all, it is just a scam.

  121. Make up your own mind. by dj+e-rock · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Look, a free market is what is good, pure, and true.

    If you don't like the terms, don't apply or comply. This has no bearing on anyone else. In the end, it will work itself out.

    If you make a stink but don't *really* do anything about it, it's an exercise in futility. If you're hoping to do a work-study for an organization for which it would be a significant risk to employ a convicted felon (or comparable point of contention), perhaps you should look at alternative options.

    There is no "right" to work.

    Suck it up and deal with it.

  122. Not that simple, unfortunately. by kklein · · Score: 1

    This type of Orwellian crap comes directly from the same people who run the same banks that ran our economy into the ground, and who literally rob from the rest of us in order to support their stupid police-state bullshit.

    Yes, everything you're upset about is the product of the "same people."

    It's funny, no matter what political nutjob I talk to--on the left or on the right--they always seem to think that there is some group of the "same people" who are directly responsible for everything they don't agree with.

    1984 only happens when people ask for it. Why does the TSA waste all our time with security theater? Because we (well, not me) asked for it. We said, "Boo-hoo! 19 crazy assholes crashed some planes! Search my crevices for safety!!!" and the government complied. Why are we saddled with credit card debt (well, I'm not)? Because people said, "Boo-hoo! I want a 60-inch HDTV, but I don't have a job! Charge me many times over the purchase price so I can get one now!!!" and the private banks complied. Why did we have to bail out the banks? Because if they failed, the entire US economy would have crumbled, leading to people (well, me too) crying, "Boo-hoo! We don't want to have a couple really bad decades while we rebuild! Take our shared resources and give them to assholes!" and the government complied. And the UK? Do not even get me started. They've gotten themselves so worked up over imaginary child molesters that you can't even take a picture in public because you might whack off to any of the kids in it.

    There isn't some shadowy elite doing this to us; we're doing it to ourselves. That's the fundamental problem with democracy and capitalism. People, despite being really great individually, are complete morons as a group. Your attitude seems to want to claim the benefits of these systems as "because of me" and the drawbacks as "because of other people; probably the Illuminati or something." The real hero and real culprit are aspects of what you see in the mirror.

  123. People are so paranoid by itwasgreektome · · Score: 1

    People are so paranoid nowadays. Let's say everytime they fingerprinted you, they retained a copy, and submitted them to the Dept. of Justice to do a criminal check. The only people that would have anything to worry about are criminals. All they are doing is logging you, same as using a user name and password. Just quicker. And less foolable. Boohoo.

  124. Your behavior makes no sense. by pclminion · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you contact a local news or student organization, do you think your potential employer will be happy? You've already decided you don't want this job by doing that. If you don't want the job, then what's the problem? Walk away. Nobody is making you do it. Making a big scene is childish.

  125. What do you do in your work-study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok you left out the most pertinent information. What EXACTLY do you do for an organization and what organization is it that requested your fingerprints? If you are in a work-study position where you are working for the government then yeah you should be security checked.

    Your question should reveal more about your job and less about how you got it.

  126. How funny would it be... by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Searching for the user name BonesSB came up with these two hits, both have to do with pot. I know that this is a long stretch but lots of people reuse the same user name for multiple sites. If it is the same user it would make sense that they would be worried about privacy based on the following links.

    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=381456&f=221
    http://cannabis.com/viewProfile.php?user=Bonessb

    Just saying...

  127. What a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grow the fuck up and pony up your fingerprints. Be glad you have a job, you twit.

  128. What kind of School? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    If it's a distinguished school with an honor code, point out that they're insulting you by assuming you're defrauding them. If you get caught defrauding them, you can get suspended or kicked out--but they shouldn't assume that you're doing it. It's like systems that automatically hash assignments to check them for cheating. You can have trust and a few people will take advantage of it, or you can have distrust and dishonor, which is demeaning to the integrity of the school and insulting to the student.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  129. Welcome to the real world by cyberfringe · · Score: 1

    I doubt this will come as a shock to most /. readers, but having your fingerprints taken is quite common in the workplace. Many employers will require this as part of a background check. If you work for a company with significant US federal contracts, you should expect it. When you enter and leave certain countries, fingerprints are required (e.g., Japan). Actually I am more comfortable with being identified by my fingerprints or retina than by my name or address or whatever other text data is found in all those zillions of databases that know about me. Identity theft is so common but as far as I know it hasn't quite caught up to biometrics yet. Seriously, this is no big deal because you can't really use fingerprint data to tell anything else about you. Now if they want a mouth swap or hair samples then I would object!

    --
    There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
  130. hash by GregNorc · · Score: 1

    Systems like this generally don't store an actual image of your fingerprint, just a hash. Not out of any sense of social justice, just because a hash takes less storage space than an image of your fingerprint.

    So some scenarios you might be imagining might actually be out of the question. For example: no one is going to break into the database, steal your fingerprint, and frame you for a crime.

  131. Fingerprints and privacy? by brillow · · Score: 1

    Since when is your fingerprint (even an image of it) private information? Is your hair color private? Eye color? What other publicly visible morphology is private? If fingerprints are so private how come you don't wear gloves everywhere? You're putting your fingerprints on everything! Would you put your SSN on everything you touched? Also, the mere fact that the university does this, and no one cares, indicated that, well, no one cares.

  132. Get over it. by Domini · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sheesh... this is the same as having public and private encryption keys. The private one is for you, the public one is... you guessed it, public, and cannot be used to reproduce or fake the private one. They only store enough data to verify your fingerprint again. VERIFICATION and IDENTIFICATION are two very different things. No privacy issue.

    Move along, nothing to see here...

  133. Has more to do with hygene than privacy by GrantRobertson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    GEEZ! The Slashdoters sure can pitch a fit about nothing!

    These devices only store a few numbers that were derived from the patterns of your prints. They don't store anything near the actual image. When you re-scan your finger to clock in it creates a new set of numbers and looks for a set that is statistically close to something it has in it's database. Usually you have to enter a PIN as well because these things do such a crappy job that without knowing where to start, it would have a terrible time figuring out which of the stored sets of numbers match up to the one you just scanned in. I'm not saying that some systems can't do a great job. I'm just saying that the kinds of systems they sell for time-clocks are usually pretty lame. Especially after they get beat around for a while. So all these time-clock units really do is determine if the clock-in scan is statistically close enough to the original scan to be more likely to be you than some other employee. The actual data stored is less personally identifiable than your name. Are you gonna complain if they ask you to give your name when you clock in?

    I also seriously doubt that these things produce any form of standardized data that could be transferred to any other system. Heck, sometimes the scans won't match up just because you bought a slightly different model from the same manufacturer to replace a broken unit. Ever try to troubleshoot one of these systems? It is a nightmare.

    So, you have nothing to worry about. "They" are more likely to track you by mere facial recognition via security cameras than by your fingerprints.

    1. Re:Has more to do with hygene than privacy by Inda · · Score: 1

      I also seriously doubt that these things produce any form of standardized data that could be transferred to any other system.

      I looked into this when my daughter's school wanted to introduce thumb prints at the school's library. It turns out that only a key points of the print are stored, not the actual image. These points are hashed and stored. Many systems use the same hash.

      www.leavethemkidsalone.com was the main source of my information.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:Has more to do with hygene than privacy by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      Even if the software uses the same hash function to reduce all the data points to a smaller data value for storage and searching purposes, the scanning hardware from different vendors has subtle differences. Different hardware scanning the same fingerprint would come up with a different original set of data points to pass to the hash function. So it would be difficult to take the hashed data, which is usually all that is stored, and make use of that on another system that uses a different brand or model of scanner.

      Often, when an institution has to get a new set of these scanners because a lot of them have gone bad, everyone has to do an original scan all over again because the new scanners produce a data set that is just different enough that it won't match up to the right people. The inaccuracy of these systems should be more troubling. If a system doesn't require a PIN then there is a statistical chance that it could misidentify someone and claim they clocked out when they did not.

      As to the school fingerprinting programs: How detailed of a scan they are collecting depends on the purpose of the scan. If it is just to check people in and out then it is probably not of much concern. However, if the purpose is for future identification from actual fingerprints then they may, in fact, be storing an accurate image of the entire fingerprint. In the past, there were programs to fingerprint children but those prints were stored on a paper card in the parent's possession. If a full image is being stored by the school then that would be a breach of privacy.

  134. Get a spare finger by Qubit · · Score: 1

    People are dying all the time. Heck, you might even be able to get away with something that isn't a finger, like a rubbery mold made from someone else's finger.

    Get the finger-like tool, then use it to clock-in and clock-out. If you ever need to be AFO (that's Away From Office), just hand the finger-like tool to your buddy at work and take off. Of course, if your manager is actually a human being you can probably just talk to them and change around the hours you work in the day so you can get your appointments and other stuff done while also completing your work.

    Also, in related news: (try to) Get a different job. Preferably one that doesn't make you give them biometric data, implant an RFID chip in your bicep, etc...

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  135. it depend how they do it by __aastpl2241 · · Score: 1

    In the company which i work for, we have biometrical recognition to go in certain place of the building. But there are no privacy concern, only the hash of the fingerprint is stored, and it is in my badge. They don't have any useful data at all, just an SHA256 of an approximation of my finger. So it all depend on how they do it

  136. my take by Nyder · · Score: 1

    The problem with finger printing, is it's used mostly for identifying criminals.

    So ya, I might not want to give some "federal work study" my fingerprints because they aren't the most trust worthy of peeps, imo.

    Wonder how many "criminals" or maybe students with expired visas they "catch" this way?

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:my take by shrtcircuit · · Score: 1

      Biometric scanners do not store the whole print! It's just some comparison points! It isn't like an image of the print is used for anything here.

  137. professional school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I finished my undergraduate degree and applied for Doctor of Pharmacy program. We are required to also apply for a state pharmacy intern license. This required sending in fingerprints to FBI and BCI. I called the place where they give out driver's licenses and they did it for a fee (it was under $50 but I don't remember exact amount).

    I don't know why U Mass is taking work study jobs so important. I remember they limit you on how much money you can make via work study. I am limited to $2,000/year. I know someone else who is limited to $1,000 and someone else limited to $5,000.

  138. Your government doesn't represent the people??? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Is that what you're saying?

    It's all suddenly a lot clearer...

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Your government doesn't represent the people??? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what I'm saying.

      I love how I got modded down, though I don't know whether it was the anti-American crowd, the AMERICA FUCK YEAH crowd, or both.

  139. PRivacy concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What privacy concerns? All a fingerprint says is that you are you.
    It won't tell them your sexual proclivities. Or if does then that is your fault.
    It won't tell them your medical history, if does that is your health care providers fault.
    etc...
    Fact is that if you apply for a job where a background check is required, then you will most likely have to provide your finger prints.
    From what I understand and my experience, most bonding companies require fingerprints too, if not all of them.

  140. Ummm.... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    There's lots of reasons to worry about fingerprint scanners[*] but "privacy" isn't really one of them.

    You leave copies of your fingerprints wherever you go, on everything you touch.

    * Main reason: They're not very secure - people leave copies of their 'key' wherever they go...

    --
    No sig today...
  141. biometrics is a very weak security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biometric data is a weak security, because it cannot be changed.
    My datacenter uses thumb fingerprint to allow 24-hours access.
    I tried this: took my thumb fingerprint, printed it on a printer,
    then put this paper to the datacenter thumb scanner - it let me in.
    I heard there are more advanced thumb scanners, where
    paper printed fingerprints would not work,
    but then people can make "real" fingerprints from an eraser.

    Anyway - anyone can obtain your fingerprints from any object you
    touched, and then make a an entrance pass from it.
    Fingerprints is a weak security and should not be used
    for anything serious.

  142. Serbia has biometric passports and ID cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's so private about your fingerprint? I mean, it's *your* *private* finger, but... did you steal something and don't want to be caught? Or did you drink from a colleague's cup and are too embarassed to admit?

    Serbia already has biometric passports and identity cards (changing every 5 years), makes fighting crime and person identification easier.

  143. What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. ...I say that a lot. Saves the effort of thinking.

  144. so? it's only a fingerprint profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at first they came for my fingerprint, and i said who cares?
    then they came for my iris/retina, and i said who cares?
    then they came for my colon map, and i said that stings a little.
    then they came for my dna, and i said wait a minute... but they said it is now the law.

    then they said 'your library book on social-something is overdue, you filthy communist hippy'

  145. Ok, really? by shrtcircuit · · Score: 1

    Who cares? It's not a DNA sample, or even a complete fingerprint, it's a machine that stores a few data points. These have been in widespread use for well over a decade.

    You're already identified as you, this is just way for you to prove it without them having to issue things that get lost, which I'm sure can be a big logistical issue for a University seeing as college students are irresponsible idiots most of the time. I suppose they could give you a badge to swipe, but I would imagine they also have issues with students clocking their friends in and out (see previous "irresponsible idiots" statement), so this is a way to physically verify you were really there with as little administrative overhead as possible.

    Be far more concerned with all the other information they have about you (like, your whole life), and how securely it's actually being stored. Security breaches at colleges are rampant, and a few data points on a time clock are really the least of your worries if it got out.

    How the hell did this get to >430 replies over misplaced paranoia?

  146. What's wrong with bioemetric data ? by andr386 · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. You wouldn't object them taking a picture of you. Even though your face is unique, the length between your facial features are unique and can help identify you as precisely as fingerprints. But when it comes to fingerprints one starts freaking out .... They are legitimate reasons to be able to identify people. I think you are overeacting here. The real issue of privacy lies with the databases containing that kind of data about you. Who can retrieve that informations, if it is retrieveable, and cross-reference with other data about you. We need laws and standards, to make sure one can retains one's privacy as best as possible.

  147. I use a finger scanner at work to clock in and out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at a retail store that requires that everyone sign in with their finger so that they can pay us. When they implemented the system it was deal with it or leave, we are now paid for exactly how long we have been working down to the minute and that suits me fine. The machine doesn't store an image of your finger just an encrypted value of some kind that your finger matches up to. There's no conspiracy to steal your identity or in anyway a privacy concern.

    What I think you should do is, nothing. You have bigger problems than worrying about clocking in with your finger.

  148. Never Arrested? Boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've never been arrested and you're 20-something? What a boring life you must lead.
    I've worked in places where finger printing was mandatory so they could perform background checks, talk with my neighbors in every place I'd lived in the recent 10 years, and get a general idea what kind of person I was from financial records, credit reports, drug tests, etc.

    I don't ever intend to do that again, but I'm not starting out. If you want the job, let them have it. If you don't need the job, you might explain why you aren't submitting it and thank them for their consideration. If they have a government contract, there is little they can do to override this method.

    When you work sucking from the teat of government, you lose many of your "rights." Get over it. BTW, I'd vote for a law that says everything a government employee says, writes, does anywhere should be recorded and made available to any citizens in their area of coverage.

  149. Fingerprint left everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a break. Fingerprints are left everywhere all the time with full knowledge of every person that doesn't where gloves. When applicable, they can and are lifted by law enforcement without need of search warrants.

    In terms of use, applicant (non-criminal) fingerprints serve as a person's consent to release their criminal history record information, or lack of one. Signature alone is not sufficient. Sure, name-based searches can and are used, but fingerprints confirm the person's identity.

  150. Been there, done that by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK, I've actually never faked a fingerprint myself. But I've read about research on it in Bruce Schneier's blog:

          http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#5

    Care to guess what the batting average of most fingerprint readers was against someone trying to fool them?

    (Answer: the eleven commercial fingerprint ID systems, together, wouldn't defeat my son's blindfolded Little League team.)

  151. Take off your damned tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sheesh.

    Tho I'm of the mind that they should take fingerprints of anyone requesting any sort of license (drivers, marriage, heavy equipment, medical, etc, etc)....heck, I'd be OK with samples of blood taken at birth for DNA databases.

    Allow law enforcement ot only use that stuff for comparison of crimes...will go a long way to catching folks faster.

    And, if I were the employer, and you went crying to the local newspaper because I wanted your fingerprints for biometrics, and you were all whiney and crap like you are now, I'd rescind the officer and publicly acknowledge that you're a boat rocker in hopes no one else would bring you on as well.

    1. Re:Take off your damned tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of us don't trust law enforcement not to be complete idiots. The biggest problem with all kinds of tests that they use is that they're typically unskilled amateurs, not professionals when it comes to scientific evidence. How often do we hear of trials where pretty much the only piece of evidence was some sort of field test for drugs, or gunpowder residue, etc. and it turns out that the field test, applied by people who don't know how and why it works and don't seem to grasp that it's only a first pass and should be followed up by further testing, and then it turns out that it was indeed a false positive. What's even scarier is that it's obvious that there are many many cases where there's no longer any opportunity to provide contrary evidence and the crappy field test is all that the jury has to go on.
      I want to be able to trust the police, I really do, but I've never really had a good experience with them. Bear in mind, I'm not a criminal. Aside from a few traffic stops for things beyond my control, like a headlight that's gone out, I've had one speeding ticket in my life, and that's it. Even when I got the speeding ticket, it was simply for being foolish enough to be in the left most lane on an empty highway going 75 in a 65. The police officer came up behind me, slowing down from about 100 mph, and claimed in the ticket that I was going 80. Afterwards, he crossed three lanes from the shoulder without signaling and sped back up to 100+ mph. I went to dispute it before a magistrate, where a representative of the police, not the actual officer who pulled me over, was present (hearsay rules only apply to 'civilians', unless the police actually have hearsay evidence that can exonerate you, then hearsay rules suddenly apply again), and I admitted to going 75, but not 80 and the ticket amount was dropped. I probably could have lied and said 65 and they would have just dropped it because ,let's face it, it's mostly just a revenue generating scam and they're after low hanging fruit who won't dispute it. Afterwards, as I was walking out, the magistrate said something stupid and condescending about how I shouldn't speed and should respect the laws regarding it which really annoyed me given the actual circumstances where I essentially got a ticket because I was going much slower than the recklessly speeding officer.
      Other encounters I've had with the police include when my car was stolen and the officers who came seemed to think it was hilarious and laughed in my face about it. The only thing they seemed interested in is why my license plate had been checked in their system a few nights before. It turns out that it was legally parked in the parking lot of a chinese restaurant when it happened, but for some reason, the possibility that I'd committed some traffic infraction was the only thing that interested them when I'd obviously just been robbed. When my car was recovered (the battery was dead, I may have been saved by my failing alternator), and I came to pick it up, the officer questioned me about the scale I had in the trunk (it was a broken one from the bakery job I worked at at the time which I was taking home to fix), apparently fishing for evidence of wrongdoing on my part.
      Then there's the time I moved to a new town and my cat went missing the first day, and I went door to door after work looking to see if anyone had found it. I was heading home after a fruitless search (the cat turned up on its own after four days) and a police car pulled up and the officer questioned me, apparently making sure I wasn't casing houses, and told me that I couldn't just go knocking on peoples doors like that, but seemed pretty flustered when I asked him what law it was against. I find that to be fairly true of police, they'll say whatever they feel like to justify themselves and act like it's the law. Anyway, the incident appeared in the town papers police blotter that week, and it mentioned that a suspicious individual had been going house to house asking about a lost cat and had asked for directions, b

  152. Bring a camera and gelatin by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Whoever wrote that letter is obviously a fool. But show up, and bring a camera, preferably a camera crew, and some gelatin. Then replicate this experiment described by Bruce Schneier.

    http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#5

  153. Nichol Draper by nicholdraper · · Score: 1

    Nichol Draper, yes I post under my real name, my finger prints are on file in California. My mother had a day care center and I was finger printed and put on file when I was a teenager. My name, address and phone number are in the phone book. My name is in the patent database on two patents. My wedding certificate in online in California. Code I've written is on numerous sites and registered in the Library of Congress. I could go on and on. Google me and you will find even more links including my web site. This life's about getting noticed. If you are afraid of getting your finger prints into a private database, something is wrong with you.

  154. They already fingerprint by FrankHS · · Score: 1

    Several years ago I had to give a fingerprint to renew my drivers license. I seems clear that even without a National ID the government has plenty of identifying information on all of us. If the FBI (or other agency) asked the DMV for my info, surely the sate would give it to them.

    Also if someone from the government went to this company and demanded the fingerprint information ( and the software / hardware to process it) how many companies would refuse them? Especially if they used the secret magic word (terrorism).

    Now on one hand I don't trust the government any farther than I can spit a rat. On the other hand I don't know of anyone being dragged off and falsely accused by the government. That doesn't prove it doesn't happen; just that I haven't seen it.

  155. Make them fire you by Coppit · · Score: 1

    They shouldn't need to have a fingerprint scan to measure hours worked, because they shouldn't be treating employees like liars. To the extent that there are liars on the payroll, that's their fault for hiring such people.

    I would refuse to do it on the grounds above, and wait for them to fire you. This forces them to decide whether you're more valuable than their stupid belief that you might lie about your hours. I'm sure you can get another job if they can't.

    That said, I use a security badge every day I go in the office, and I'm sure that's logged... The difference is that they can easily deactivate my old badge and issue a new one. If their system is compromise, they can't issue you new thumbs. Plus there's the lop-off-the-thumbs incentive...

  156. You need banknote paper too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need banknote paper too. Forgot that? Then it's not going to work.

  157. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just give them the finger.

  158. Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biometric access control is not an invasion of privacy. Even if they also ran your prints through the FBI to check for a criminal record, that still wouldn't be an invasion of privacy. Criminal records are not technically private, nor are court records for anyone over the age of 18 (in the US). They aren't putting cameras in your house, recording your home telephone conversations, or reading your private e-mail account. They aren't bugging your car, or forcing you to let them read mail sent to your house. Personally, I'd rather use a fingerprint instead of having to carry keys or access cards. Sure, someone could chop off your finger, but for the case of businesses or federal offices, you will still have some form of picture ID that you have to wear at all times, so it isn't as simple as just taking someone's thumb and voila, you have access.

  159. Not Fingerprints, Fingerprint Geometry by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

    From what you've said, they're not actually taking your fingerprints. The machine they use for timekeeping uses biometrics, so you can't have a friend clock you in when you're not there. These machines don't keep an image of your fingerprint. When you "enroll" in the machine, your print is scanned and a vector map of certain aspects of your fingerprint is created. The geometry of this map is what identifies you. You certainly cannot reconstruct a fingerprint from the less than 100 byte map. It's like a hash value. Quit your worrying.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  160. It is not a real issue by elnyka · · Score: 1

    The crux of concern may be called "privacy" but isn't necessarily privacy. I don't think that he is necessarily concerned with how much of the fingerprint is retained or if it can be released, blah blah blah.

    The issue here is one of human dignity. He feels (as do many others) that fingerprinting is a violation of his sense of human dignity. That somehow using your fingerprint in this type of operation makes him feel less human, less respected, more like a criminal, what have you.

    Just because he (or anyone) "feels" so, that does not mean that feeling is reasonable, proportionate or grounded in logic.

    Only an oversensitive fool with an inflated, semi-religious sense of privacy and a disproportionate sense of self-importance would think that. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, one could extend that and claim that one feels violated and a bit less human for getting his picture (his likeness) taken for getting a driver license. This is specially true if you work in the Federal/DoD/DoE sectors.

    When you apply for many types jobs, you get your fingerprints taken. Big deal. They are not taking a picture of your privates nor asking for proof that you don't like buttsex or what-not. Your fingerprints are not private. They are valid ways for identification for any reasons, be it job-related or for criminal investigations. Same with universal ids (which many democracies have, but the US seem allergic to it as if it were a spawn of the Devil.)

    For several jobs I've given my fingerprints. I've given my fingerprints in two countries, and I didn't feel any less assaulted or denigrated. It's just a process. And at no point I conjured Manchurian-candidate scenarios when I did so. There was no evidence, however remote from which one could draw a logical conclusion of their likelihood. Occam's razor for Christ' sake!

    One time I also got finger scanned for a gym membership. Neat system and the most convenient thing, not having to carry little barcode cards to get in. That was like, 10 years ago. Many jobs do that just for clocking. It's not like this is something coming out of the blue for the first time.

    Imagining Orwellian schemes of a Machiavellian system bent on finding ways to magically tele-transport a homing device up your ass just because some job asks you to provide a fingertip, painting the whole thing as an assault on humanity, that says a lot more about the paranoid, self-aggrandizing ones than the job asking the fingerprint in the first place.

    Whatever people think, we are not even close to be in a police state, much less a dictatorial, all-encompassing one. Those who think so and get their panties all curled up for such procedural minutia while crying "peeple don't no think of the ramificationalizations!!1011" have a distopic, miopic sense of self, masturbating too much while reading "1984" ... kinda like the distopic cousins of those who get severely depressed after watching "Avatar".

  161. This is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a normal procedure in US federal government work. If your parents ever took you to get your fingerprints taken at wal-mart by cops when you were a kid, the govenment already has them.

  162. mcdonalds is hiring by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    haven't had a job before eh? seriously, welcome to the work force. employers can require you to do all sorts of things. it's perfectly legal because you are not required to work for them. there are some restrictions to that of course but fingerprinting, drug tests, background checks, etc are all well within the limits.

    so yeah, mcdonalds is hiring, and they don't require fingerprinting. there is almost certainly a local branch in your town. that, or suck it up and enjoy your federally funded student do-nothing-and-get-paid job.

  163. Is there a need for security? by IshmaelDS · · Score: 1

    Your saying your doing work for a federal-work study program. Are you doing anything with anything that is considered sensitive information? If so I think there is a justified need for it, if not, seems alittle overkill though. Have you asked why this requirement is being made? From the way you worded the question it seems like you have been doing this for a bit and this new directive just came down. Did anything change in the nature of what your doing?

    --
    letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
  164. Don't see the problem in that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to the US last year on a work and travel program...I worked at an indoor theme park on a famous resort, and I had to have my index finger scanned plus type in my password...to get punched in and out...now...if I had to do that for a theme park...what's wrong with you doing that for tech-related work?

  165. Key Word "Federal" by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    You have to supply your fingerprints for all federal jobs. Your choice is to get a non-federal work-study job.

  166. Not to worry. by tekgoblin · · Score: 1

    I dont think that you need to worry about fingerprinting, they are probably just being used for verification purposes and thats all.

  167. We did this at a previous employer by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    At a previous job, we switched our time tracking software over from physical time clocks to fingerprint timeclock software we developed in house. We employed a lot of young people in positions that didn't have a lot of supervision so we had problems with people clocking their friends in early and out late. As someone previously stated, the software doesn't store images of your prints, it just stores a digital equivalent. As I understand it, the actual data that's stored is akin to an md5 hash of your fingerprint such that when you put your finger on the scanner, the software can tell whether your fingerprint matches the signature on file, but you cannot recreate a copy of your fingerprint from the stored signature. Once people understood that, they became much more receptive to the idea of us using their fingerprints in this way.

  168. Not all biometric systems are privacy killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which device they are using/plan to use?

    Some access card readers with biometric capabilities read the fingerprint template (previously stored as enrollment process) from your card , so there is no privacy problems with all biometric systems.