The Response - A Personal Reaction

Sunday, 3 February 2008

Well, considering I only had 48 hours to put something together, it was hardly a full and comprehensive assessment of all the issues! But I made that clear at the beginning. See the brief I gave them, here.

The Junior Librarian System itself may help with reducing the loss of books from the library. In fact, I understand it is quite an effective stock management tool. I do not accept that the biometric system plays an additional role in this.

I wonder if Mr McDonnell and the Governors can explain how providing a fingerprint as identification supports the stock control function better than any of the other three identification methods I know to be available.

Speaking of which...

This may seem laudable, but what is the purpose of increasing the use of the ICT? Some say this is the point of biometrics in schools: Habituation- ensuring a generation of children think nothing of handing over their biometric identities

for trivial reasons. I don’t think the governors of our school are involved in such an endeavour. But if there is no educational benefit to a use of the school’s IT, then it is disingenuous to use ‘increased use’ as a reason for using it.

I cross the road more, not to get to the other side, but because I get better value out of the road the more I cross it. I don’t think that’s valid.

BUT- even if it were valid - how is using a fingerprint interacting more with the ICT than using a PINumber or a swipe card? In fact, if I were being a pedant, I could say that a four digit PIN means you interact four times as much as you do with a single thumbprint.

Well, if you didn’t consider the options properly first time around, and you are the sort of person who is inclined to defend your existing opinions rather than seek new perspectives, you would say this.

Now, tell me, on what basis do you make this assertion?

Have you trialled different systems?

Have you sought properly gathered evidence from other schools?

What were the questions asked in those independent studies?

Do you have personal experience from other schools?

Can you show that your assertion is based on anything other than the vendor’s literature, selective quotes and your own supposition?

This, it should be noted at this stage, relates to the manner in which data is handled: how it is reported to the subject, etc. It does not relate to destruction or security

I suspect he said something about seeking consent, not about ‘informing’ (possibly, seeking ‘informed consent’?

Will those packs, when seeking consent, express your views, or give a balanced assessment of the benefits and risks?

I will be in touch with him. If this is a faithful representation of his advice to you, then he is in error. The recommendations from the Information Commissioner’s Office [see here, line 9/10, page 2] clearly states that data must be destroyed. This is from a bureaucrat, the language is very specific. I shall discuss this with him, and as well as my response, he will contact you to express a correction to the advice he gave.

In truth, I suspect I shall discover this to be an erroneous interpretation of his advice. But we shall see.

As for the school’s security measures, perhaps you might explain what they are. Elen Peal, the Head, thinks that by not networking the computer, or linking it to the internet, the data is secure. Do you concur with this opinion? If not, what other security measures have you taken?

Will you also explain to me your understanding of the process of deleting data from computers?

Do you understand why, from a data retrieval perspective, deleting the files by placing them in the recycle bin as you propose is no better than doing nothing.

I am in touch with one of the world’s leading data retrieval and clearance companies, who will explain this authoritatively.

I require it to be destroyed, as does the Information Commissioner.

This and the previous comment are not compatible. Either the data is being managed in a responsible manner, and it is properly destroyed at the appropriate time, or not. You say not.

This is also incorrect. The biometric data has value throughout the life of the child to whom it relates, as a gold standard of ID. The other data, while of interest and value now, is not something that could be used to fake an identity later.

Your inability to grasp the relevant information and concepts suggests you are not a suitable person to make this assertion.

Limited five year old opinion, anecdote and supposition (rather than data) from a vendor (according to your letter above) and erroneous advice (from an overworked local council official who will be in touch with you to explain his mistake and revise his advice). Well, look, if you want to place your children at risk, that is your choice. You should be ashamed, but it is your choice. But you’ll not be allowed to place my children at risk.

If you have explored this area fully, perhaps you can give me the answers to the 68 Questions I asked? You must have them to hand.

Actually, petulance aside, no. You haven’t explained your thinking at all, merely reiterated it and justified your current decision to continue with biometrics by saying that you made the decision 5 years ago to use them. You didn’t explain why you made the decision then at all.

It’ll come as no surprise that I am not at all happy with your response. Firstly, I made no request. I gave an instruction about destroying the data relating to my children’s biometrics, and I made a suggestion that you might want to review the biometrics policy. There is no request.

I will be speaking to the Information Commissioner’s Office, to confirm their published advice, suggesting I speak to him directly isn’t the coup de gras that you think it is.

I will also be speaking to Martin Gibson, to ask him how he can interpret the advice as he has, and to convince him to change his advice to the governors and school.

I am determined, as I have been all along, that the school and I deal with this manner in a collegiate and co-operative way. If you understood the issues you would agree with me, and your current position is based, I’m sorry to say, on ignorance of the issues and a charming, if naive, trust in the school’s security and the workings of computers.

If it transpires that you are one of those insecure people whose self esteem is based on entrenching your position and clinging to it, however wrong it is seen to be, then I will sadly not be able to achieve the destruction of my children’s data by co-operative means.

I cannot allow the school or the governors to put my children at risk.

There will come a point at which I will have no choice but to campaign. There will be a tipping point at which the biometric system becomes non-viable. 20% refusing, 40%?

At that stage I will also be speaking to the LEA and my MP (Cheryl Gillan) and the local papers.

How many people need to tell you you are wrong before you agree?

Try to palm this off on someone else as much as you want, this is a local issue, and it is on your doorstep, and you’re still wrong.