Companies 'Can Sack Workers For Refusing To Use Fingerprint Scanners' (theguardian.com) 145
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.
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.
article discusses Australian ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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 high-fidelity military replicas; the national gun ban including Nerf guns, later rescinded.)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-toti
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: article discusses Australian ruling (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:article discusses Australian ruling (Score:4, 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.
Re:article discusses Australian ruling (Score:5, 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..
Re: article discusses Australian ruling (Score:2)
Re:article discusses Australian ruling (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).
Re: (Score:2)
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 "Soverei [splcenter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it's pretty clearly spelled out right at the start of TFS:
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.
summarized (Score:3)
Workers have no rights. Fuck you, prole, that's why.
OJI (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re: OJI (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.
Surprises me also (Score:2)
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?).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprises me also (Score:4)
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 ... )
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if he has an OJI and no longer has fingerprints?
Stumpprints! They've been given the finger before.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Buuut... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Securing biometrics... (Score:5, Insightful)
Management may unaware of it but that information will be accessed by unknown groups and individuals. It's just a matter of time.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'll never understand why adding "independent 3rd party" is supposed to make things better. That roughly translates to "larger footprint".
Re: (Score:2)
Management doesn't care. THEY don't use the scanner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
'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.
Seriously?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps with more experience and education you'll have better words than "retarded".
That depends (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should have put your dick on the reader. Now *that* would have been a blast.
Re: (Score:3)
If you do that, just make sure you don't intend to come back in the winter.
Real reason for resistance (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What else are prints used for? (Score:2)
Aren't fingerprints of every Australian registered (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)