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

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.

Comments

article discusses Australian ruling

[disgruntledlurker]

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.

Re:article discusses Australian ruling

[niftymitch]

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.

Re:article discusses Australian ruling

[mysidia]

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..

Re:article discusses Australian ruling

[redlemming]

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).

Re: article discusses Australian ruling

[kenh]

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.

Re: article discusses Australian ruling

[infolation]

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."

Re: article discusses Australian ruling

[Colourspace]

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.

Re: article discusses Australian ruling

[gravewax]

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.

OJI

[Nidi62]

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.

Re: OJI

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Securing biometrics...

[rnturn]

``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.

Re:Securing biometrics...

[gravewax]

``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.

Re:stupid excuse

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Amusement Park Season Pass

[GuB-42]

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

Real reason for resistance

[duke_cheetah2003]

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.

Re:Surprises me also

[thomst]

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 ... )

summarized

[astrofurter]

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