UPDATE: British tyranny marches on

Last week I reported that schools had been taking fingerprints of children without the permission of the parents and storing them on databases. Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland has raised the issue and forced the Government to issue guidelines to schools (which had previously been operating in a regulatory vacuum) but the practice continues. Lewisham Cllr. Brian Robson informs me that at least one Lewisham School is among the offenders.

I wrote to the Office of the Information Commissioner last week to check whether this was a breach of data protection legislation. Amazingly, they have told me that the Data Protection Act does not apply because “…biometric data is not considered to be personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998.” What can be more personal than my unique fingerprints (except, perhaps, my innermost thoughts) I do not know. The map of my DNA, perhaps?

Perhaps, but this too is not covered. Apparently, “when the school takes the finger print, the system changes the image into a series of numbers which you couldn’t use to identify an individual”, and as such it is not protected. That these numbers could be decoded to reproduce a unique fingerprint did not appear to be relevant or of concern to Data Protection Case Reception Unit.

Maybe this explains the Government’s insistence that it can keep the DNA records of children, even when they have committed no crime, and add them to its new central database.

Winston Smith is turning in his unmarked grave!

British tyranny marches on

I said that the most recent edition of Liberal Democrat News was unusually good. The story about Fingerprinting in schools was truly jaw-dropping:

‘Schools have been fingerprinting pupils as young as three, often without parental consent, storing their biometric data for use in electronic registration and library systems, despite concerns over whether it is legal…
[I]n response to a letter from Liberal Democrat Education Spokesperson, Greg Mulholland MP, Education Minister Jim Knight confirmed that the government will be issuing draft new guidance about fingerprinting in schools’, having previously refused to do so.

Well done Greg!

But the underlying story still leaves me absolutely horrified and makes me wish to push the point further than Mulholland or the rest of the party have so far. It is not enough that the government should issue guidelines on this matter. The fingerprinting of children that have not committed an offence without the express permission of their parents is a violation of their right to privacy.

As with the issue of children’s DNA records and the national database, this represents another step towards a surveillance society. That it should be aimed at innocent children is terrifying.

Letter to the Times

In today's Times, Anatole Kaletsky writes Anarchy or tyranny? I choose tyranny. His argument is that rather than political stability resulting from economic success, the reverse is true. While his assessment is correct, his recommendation is surprisingly flawed for the Principal Economic Commentator of a leading newspaper.

In response, I have written the following letter to the Editor.

Sir,

Anatole Kaletsky makes an elementary error in choosing tyranny over anarchy (Anarchy or tyranny? I choose tyranny, 30 Nov). While he is correct to suggest that economic benefits require social and political stability, this is because the exercise of basic economic freedoms rely upon the rule of law to make outcomes predictable. The rule of law, however, is as opposed to tyranny as it is to anarchy: to talk of "The tyranny of the law" is an oxymoron.

There is an alternative to the two poles that Mr. Kaletsky juxtaposes, one that epitomises both the rule of law and the freedom of the individual. It has been the basis of both the social stability and the economic success of the United Kingdom for over three centuries. In therefore reject the choices Mr. Kaletsky offers. I choose liberty!

Regards,
Thomas Papworth