Somebody PLEASE enlighten me (fingerprint scans in stores)

There's been a lot of agitation about some stores using fingerprint ID and I'm confused. What's the difference between scanning a fingerprint and using a store savings card (or a credit card, for that matter)?

In both cases, the store has the same information (name, address, shopping preferences, check-writing authorization). The store can't access any criminal databases using your fingerprint.

In both cases, the police can obtain a warrant and get that information from the store.

In both cases, participation is voluntary. If you're uncomfortable with somebody having information where you shop and what you buy, you don't have to participate.


What makes fingerprint scans such a "big brother" issue?

turned over all of their customer information to the government. Without a warrant.

It's certainly an information issue...but I don't see how the fingerprint issue is relevant.

It's also a VOLUNTARY program. Don't want the info out there? Don't participate.

Sounds familiar...

different than using a savings card...

or use an old card, or you can say you don't have a card at all. You can't let someone else use your finger and it definitely belongs to the purchaser alone.

Stores are making a trade. They're "buying" your data for marketing purposes. In exchange, they're offering discounts on merchandise.

Ethically, you have two choices...let them collect data and take the discounts or don't participate in the program.

If the price is too high or the goods are inferior, customers will just go elsewhere.

We are CUSTOMERS, we've got the money in OUR pockets to use as we wish, we're in the driver's seat. Customers don't want to be marketed to and we don't have to give out personal information just to buy a certain store's *junk*.

If certain retail stores want to be in the business of collecting and marketing data, then they should get out of retail and turn into an 'ACXIOM' or some other such company.

I don't have a problem with them knowing what I'm buying. It's the only local grocery store I'd go to anyway (cleanliness and service considerations). In return, they send me targeted coupons and I get a discount when I buy gasoline.

Anybody who feels differently can choose not to participate.

They don't bother me :)

They're not confirming the data with law enforcement, they're just using a fingerprint as an ID "placeholder".

Somebody mentioned using "winkie prints" last week. Those would be equally valuable to stores (assuming "winkie prints" are individual...I don't know, are they?). It's not a fingerprint issue, it's an "ID that you carry with you all of the time" issue.

...although the "winkie prints" might make some people a little uncomfortable...

:)

It's a great deal for the supermarkets. Market pricing studies done in area where there are competing stores without card programs consistently show that affinity cards are no bargain for consumers (the CASPIAN site is one place where some of these stories are accumulated for anyone who wants further info.)

As for the fingerprint scan, the earlier poster articulated how it's different from the card. Cards and card accounts are shared routinely because there are many consumers who don't want to play the game. Whether that's any more or less ethical than the grocery chain's subterfuge of presenting discounts based on inflated retail prices is something each of us needs to decide on our own. Me, I don't like lying or liars so I just avoid the stores that still rely on these cards. Several regional chains in my area started then discarded affinity card programs because they were costly and there were many customer complaints. They get my money.

from then on that fingerprint will be sold on the data markets and used for things of which you will have no knowledge. A card you can throw in the trash and then the whole relationship is over.

On a side note, I wouldn't use a card either.

They have a data file that uses your fingerprint as identification.

If you have an SSN, you already have a permanent tag on your records that you can't simply "throw in the trash".

and you can never take that back, I don't feel comfortable with that knowing the types of things that are going on.

Go ahead and get a chip implant while your at it, I don't care if you can't see the implications and potential for abuse. It is there and it is real.

high turn over in personnel, bad attitude, poor service
they do not need my personal info in their files.

I know that I regularly save money with my card and I don't mind them knowing what I purchase. If I ever changed my mind, I could just stop participating.

I'm not advocating the programs, I'm questioning how they constitute some big evil "big brother" thing.

Market basket comparison of the club card prices in circulars vs. sale prices at other retailers who don't have affinity cards are the standard approach to calculating savings. Retailers who don't have affinity cards offer more in-store price reductions and maintain slightly lower prices on key items such as milk. They often have sale prices that match the club card store's member pricing on selected items and that's why on balance there is no club card advantage for the average shopper.

There are special benefits to high volume users in some programs (for example, extra % off coupons for ever X dollars spent) and if you qualify for these you will see some savings. Also, if you live in an area where there isn't much competition and the players all use affinity cards you have no other way to obtain sales pricing.

As to the 'big brother' aspects, for me the card by itself doesn't strike me as Orwellian, just a bad tradeoff in terms of privacy. If marketers want that much info about me I expect more compensation in return.

The fingerprint scanning ought to get the Endtimers all excited because it is one step closer to the Mark of the Beast.

i can protect myself from mis-use of saver's cards by simple ruse of using a john doe, just like everybody else under the age of 60

can't protect myself from mis-use of fingerprint information, that is certain proof i was there at such and such a time and bought such and such items

And, again, the procedure is VOLUNTARY. If you don't want them to know it was you purchasing that burrito and gallon of milk on January 5th at 12:31pm, don't participate in the program.

...also, don't use a credit card to pay.

around to more trivial things like cancelling your health insurance because you bought too much Crisco or something, it'll be too late.

They would get the same information through using a savings card.

cash = privacy

That's kinda the point, the fingerprint thing is voluntary....you can always use no loyalty system and pay in cash if you prefer...

that is why I use cash

in 10 years, I'm out of the country anyway.

which is no biggie unless they seriously redefine the word "crime," something that seems likelier the longer Stupid and his gang of thieves, loonies and fascists stay in power.

Your prints on a police barricade at a protest scene can now get you thrown into prison if it was deemed an illegal protest after the fact, another likelihood.

Your prints at anyplace a "subversive" meeting was alleged to have been held would be incriminating evidence that you, yourself are one of those subversives. You could now be arrested for THAT.

I've had mine on file in the belly of the beast since 1968 and a job at NASA. I'll be the one with the woolly gloves on at any protest, even in summer.

What, dialing crank phone calls on a pay phone?

Drawing "Wash Me" on dirty police cars?

You supply ONE print, not a set. I agree with the original poster, which kind of surprises me, because I'm pretty uptight about the privacy issue, too. But, as OP stated oh-so-clearly, and I've yet to see successfully challanged, how does this differ from just using your loyalty card?

print to identify you. They don't need all ten.

That was the point of my post...they only need one print to ID you for the loyalty program. The OP expressed concerned about being fingerprinted and supplying a set of prints. No one is asking for a SET of prints. Just your index finger, or any finger I suppose, just so long as you use it consistently. If you want to keep robbing banks, use your pinky print, and always extend your pinky politely when doing your crimes. No problem.

I object for the same reasons, but the post I responded to made it sound like one print wasn't enough for the thought police.

mentioned.

It's just one tiny print from one little finger, you say. Well, then in a few years, the equipment gets changed and people are USED to the idea, and it's a HAND SCAN (some companies do that instead of using time cards now). Then, wait, retina scans are faster/better....then HEY, DNA.

People were not meant to be 'owned' and having a right to one's privacy is one big proof of freedom.

Kids these days!

I don't know the ages of too many of you posting, but I know there are many my age, mid-forties. We grew expecting privacy. It was a different time. Young people today have an entirely differenct concept of "privacy," or none at all. They think it means not walking in on their roommate while he's in the john, but then they sit in front of web cams on MySpace and post pics of their titties while writing intimate diaries about their lives.

On a trip clubbing in NYC not too long ago, the thing that shocked me most were the number of CAMERAS everyone had. EVERYONE, not just the security people. Girls would get onto the dance floor and make out, hump each other, pull each others' skirts up and tops down...It was all I could do to squeeze in between them! No, seriously...

While they're having a good time on the dance floor, eighteen guys with tiny digital cameras and camcorders are talking stills and videos. I was totally blown away...I'm trying to stay out of camera range out of habit, because it's something I've always understood; don't take people's picture without their permission, and don't take mine, either, thank you very much.

But nowadays, kids get searched going into their schools, their lockers and backpacks are subject to search any time. People take pictures of them in bars. The concept of "privacy" these days is totally foreign to them. They neither expect it, nor seem too concerned when no one else does, either.

I'm afraid we're too far down that slippery slope already.

...that the savings card program and the fingerprint program are BOTH "Big Brother" issues and that's why, like you suggested, I don't participate.

taken from criminals. There is a reason for that, to keep track of them and to match up fingerprints at a crime scene. To me, when I have to go through being fingerprinted and all I really want to do is buy some damn food, I am being treated as if I were a criminal. Things are getting out of hand in this country and I don't like it.

they just don't tell you.

Nobody is making you "have to go through being fingerprinted and all I really want to do is buy some damn food" . You can choose not to participate. Why, then, is there an issue?

It's slowly going to be acceptable and then required. We're like frogs in the pot of water slowly getting hotter and hotter.

...or any number of things.

simple. Why the need to be fingerprinted when all I want to do is buy food? As far as the store cards go it is ridiculous that you have to get a card to have savings (are they really savings) and if you don't have one you can't get the same price. Why is that? Will you also go along with chips being implanted in your body and ask "what's the big deal"? The issue is not if it's voluntary or not it's the invasion of privacy.

They not only fingerprint you when they book you into jail, they also take your picture. Where is the difference?

Why people are willing to accept this is beyond me.

I never carry cash, or rarely anyway. I use a cell phone, so I already realize I can easily be tracked anywhere I go. I have loyalty cards for most of the grocery stores in my area. I've made that choice, but there is NOTHING stopping me from using that bankcard to withraw all my money tomorrow and go "off the grid," if that is what I choose to do.

Well, the fact that I don't have any money in my account would stop me from doing that, but that is a different issue entirely.

This is an actual fingerprint, not a credit card or cell phone. It's a part of your physical body and normally associated with crime. It bothers me that it's one more attempt to make "big brother" easier to accept.

LOL, I can relate to not having the money in my account even if I wanted to go "off the grid".

Fingerprints, as you are probably aware, are as individual as DNA. With the push by BushCo for creating as many databases as possible to profile as many Americans as possible, gathering fingerprint ID in what will come across as innocuous to many sheeple, will give greater access as to who lives where, buys what, and any other information that can be gained for cross-categorizing/cataloging.

Joe and Jane Doe America will accept this type of ID with the view of convenience, not realizing they are giving up their autonomy in a way that wouldn't occur should they simply take the time to refuse the scan and show their usual form of card ID.

Take a look at this WP article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802335.html

Cash, Charge or Fingerprint?
Retailers Experiment With Biometric Payment To Speed Up Service And Prevent Fraud, A Move That Worries Some Privacy Advocates

...travelled down the slippery slope.

If I'm John Smith, with a driver's license from New York, showing my address at 14 East 51st Street, and I register for a shopping card (which is a foolish idea, btw, imo) at Shaw's Supermarket, then all they know is that my purchases are made by a John Smith of 14 East 51st Street in NY, who has a particular driver's license.

Let's say I move to California. I get a California driver's license, and now my address is John Smith, of 31 Tuckaway Lane, Barclay, CA. I register for a shopping card at Shaw's Supermarket, and then all they know is that my purchases are made by a John Smith of 31 Tuckaway Lane, Barclay, CA.

But a fingerprint... ah, now that's different. I move to California, go to Shaw's, and they say "Oh - hey, didn't you used to live at 14 East 51st Street in NY?" And when everyone is using a fingerprint for biometrics, everything gets tied together.

It's not an incredible evil in and of itself, but it's one step closer to the greater evil. All long journeys are made up of little steps. If you refuse to take the steps, you can't take the journey. If you acquiesce to each little step thinking "oh, it's just a little step", pretty soon you've made the journey and arrived at the destination, even though you might not like the destination.

It's like each little thing we let Bushco get away with. We think, oh, it's a little thing, but now we can look back and see how far we've travelled and we don't necessarily like it.

The government knows where you live. They know where you work. They know what kind of car you drive. They know how much money you have in bank acconts and where those accounts are...ditto for ALL of your finances. They know if you commit a crime (even ones that don't usually involve fingerprinting, like a speeding ticket).

They only thing they really don't know is if you prefer Hunt's or Heinz ketchup.

Are we seriously concerned about that?

:)

kidding...


Seriously, though, how is the government going to learn anything from a grocery store that uses fingerprint ID that it doesn't already have access to through your SSN?

asking you why they need your fingerprint? Why do the stores give your info to the government? I don't think its about your ketchup. What is wrong with wanting to fight invasion of privacy? They ask for my phone number, I say no thank you. I never use those cards. If (and I really doubt it)I am missing a discount so be it. I'll keep what our forefathers set about giving us in the constitution, the right to privacy.

You have every right to refuse to participate in the program.

If you're willing to give the store some marketing info, however, they're willing to give you some freebies. I'm not saying that people who aren't comfortable with it should be forced to do it. I'm asking how any logical person could view it as a "big brother" issue when we all use credit cards and have social security numbers (both of which have the penitential to divulge a LOT more than a store's customer loyalty program).

...if you didn't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry.

Until something you do all the time and take for granted as one of your freedoms becomes a crime.

Until political activism becomes a felony.

Until they assume that you are harboring dangerous protesters in your home because you buy too much toilet paper for one person.

Until they assume you must be growing weed in your home because one human being does not need that much distilled water and potting soil.

Until they mismatch your fingerprint from that system with a partial fingerprint left at the bombing of a ski lodge in Montana.

Until they MATCH that fingerprint to the fingerprint on a door at a Federal Building that gets bombed... Never mind that you just nipped in to use the lavatory.

Until any of those things happen, you have nothing whatsoever to worry about.

Have a nice day!

Thanks for posting these important possibilities, it's too damn scary for me to accept willingly.

I'd agree with you if we were talking about mandatory chipping or fingerprinting of all people. We're not. We're talking about a voluntary plan that uses your fingerprint as an ID (based on any information you provide to the store...it needn't even be true).

How is it an "invasion" if you voluntarily participate in order to get discounts?

At least when it come to "store" cards, but I don't use those myself. The problem, as far as I can tell from people's objections, is the fact that fingerprints do not change over time, and are not "tradeable" I guess would be the term. For example, in the case of store cards, family and friends specified can also qualify to use the card, but if the ONLY means to get a discount is a fingerprint, then it becomes an inconvenience for you, because you ALWAYS have to be present at POS.

Now this is different than my objection to having RFID implants for employment purchases, as far as I can tell, it does little to increase security, for the RFID chips are still clonable, and a person with a scanner can easily get the number on the chip by just being near you, whether the chip is in the arm or in a wallet. At least in a wallet you can make a good faith effort to shield the chip from certain frequencies of radio waves. My other objection to such implants is the invasive nature of it, not to mention the coercive nature of the "voluntary" measure. I don't really see a difference between a company or the government demanding you get a chip implanted or getting a serial number tattooed on you.

of numbers tattooed on your arm. I've listened to my mother when she told me about living under Hitler.
I AIN"T cooperating! Remember how IBM helped Hitler with keeping track of everyone.

My objection is the fact that any institution, private or public, can demand ANY body altercation as a condition for employment/citizenship. That is what is objectionable, similar to the slavery tattooes of Ancient Rome, or the clipping of ears, which was also common.

:shrug:

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/134

Granted, they claim it is voluntary, but if I was a System Admin for the company that required me to go to the datacenter as a part of my job. What are my options, given the current climate for IT people in general, I doubt the option of just finding another job is really viable. They claim it is voluntary, when it is no such thing, and besides that, if you refuse on these grounds, and forced to resign, or are fired for "not being a team player", can you imagine the blackballing that would ensue, not that you can prove it.

That aside, I don't know that I'd have a problem with it being a condition of employment. However, I wouldn't want to see them make it mandatory for existing employees (but that's a labor issue).

We know that private companies are collecting vast amounts of information on everyone, and the government is getting in on it too. If I give over any biometric data - for the shopping card, for instance - how do I know that ALL the information gathered on me isn't being linked to my fingerprint "behind the scenes" and without my knowledge? What if the information linked to my fingerprint extends far beyond just my shopping purchases? COmpanies are gathering information about me right now without my specific knowlege or consent, and they are selling it to others and handing it over to the government.

If my information is linked to a card, and I find out it is being used or abused far beyond what I consented to, I can destroy the card and never use it again. If I find out everything about me is being tied to my fingerprint - far beyond what I consented to - what am I going to do? Cut off my finger? You may say I should just not use my fingerprint at the grocery store - but what if this has become so ubiquitous that all stores use fingerprints for purchases? What if companies or police lift my print from somewhere?

My problem is that giving over biometric data is permanent. I cannot take back my fingerprint or iris. I cannot decide that I no longer want companies or government to have that information. I simply cannot keep track of all the information that is gathered about me and then tied to something on my body that I will never be able to disassociate myself from. I can opt out of external technology (card, cell phones) if I ever become uncomfortable.


Those are the reasons I feel a fingerprint is worse than cards and other external technologies. Yes, it is still optional to particpate - and I will be opting out.

Most scanners are quite easy to trick; just imagine the trouble if your print somehow gets used by someone else.
Another problem is that you can't give your finger away - what if someone else shops for you?

Of course there are also advantages - it's a matter of personal preference, I think.

OK, I buy a freakin' s/video adaptor from radio shack, paying in cash, and they ask for my home number? WTF is this, my standard response is 555-0666.

You can make up a number or simply refuse to give one.

I'm honestly curious, why would that bother you?

Its kinda like meeting a total stranger on the street, and they start asking you all sorts of question, being nosey and shit, it drives me up the wall, personally. I refuse to answer their questions too, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, just one of those annoyances that you shouldn't have to go through. I just don't understand why those two particular store, not that they are the only ones, really need to know this stuff. I mean, I can understand asking for ID for a credit/bank card, due to theft and fraud, that is perfectly understandable, but when paying in cash, why the hell do they need to know that shit? Besides which, they are a business that is asking question that are NONE OF THIER DAMN BUSINESS! And yes, I do make up BS answers, that's standard, in fact, I strongly doubt, especially in Radio Shack's case, that any info collected is useful at all. After all, their target customers are geeks, and I strongly doubt that they give away such information freely, its kinda like those damn e-mail scams that crop up occasionally. If people are so used to giving out information so freely in cases of retail, they will do it in other areas, to their own sorrow.

Really, though, they just want to track your purchases. This CAN work for both parties.

Best Buy has been tracking customers' purchases and returns. People who buy stuff go on one list. People who buy sale merchandise and then return it frequently go in another. When Best Buy mails out discount offers, they target the first group. They win by encouraging known "good" customers to shop there. The "good" customer wins by getting larger discounts. A win-win situation in my book.

Again, if you don't want to participate, you don't have to.


I'm O.K. with it. It gets me bigger discounts. Some people aren't, and that's O.K. too. I don't think there's a problem with the policy as long as it's voluntary.

eom

I have an "Alter ego" so to speak for people and businesses that are too nosy when it comes to personal info. For example, my "address" so to speak:

12345 St. Lucifer Lane
Hell, Misery(Missouri), Jesusland(USA)
00666

By the end of this year every federal agency will be issuing biometric based ID card. Due to the union's concerns the way this is going to work is that the biometric data will be stored on the card. The card is swiped and the user presses their finger on a reader. If the two match the person is authenticated. Same thing for iris scan(not retina).
Doing it the way that is mentioned in that Post article gives your data away and considering how often companies leak information it's a pretty shaky thing to do in my opinion.

once they have your fingerprint you can never get it back.

Once they have your print, you are now on a shorter list of suspects.

Sure your innocent, but once the FBI gets your print (where it’s from your employer, the police or grocery store), you are on the short list every time they check a crime print.

What are the chances of a criminal print being close enough to your that you get a visit from the feds, I have no idea, but I’m sure they make mistakes on occasions.


It seem like the best way to go would be to use your cell phone, and when you sign up, they place a “cookie” type item on your phone. You could store 1 for each store, and lighten up your wallet.

If you decided to opt out, you just delete the cookie form your phone.


The thing that I think is really important, is that stores always accept cash.

That way, if you want to buy something, and not have it linked to you, you can.

Personally, I buy 95% of stuff on my credit card, pay it off every month, and I collect $400 a year in cash back.

The other 5% is stuff I don’t want on my credit card, or very small purchases.

There is no requirement to fill out a form to obtain a store card.

So to me, there is a huge difference.

That's part of the point, though. You don't have to participate if you're not comfortable giving somebody that information.

Nobody's making you get one of those loyalty cards and nobody's going to make you use fingerprint ID if you don't want to.

That being the case, where's the harm?

For me, it has to do with my level of comfort of having so much of my personal info out there. I'm a stickler about not using my social security number for identification purposes, for instance. Hell, it says right there on the back of the ss card "not to be used for identification purposes".

I have the option at the local grocery store to use the fingerprint system if I want. I don't want to - and if it is the only choice being given for debit/credit/check payments, then I'd opt to go with cash or switch grocery stores.

:shrug:

I understand that there are people who aren't comfortable with having personal data out there so they restrict it as much as they're able. I think that's a personal choice and I certainly don't have a problem with it.

I'm just curious why this fingerprint issue is such a "big brother" thing, especially in light of the fact that it's voluntary. It doesn't seem rational.

How long will it take criminals to realize that they can "steal" your fingerprint by STEALING YOUR FINGER? You think the same kind of people who thought up carjacking won't try this?

I've already heard of people chopping off fingers and hands to steal jewelry faster -- how much worse will it get when your finger is worth money by itself?

The more widespread this "security" (HA!!) measure becomes, the more danger we all are in. Object to this wherever you see it. Don't comply.

I think I'll take my chances.

Just toss the eye in a bottle with a little dilute alcohol or brine and it will keep for a while, too.

This idea showed up in fiction long ago -- when retinal scan ID was still largely science fiction. Remember the James Bond movie "Thunderball"? That was what, 35+ years ago? And Dave Wolverton (& maybe others, for all I know) pointed out (in "On My Way to Paradise") that the scanner has no way of knowing if it is looking at an eye in a human head, or one held in the hand. If the other guy has a knife, and your eye is your ID, he can get your ID.

Your chances aren't bad. But if this technology becomes more widespread your chances get worse.

Remember that the guys who break the security measures always have more imagination, at least in some directions, than the ones who set them up. And once one guy comes up with the idea --- EVEN IF IT DOESN'T WORK -- the idea spreads.

I'm still not overly concerned about it. Hell, organs can be sold on the black market but nobody's tried to cut my kidneys out of me yet...

Don't worry about anyone taking over the press or stealing your vote, either. You can do something about it when it's a problem.

On edit: Hey, how'd I get a heart? That flies in the face of common knowledge...

"I have the heart of a small child. I keep it in a jar in my top desk drawer."

...but not a minute before.

we don't encounter iris scanners so that's why no one bothers to try to beat iris scanners

where do you encounter an iris scanner in the real world?

i'll give you an example of what is going to happen when a fingerprint or iris scan is needed to get your money

years ago when they were experimenting with this at a local bank, criminals kidnapped a lady and held her, day after day, as they went by to take out $200 (the daily limit) out of the machine, can you imagine?

at least she had a lot of money, before her account was drained, the cops finally figured it out and were waiting to arrest the perpetrators one time when they went to the atm, the lady luckily did survive the resulting gunplay

nowadays we just have PINs, i'd rather someone stole my card and jacked me for a number and let me go, i'd rather they didn't have a financial incentive to take me along bodily on their crime spree

Most of the thieves I've seen are NOT about to try kidnapping on for size. It might actually just reduce identity theft (something a lot of people are concerned about right now).

you are allowed to put any name you like on the frequent shopper's card, you know, no one is checking your id's

some people who have more time to spend on this than i do claim to get a new card w. a new name every time they grocery shop, just to keep their purchases top secret

your fingerprint is indisputably you

these records can be subpoena'd in lawsuits, for instance, in one lawsuit, a slip and fall, the defendant claimed the plaintiff was drunk, there was no proof that the person was drunk, no alcohol test, nothing in the medical records, but they got the store records and showed that this person had a history of purchasing an "above average" quantity of alcohol

so if you drink or buy lottery tickets or do anything that might make you look bad to a judge or a jury in a divorce or lawsuit or court case maybe having your fingerprints on file as buying chocolates and champagne on a night your ex-wife was out of town would come back to bite you

you can protect against the saver's card being used against you by using whatever name you use at the bar or casino, can't quite do that w. a fingerprint

Using biometrics for non-criminal matters feels intrusive -- and of course now it's optional, but perhaps not for long. These things have a way of becoming mandatory: used to be all you needed was to sign an X at your name, then you needed a signature, now you need photo ID...

I use a store savings card, but that feels all right because it's really not connected to my *body*.

It's psychological.

It's not terribly logical, though.

This kind of intrusiveness makes me feel more powerless -- and makes corporations feel more powerful.

I think companies should show restraint and allow people some space. They don't *need* to do the fingerprint thing, for goodness sake.

And anyway, once people get used to giving it up to business, they won't think twice before giving it up to the government.

Companies ARE allowing people some space. Of course they don't NEED to do the fingerprint thing, they're offering it as a convenience for their customers....and custumers have absolutely no obligation to participate.

may, I can, and have, provided false information for my "discount" card. OTOH finger prints are for life. The other big issue you seemed to miss is that the store has no responsibility to protect your information and since we have foolishly consented to allow companies to change the terms of your agreement at any time, they can tell you whatever you want to hear to get the info, and then do as they please later.
Another issue is one that most amerikans don't seem to realize, once your data is in the system, there is no way to get it back, get it out, control where it goes, or who gets to see it, ever.

Who's gonna know?

if you trust that your government will not illegally (or otherwise) obtain your fingerprint without a warrant, probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, will not plant evidence, will not hide expulcating evidence, and will never use your fingerprint in an illegal or incriminating manner. You trust your government, right? Right?



And by the way, there are some stores who *require* the fingerprint scan- it's not voluntary. Of course it is voluntary to walk away from that store when told your fingerprint is required for the purchase of groceries.

I was under the impression that it was solely voluntary...they were using it for a customer rewards program, not as a required method of payment.

US group implants electronic tags in workers
By Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: February 12 2006 22:02 | Last updated: February 12 2006 22:02

An Ohio company has embedded silicon chips in two of its employees - the first known case in which US workers have been “tagged” electronically as a way of identifying them.
ADVERTISEMENT


CityWatcher.com, a private video surveillance company, said it was testing the technology as a way of controlling access to a room where it holds security video footage for government agencies and the police.

Embedding slivers of silicon in workers is likely to add to the controversy over RFID technology, widely seen as one of the next big growth industries.

RFID chips – inexpensive radio transmitters that give off a unique identifying signal – have been implanted in pets or attached to goods so they can be tracked in transit.

“There are very serious privacy and civil liberty issues of having people permanently numbered,” said Liz McIntyre, who campaigns against the use of identification technology.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ec414700-9bf4-11da-8baa-0000779e2340.html

Germany In 1933: The Easy Slide Into Fascism

"... It may seem a paradox, but it is nonetheless the simple truth, to say that on the contrary, the decisive historical events take place among us, the anonymous masses. The most powerful dictators, ministers, and generals are powerless against the simultaneous mass decisions taken individually and almost unconsciously by the population at large... Decisions that influence the course of history arise out of the individual experiences of thousands or millions of individuals."

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm





High Tech, Under the Skin

ANNA BAHNEY / NY Times | Feb 2 2006

WILLIAM DONELSON'S left hand gripped the paper-covered arm of an antique barber chair at a tattoo and piercing shop in Cambridge, Ontario. His feet bounced gently on the chrome footrest as he waited for his implant.

The piercer — whose day is usually spent inserting rings into the eyebrows and navels of teenage girls — snapped on purple latex gloves and lifted a four-millimeter-wide sterilized needle to Mr. Donelson's hand.

"I'm set," Mr. Donelson said with a deep breath. He watched as the needle pierced the fleshy webbing between his thumb and forefinger and a microchip was slid under his skin. At last he would be able to do what he had long imagined: enhance his body's powers through technology.

By inserting the chip, a radio frequency identification device, Mr. Donelson would literally have at his fingertips the same magic that makes security gates swing open with a swipe of a card, and bridge and tunnel traffic flow smoothly with an E-ZPass. With a wave of his hand he planned to log on to his computer, open doors and unlock his car.

Implanting the chip was a relatively simple procedure but highly symbolic to Mr. Donelson, a 21-year-old computer networking student so enthralled with the link between technology and the body that he has tattoos of data-input jacks running down his spine. They are an allusion to an imagined future when people might be plugged directly into computers. His new chip, complete with a miniature antenna and enclosed in a glass ampoule no bigger than a piece of long-grain rice, has a small memory where he has stored the words "Embrace Technology."

"People are already using their cellphones as an extension of their communication ability," Mr. Donelson said, indicating the wireless cellphone earpiece affixed to his ear. "It is pretty much a part of you anyway."

The difference between a device resting in one's ear and inside the body is "a pretty small step," he said.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/020206chipped.htm

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop.  Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.  One day it is over his head.
http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html




Compulsory ID cards for UK citizens within five years
Critics warn UK is "sleepwalking towards a surveillance state"
   

By Andy McCue

Published: Tuesday 14 February 2006
UK citizens will be forced to register for biometric ID cards when applying for a new passport within two years after MPs voted on Monday night to make the controversial scheme compulsory and to not put the costs under independent scrutiny.
In the end Prime Minister Tony Blair's enforced absence from the ID cards vote due to a faulty plane in South Africa didn't matter as the government comfortably defeated a threatened backbench Labour rebellion, albeit with a reduced majority.
A late round of lobbying by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in Blair's absence ensured the government won the crucial votes in the House of Commons and overturned amendments made to the ID cards bill last month by peers in the House of Lords.
A halved majority of 31 saw MPs narrowly vote to reject a wrecking amendment that would have made it completely voluntary for citizens to register for an ID card when applying for a passport.
MPs also voted, by a majority of 51, in favour of making it compulsory for citizens to register their personal and biometric details on the National Identity Register when applying for or renewing "designated" documents such as a passport despite warnings from Conservative shadow home secretary David Davies that the UK is "sleepwalking towards a surveillance state".
MPs accepted without a vote a government amendment that requires a separate Act of Parliament to make ID cards officially compulsory. Home Secretary Charles Clarke has indicated the government would move to do this by 2011.
A rebellion over an amendment that would have forced the government to make the full cost calculations of the ID card scheme public before awarding any contracts to IT suppliers was also staved off after Clarke agreed to report to parliament every six months on the costs. That was carried by a majority of 53 votes.

http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39156423,00.htm

Don't want them to match you to your fingerprint? You have two options...lie about your personal info or don't participate in their customer loyalty program. It's VOLUNTARY.

not yours, not mine.

Would you feel the same if the neighbor across the street-especially the one that irritates the heck out of you-was looking into your buying habits, and personal information such as your divorce, your tax returns and what kind of underwear or lingerie you buy? Oh, and not only that, but the jerk also made money off of your information without you knowing. In other words, you don't really own YOURSELF. Nope. HE OWNS YOU as do many others just like him. :puke:

Sorry, but this B.S. is literally begging for a lawsuit. Wish I could afford to take these greedy bastards on! :mad:

something in return? No, I wouldn't be upset.

If I was, I could simply choose not to enter into the contract with him.

because these companies don't tell people up front that they plan on making money selling information about them. Oh sure, maybe they hide that crucial information in the small print; which is totally deceitful and sneaky and NOT a good business practice.

I'm no lawyer, but this has all the earmarks of a form of BAIT AND SWITCH, which in turn is FRAUD, which in turn is ILLEGAL :grr:

I don't get the fuss, It's no different than a cashier asking to see your ID when you write out a check. The paranoid technophobia is about as rediculous as my mom being scarred of on-line shopping.

and they need to be dealt with seperately.

1)"What's the difference between scanning a fingerprint and using a store savings card?"

2) Voluntariness



1) Differences: The differences between the biometric and external technologies exist whether the actual programs themselves are voluntary or not. As many posters here have already pointed out, a person can disassociate themselves from ANY external technology, cell phones, SSN, etc. It may be difficult, but it is possible. As also previously mentioned, no person, short of mutilation, can disassociate themselves from their body parts. So when you asked what the difference is - people answered that question. This is seperate and distinct from whether the programs are voluntary.


2) Voluntariness: Right now, these programs are voluntary, in that if you don't like it, you don't have to sign up. What is truly voluntary regarding giving out your private information, however, is becoming less clear. As I pointed out in post #28, I may volunteer to sign up for a grocery card, but I did NOT volunteer for them to compile all my shopping data and then sell it to a data mining company. I did not volunteer - by signing up for the grocery card - to that data mining company compiling MORE information linked to me and then selling that to OTHER companies. I did not volunteer for those companies to turn over that info to the government (like we know Yahoo and phone companies have done - without warrants).

Then there is the issue that as more things become common place - the less free choice you have to avoid them. I can not volunteer to give out my personal info - but then I can't shop online, get grocery cards, rent movies (I have to give over a credit card #, not just my address and phone #) surf the internet, etc etc etc. I can't buy a cell phone without a GPS tracker in it. If enough businesses start using biometric data, it becomes less and less voluntary.


So how do issues 1 and 2 match up? As things become more common place, it becomes more and more difficult to "opt out." The issue then shift from whether I chose to give business where I shop my info or not - but whether I can shop AT ALL if I want to keep my info private. Personally, I think this is a problem whether it is linked to cards OR biometric data. Like many other people said - you can revoke your "volunteerism" with cards by ceasing to use them. If you have given over biometric data, you can never change your mind. Everything about me will already be linked to my fingerprint. DOn't want to use your fingerprint to pay? Just push this button to pay by cash. Oops -gotcha - we just logged this purchase to your account by your fingerprint anyway.

There is nothing to stop companies that have a fingerprint scanner from linking my name to my fingerprint without my consent. Again, just push this button to pay by credit card - and now they have your name and credit card number linked to my fingerprint - and I didn't volunteer.

THe key is, I KNOW each time I swipe my card or give out my ID or a SSN. It's much harder to keep track of where my fingerprints go or who is scanning my irises. If all my info is linked to a card (which in itself is an issue with me) I can least destroy that card and break the link to me. If all my info is linked to my fingerprint - I cannot very well stop using my finger.

Trying to keep my info private (as I have a right to do) and control who gets it is already very difficult. I am concerned about the invasions of privacy with the existing technologies - I really don't want to see the rise of technology that makes it MUCH easier to link everything to me, can be done without my consent, and can NEVER be severed from me once established.