Schoolchildren's fingerprints - the assessment you must read

The news that schools are taking digital fingerprints of their children and putting that information on computer databases has shocked privacy campaigners.

Any moves that suggest the rights of schoolchildren are being ignored tend to bring an immediate emotional response.

This is the very reason why it's vital to analyse the news with a cool head and an objective eye.

First of all, it's worth pointing out that using a fingerprint-based ID system to identify students for school library systems is not by default a bad thing.

The company involved offers a number of different ID methods with its library systems, including more traditional swipe cards. However, the simple fact is many schools have chosen to use fingerprints IDs because so many children lose their library cards.

In isolation the system poses no dangers to children's privacy.

However, there are two big problems here.

The first is the principle of informed consent. Schoolchildren are not in a position to give 'informed' consent for handing over this kind of data. In most cases their parents haven't been asked for consent either.

This is clearly not acceptable.

The second problem is what's called 'mission creep'. This is when data obtained for one purpose is then taken and used for other functions at a later date.

The Information Commission itself - despite coming down in favour of the system - admits the data taken could be adapted and made compatible with criminal fingerprint records.

Theoretically, widespread use of school library systems could end up giving the police access to everyone's fingerprint records, whether criminal or not - a serious shift in the balance of power to the state and from the individual.

Currently the suggestion seems outlandish but, nevertheless, many feel these kinds of systems are the thin end of the wedge.

So the message to the schools, industry and government embarking down this road must be to be circumspect in the extreme. Don't automatically think easiest-to-use necessarily means the best system - small functionality gains must not be at the expense of people's privacy.

And remember, the public is watching, and will not tolerate its civil liberties being sold down the river.