Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Companies 'Can Sack Workers For Refusing To Use Fingerprint Scanners' (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the setting-precedence dept.

Businesses using fingerprint scanners to monitor their workforce can legally sack employees who refuse to hand over biometric information on privacy grounds, the Fair Work Commission has ruled. From a report: The ruling, which will be appealed, was made in the case of Jeremy Lee, a Queensland sawmill worker who refused to comply with a new fingerprint scanning policy introduced at his work in Imbil, north of the Sunshine Coast, late last year. Fingerprint scanning was used to monitor the clock-on and clock-off times of about 150 sawmill workers at two sites and was preferred to swipe cards because it prevented workers from fraudulently signing in on behalf of their colleagues to mask absences.

The company, Superior Woods, had no privacy policy covering workers and failed to comply with a requirement to properly notify individuals about how and why their data was being collected and used. The biometric data was stored on servers located off-site, in space leased from a third party. Lee argued the business had never sought its workers' consent to use fingerprint scanning, and feared his biometric data would be accessed by unknown groups and individuals.

60 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. article discusses Australian ruling by disgruntledlurker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't mentioned in the overview text (although it can be relatively easily ascertained) but this article discusses an Australian ruling. Just for the sake of clarity before folks from other countries go off the rails thinking it directly effects them.

    1. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What they need to do in the same breath is make a series of laws that brutalize the company if they lose the data to hackers. They want to force employees to use biometric data under the law, fine. But whomever is involved with securing that data goes to JAIL when it's breached...under the law. Period.

      And, as someone stated before on Slashdot, I have no problem with using biometrics themselves, but they should NEVR be the password. They should only be the username--so to speak. There should still be a PIN or something involved.

    2. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by niftymitch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well down under... that explains it.
      In reading it is unclear if the reader (device and data) was fully under the control of the company or if the company
      was insulated from a data breach or abuse by a contracted service.

      Then there is an issue with a labor force that likely has missing digits (as I do). There are days when I
      want to give other drivers a specific gesture but cannot.

      This down under ruling is a hint or early warning that other parts of the world need to establish
      rules for such devices. It seems that there are ways to do it terrible wrong and
      ways that solve the problem of fraud to a company.

      In this time zone such a device could be subject to audit by ICE and ill documented labor
      swept up and turned into cash cows for the contract incarceration industry. In a 1984esque
      world I can see such readers being mandated.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    3. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      In other jurisdictions like the United States; it was never even a question, really.... Your employer can require you to use their biometric systems for access control or time and attendance; Time clocks with a finger scanner are common, and so are door control systems with hand scanners --- there's not in general a "Second option" for employees uncomfortable with the idea of sharing biometrics; If you don't cooperate, then you can't do your job or clock in properly, and if you can't do your job or you aren't recorded as present, then you're going to get terminated eventually..

    4. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wasn't mentioned in the overview text but this article discusses an Australian ruling. Just for the sake of clarity before folks from other countries go off the rails...

      Actually, it's pretty clearly spelled out right at the start of TFS:

      ...a Queensland sawmill worker...

      It's obviously not the case for you, but when I read "Queensland" the first country that springs to mind is Australia, not Italy or Uzbekistan or USA, for example.

    5. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by redlemming · · Score: 4, Informative

      In other jurisdictions like the United States; it was never even a question, really.... Your employer can require you to use their biometric systems for access control or time and attendance;

      That's false: such matters are ALWAYS open to question in the USA, because James Madison gave the USA an open-ended Bill of Rights, giving the people the ability to assert ANY rights they desire under the 9th Amendment (unspecified rights retained by the people) and 10th Amendment (unspecified rights to the people).

      This was done in response to the criticism of the Anti-Federalists that the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution had no Bill of Rights, and that any finite (closed) Bill of Rights would always leave out critical rights.

      Hence, an individual right to privacy can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, and it's ultimately up to be people to decide what that means: government action is only legitimate to the extent that it is consistent with the expectations of the people.

      There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits the application of such rights to government: they can also be applied to private business.

      Further, rights retained by the people are by definition retained by the people and can not be taken away by ANY entity of government.

      As the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land (superseding even the pre-Bill of Rights parts of the Constitution), such rights supersede the authority of government at all levels. The people have the ultimate power: they are the supposed to be the most important check-and-balance on government.

      Further, under US federal law, the infringement of fundamental rights "under the colour of law" is both grounds for civil suit, and can be a basis for criminal charges. In theory, this prevents state and local government as well as the federal government from infringing rights the people decide are retained by them.

      All Americans have to do is decide to assert their rights, and get them past a frequently unethical legal profession and a frequently corrupt government ...

      In practice, that's difficult. Even obvious and really basic rights such as the right to ethical practice of law are routinely infringed in US law. There is a huge gap between the law as written and the law as practised.

      But this problem might primarily be due to ignorance, and perhaps much can be accomplished if the public starts to care more about their rights. Further, appeal to the authority retained by the people 9th and 10th Amendments may end up being the only possible way to overcome the deeply entrenched corruption in the system without requiring a reboot (another American Revolution).

    6. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How about people who don't have fingerprints? Due to burns or missing fingers. Seems a like discrimination if such people cannot be provided some accessible means of entering the building.

      In Europe my understanding of the GDPR is that they can't tie to this kind of data use to your employment, so must offer an alternative.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by kenh · · Score: 2

      Does the device store your fingerprint, or a HASH of the fingerprint? I suspect it doesn't store the actual fingerprint because that would be much more complex than simply store a profile/HASH of user's fingerprints.

      --
      Ken
    8. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by infolation · · Score: 2

      The article says it only stores a hash. Or rather "The employer... claimed the fingerprint scanner did not actually record a fingerprint, but rather "a set of data measurements which is processed via an algorithm". The employer told Lee there was no way the data could be "converted or used as a finger print", and would only be used to link to his payroll number to his clock-on and clock-off time."

    9. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The company didn't use his fingerprints when he got the job, so it isn't something he could foresee or have a choice in. I respect the company's right to let him go, but since they materially changed the terms of his employment causing his inability to continue working there, I think he should be entitled to a decent severance package, similar to what he would get if the company suddenly decided to move to Perth and he wanted to stay put in Queensland.

    10. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      or by running the same hash algorithm to identify anything the employee touched.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    11. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by Colourspace · · Score: 2

      My single week in Australia in 2005 (before I spent 2 weeks in the very much more accommodating New Zealand) absolutely screamed 'Nanny state'. I'll never go back, a nation far too scared of its past/own shadow. Just like Germany. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    12. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      And by Germany, I mean that they clearly have many reasons not to revisit many parts of their past, but have forgotten about the parts that were genuinely good (the knack for mechanical engineering, not engineering Nazism). Australia is rapidly becoming an authoritorian hell.

    13. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... a nation far too scared of its past

      That's a sweeping statement that I disagree with. Although I can think of a few changes over the last 2 decades.

      The US mandated 'war on terror' means there's a lot of things we can't say and do: But these tend to be fringe cases. The latest is gel-ball (miniature paintball) guns that are 'too' realistic. That's not the first time toys have been labelled as 'scary'. (eg. high-fidelity military replicas; the national gun ban including Nerf guns, later rescinded.) Although it probably affects the gun-toting police most.

      While Australia follows the US model for violence and nudity, we also shared the British enthusiasm for naked schoolgirls, until the US mandated ban in 2003.

      The historical 'stolen generation' of forced assimilation for indigenous children is always in the cultural zeitgeist, with the result that 'white' putting-the-child-first policies, such as education and healthcare, are not enforced on indigenous populations. The lack of cultural assimilation ensures that future generations will not share the benefits of white Australia.

      The last 2 years has seen cultural sensitivity flip-flop between (male-instigated) sexual harassment and (male-instigated) domestic violence. Some 40 years of screaming "I'm a victim" hasn't ended harassment so the idea that both genders might be responsible, has arisen. It is currently being torpedoed with the propaganda 'Is Australia sexist?' (2018), which really asks "Are men misogynists?"

    14. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should try visiting the US if you want to see authoritarian hell. makes the Australia and germany look mild by comparison.

    15. Re: article discusses Australian ruling by gravewax · · Score: 2

      ummm no it fucking isn't against the law as long as you have a valid reason for carrying it. E.g. I carry a leatherman all the time as I use it for work. It is illegal to carry knives for self protection or purely because you like to have a weapon on you.

    16. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by gravewax · · Score: 1

      More like. Everyone loses a days pay.

    17. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Deterrence based on "it's all OK, until..." scenarios is little deterrent to the foolish and the greedy.

      Better a law saying it's NOT OK to compel someone to divulge something which meets both conditions:
      (a) an unassisted human cannot directly observe it (e.g., fingerprints, administrator password)
      (b) it is not directly related to their occupation or condition (e.g., prison inmate, IT worker)

      Otherwise, what next? Companies forcing employees to submit iris scans, microbiome profiles, genitalia measurements?

    18. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How about people who don't have fingerprints? Due to burns or missing fingers.

      Seems a like discrimination if such people cannot be provided some accessible means of entering the building.

      For starters: If they have an injury causing problems with a finger or hand, then they can simply provide a different finger.

      Employers certainly can discriminate against employees who don't have usable hands.. if they are needed to perform the job.

      The number of people who have Zero available fingers with fingerprints AND are still sufficiently able-bodied to work at a job is going to be vanishingly small, and the vast majority of employers are likely to never encounter such a person.

      For the 1 in 1 million case; the employer will potentially come up with an individualized accommodation for the specific individual who can't use the scanners for time and door access and it will be solved.

      In case an accommodation cannot be made in a fiscally responsible manner for the employer ---
      it may also be solved by releasing the employee or refusing to hire them.

      For example: If there is a special security need for their facilities that necessitates the biometric identification,
      and the cost of making an accommodation that would preserve the security requirement is prohibitive, then in the US the employer would be allowed to discriminate and refuse them, since they can't meet a vendor (or customer)'s contractual security requirements, for example.

    19. Re:article discusses Australian ruling by mysidia · · Score: 1

      In other jurisdictions like the United States; it was never even a question, really.... Your employer can require you to use their biometric systems for access control or time and attendance;

      That's false: such matters are ALWAYS open to question in the USA, because James Madison gave the USA an open-ended Bill of Rights,

      Nope. The first statement above is true. And your language/arguments are so bogus for this context they begin to sound like the sort of rhetoric advanced by those so-called "Sovereign Citizens". It doesn't matter how Open-Ended the bill of rights actually is, because
      the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government only. Even if you want to claim an additional right to privacy: this has no affect on employers. In fact, an employer can refuse to hire you if you won't sign an agreement waiving or forfeiting your 2nd Amendment Rights, your 1st Amendment Rights, Your right to a jury trial (Compulsory Arbitration), etc. An employer can require you sign an agreement for them to search your home before hiring you if they want: and refuse you a job if they find any firearms, or find that you held a firearm's license in the past, or found out that your oldest brother's friend's stepnephew owned a gun or wrote a Newspaper article in favor of smoking or gun ownership that your employer disagreed with, for example.

      giving the people the ability to assert ANY rights they desire under the 9th Amendment (unspecified rights retained by the people) and 10th Amendment (unspecified rights to the people)

      .

      Your employer is also a person.... that can do the EXACT same thing: assert ANY rights they desire,
      including their right of free will to choose who they want to hire based on arbitrary seemingly-irrational preference and refuse you the work.

      By the way, despite there's a 9th / 10th amendment --- that doesn't allow people to assert ANY right they desire against the government; the supreme court and federal courts have particular interpretations of the constitution, and a concept that also comes up often is that the People then ceded any residual rights to the current legislature through the process of Voting, So unless you are a disenfranchised voter arguing for extra rights that the congress has not respected is not going far..

  2. OJI by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Call their bluff. It's a sawmill, right? What happens if he has an OJI and no longer has fingerprints? Sometimes you gotta make sacrifices to keep your privacy.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:OJI by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Came here to say the same thing, only a light acid might be more practical... :-)

      Bonus is if you remove your fingerprints and they fire you because you can't use the fingerprint scanners, you can sue them for disability violations!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re:OJI by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Sawmill accidents don't erase fingerprints. They do, however, liberate the finger for anyone to use, if they can't find it for re-attachment.

    3. Re:OJI by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Came here to say the same thing, only a light acid might be more practical... :-)

      I'm reminded of the movie Smokin' Aces(great movie by the way if you love over the top ridiculousness and want to see Ben Affleck get killed) where the one assassin chewed off his fingerprints when he got arrested so the couldn't fingerprint him.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:OJI by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Sawmill accidents don't erase fingerprints. They do, however, liberate the finger for anyone to use, if they can't find it for re-attachment.

      Eh, with a wide enough blade and right on the tip there wouldn't be enough left for someone to use.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:OJI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I lost my fingerprints in high school from an unexpected reaction between an organic solvent that had gotten through my gloves and into my skin, and the shampoo I used later that night in the shower.

      Melted off pretty much every area with solvent exposure. Very sore. Very tender.

      Couldn't shuffle cards for months.

      They grew back. And the regrown ones match the originals. I don't know why, but both of those things sort of surprised me.

      What DNA/RNA/whatever codes for the specificity of a fingerprint, and if its not that, what environmental conditions would make them come back the same?

    6. Re:OJI by mysidia · · Score: 1

      What happens if he has an OJI and no longer has fingerprints?

      Then one of two things will happen.... the employer will find an alternate way to accommodate him, Or he will get terminated if there's no fiscally responsible way to provide a reasonable accommodation for the disability.

      Most likely they will find an alternate option to the finger biometric, but that it will be inconvenient for the employee.

    7. Re:OJI by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Sawmill accidents don't erase fingerprints. They do, however, liberate the finger for anyone to use, if they can't find it for re-attachment.

      Actually, if you handle wood at a sawmill with bare hands instead of gloves, your fingerprints get worn down. So, just stop wearing gloves and the problem will take care of itself...

      "The most prominent of those problems involve bricklayers—who wear down ridges on their prints handling heavy, rough materials frequently—or people who work with lime [calcium oxide], because it's really basic and dissolves the top layers of the skin. The fingerprints tend to grow back over time. And, surprisingly, secretaries, because they deal with paper all day. The constant handling of paper tends to wear down the ridge detail."

      https://www.scientificamerican...

    8. Re:OJI by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      That's what FaceID is for

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    9. Re:OJI by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      What happens if he has an OJI and no longer has fingerprints?

      Stumpprints! They've been given the finger before.

    10. Re: OJI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Diabetic.

      We have finger print reader to go with our badge reader to enter NOC. 9 times out of 10 they do not work for me, on any finger.

      Reason over all body hydration Finger tips ballon or prune almost moment by moment.

      They had to break the system since finger print reader do not work and then become ADA complancy issues.

    11. Re:OJI by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      If your privacy is worth that much, wouldn't it be easier to just get a different Job?
      It seems lately our culture is encouraging drastic means where they are easier options available, but just don't seem so news worthy.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:OJI by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I encountered this while trying to implement fingerprint access at a hospital. Most of the older surgeons had no fingerprints after years of scrubbing their hands before surgery. Non-optical scanners were a bit better, but we still had a few who could not be read. In those cases the docs had to use their username/password to unlock the various workstations around the hospital instead of using the fingerprint scanners.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  3. Buuut... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Is there a law saying you have to use your own finger?

  4. Re:That's the weak point. Business. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Seems an expensive way to do it anyway, especially storing the data off site at a third party(and paying them to do so). 2 locations, presumably 2 shifts a day, maybe 25-30 workers per shift per location? Have a camera synced up with the card-scanner. When they scan, take a picture of their face and then have someone go back and match them visually with photos on file. Should take no more than 5-10 minutes per shift. No data stored, no paying third parties, no lawsuits.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  5. Securing biometrics... by rnturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``The biometric data was stored on servers located off-site, in space leased from a third party. Lee argued the business had never sought its workers' consent to use fingerprint scanning, and feared his biometric data would be accessed by unknown groups and individuals.''

    Management may unaware of it but that information will be accessed by unknown groups and individuals. It's just a matter of time.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Securing biometrics... by gravewax · · Score: 2

      ``The biometric data was stored on servers located off-site, in space leased from a third party. Lee argued the business had never sought its workers' consent to use fingerprint scanning, and feared his biometric data would be accessed by unknown groups and individuals.''

      Management may unaware of it but that information will be accessed by unknown groups and individuals. It's just a matter of time.

      doesn't really matter, fingerprint scanners don't store your fingerprints anyway.

    2. Re:Securing biometrics... by swillden · · Score: 1

      ``The biometric data was stored on servers located off-site, in space leased from a third party. Lee argued the business had never sought its workers' consent to use fingerprint scanning, and feared his biometric data would be accessed by unknown groups and individuals.''

      Management may unaware of it but that information will be accessed by unknown groups and individuals. It's just a matter of time.

      Or if they want, they could get the same information from the break room trash can, only slightly less conveniently.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Securing biometrics... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And why is that relevant? These systems don't use a police report of a fingerprint. They aren't the ultra expensive biometrics used at the US border for matching police datasets. They are a shitty little sensor that spits out some math and then ticks a box.

      The data that could come out? An equivalent of a password which only applies on said device? Doesn't seem like much of a problem. The OTHER data that could come out is the standard Kronos timekeeping data that any timekeeping system would use and needs to be protected.

      I have a better question: Who gives a crap about a few workers at a sawmill? Low paid labourers aren't exactly high profile targets for biometric identity theft even assuming there is something worth stealing.

    4. Re:Securing biometrics... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll never understand why adding "independent 3rd party" is supposed to make things better. That roughly translates to "larger footprint".

    5. Re:Securing biometrics... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Management doesn't care. THEY don't use the scanner.

  6. Seriously?? by Bitbeard · · Score: 1

    If you're a manager and need a fingerprint scanner to tell whether your employees are at work, please relinquish the title to someone more qualified.

    1. Re:Seriously?? by Bitbeard · · Score: 1

      A manager should talk to staff every day. It builds trust and a connection and they'll quickly learn who the untrustworthy ones are.

      Perhaps with more experience and education you'll have better words than "retarded".

  7. Re:stupid excuse by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    I've seen it. First hourly worker that makes it in, punches all the time cards of those expected in.

    It was an open secret, the plant manager (who got there about 3 hours after the hourlies) wasn't doing her job. It was routine to see crossed out 'clockins' from the workers that called in sick or had the day off.

    Nobody cared, fucked up place. But on the manager and owner, the workers were just separating suckers from their money, can't blame them.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. That depends by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    If they agree to use the biometric sensors as a condition of being hired, then they have no grounds for objection. If the company institutes a new policy requiring biometric scanning AFTER the employee has started working there, it's pretty much a unilateral change in the contract... but probably the best recourse if you object is to seek employment elsewhere anyway. The first question a lawyer will ask is, "How have you been harmed?", because their commission is based on the dollar value of the harm done to you.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. Re:If it were me... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    "The results of analyzing your sample have come back, and you're FIRED for drug use!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Surprises me also by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I had no idea fingerprints could grow back!

    I wonder if acid is more permanent than something like a strong base dissolving skin (I think your case?).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Surprises me also by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I can confirm they grow back after burns (had a smooth spot on my finger for a while), but it was a relatively minor surface burn. I would assume a 2nd and definitely a 3rd degree burn would not grow back.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Surprises me also by thomst · · Score: 3

      Nidi62 related:

      I can confirm they grow back after burns (had a smooth spot on my finger for a while), but it was a relatively minor surface burn. I would assume a 2nd and definitely a 3rd degree burn would not grow back.

      First degree burn == reddening of the skin, some swelling. No loss of fingerprints.

      Second degree burn == severe blistering of burned area. Skin heals completely in time. No loss of fingerprints.

      Third degree burn == surface tissue destroyed. Replaced with permanent scar tissue. Fingerprints don't reappear.

      Fourth degree burn == deep tissue (muscles, connective tissue, organs, etc.) destroyed. Usually fatal. Skin transplant required to fully close wounds. Fingers usually burned to (and sometimes through) bones, with amputation required.

      (Prior to the Vietnam War, fourth degree burns weren't defined, because victims of them died on the scene. It took napalm-caused wounds to create the category, because napalm sticks to the skin and it will usually burn until the napalm itself is consumed. Victims' wounds are typically confined to the area where the napalm adhered ... )

      --
      Check out my novel.
  11. Re:Amusement Park Season Pass by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    You should have put your dick on the reader. Now *that* would have been a blast.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. Re:Amusement Park Season Pass by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

    If you do that, just make sure you don't intend to come back in the winter.

  13. Real reason for resistance by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    because it prevented workers from fraudulently signing in on behalf of their colleagues to mask absences.

    This right here. When people are called out on theft, and anti-theft measures are implemented, the thieves are the ones who bitch and whing on at how awful the new policy is.

    Lee argued the business had never sought its workers' consent to use fingerprint scanning, and feared his biometric data would be accessed by unknown groups and individuals.

    More like he feared his buddy couldn't clock in for him anymore when he was hungover from the weekend.

    Glad a judge saw through this guy's bogus claim.

    1. Re:Real reason for resistance by Falos · · Score: 1

      >If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

      Actually there's not much to fear period. A "buddy" can have a silicone mold of your print in within hours.

    2. Re:Real reason for resistance by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That depends on just how much effort a bunch of low wage labourers would go to in order to game the system. They have increased the complexity of this by an order of magnitude compared to handing someone else their card.

  14. Re:stupid excuse by Falos · · Score: 1

    I don't think throwing a fingerprint scanner at that trainwreck would magically fix everything.

    Especially when I'd be giving out my print (after I make a pile of molds out of the costume gels/silicone from any theatrical supply store) within a day, the same as giving out my timeclock credential.

  15. Re:stupid excuse by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    'Silly Putty' is the solution. If you make the impression thin enough, it will even fool the blood flow detecting, high end fingerprint time clocks.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. What else are prints used for? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    While I like the idea of forcing certain biometric data to have some modicum of security, I have to wonder about this. The only thing I use my fingerprint for right now is to log into my work laptop. So if someone sold my fingerprints on the black market I don't think that there's anything that a nefarious actor to do with them, without also physically getting a hold of my work laptop. As far as I know they're not used to take out credit, make purchases, sign legal contracts, create obligations, or anything like that.

  17. Aren't fingerprints of every Australian registered by ffkom · · Score: 1

    ... already - I think I read Australia was a penal colony anyway :-)

  18. summarized by astrofurter · · Score: 2

    Workers have no rights. Fuck you, prole, that's why.

  19. Re:Aren't fingerprints of every Australian registe by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Australia stopped being a penal colony long before fingerprinting was demonstrated to be worth the cost of doing.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"