Previous Politech messages: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/04/28/more-on-businesses/ http://www.politechbot.com/2005/04/28/arkansas-salon-requires/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] More on businesses requiring fingerprints for gym, tanning salon memberships Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:44:13 -0700 From: Tom Collins <tom@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <42710FC6.5070206@private> On Apr 28, 2005, at 9:31 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > When tanning salons (and supermarkets, etc.,) start amassing > fingerprint databases, it becomes that much easier for identity > thieves to steal this information. "Spoofing" fingerprints turns out > to be relatively easy once you have an image of the print[1]. One would hope (but shouldn't assume) that these systems actually store a hash of the actual print instead of the print itself. This way, compromising the database wouldn't give you the information you need to re-create the print itself. But, the problem for the privacy conscious is that you don't know what's being done with your print when it's acquired. For all you know, it's ultimately going into a massive FBI database that tracks you any time you use a scanner. -- Tom Collins - tom@private QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ You don't need a laptop to troubleshoot high-speed Internet: sniffter.com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Arkansas salon requires thumbprint to get a tan [priv] Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:05:07 -0400 From: Ashley Gauthier <agauthier@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> The ACLU should be contacted? What, exactly, is the "civil rights" or constitutional violation in this case? Although many people have a strong sense of "privacy" and wish to protect it in all circumstances, the incident described is a consensual transaction between private parties and thus, there is no "invasion of privacy." There is no federal constitutional "right to privacy" clearly stated in the constitution. At best, you have the mushy "privacy" interest as expressed in Supreme Court decisions (Roe v. Wade, Griswald v. Conn., etc), and a handful of states offer a limited "privacy" right in the state constitution. But even to the extent such privacy interests exist, they apply only to state action. Citizens are protected against governmental intrusion. There is no constitutional or civil rights protection from what people think is intrusive conduct by fellow citizens (or companies). To the extent an individual or corporation might invade privacy, it is illegal or actionable only if it violates a specific law or meets the elements of a privacy tort. The question Wayne forgot to ask was "what do you do with the thumbprint?" If the company uses it only for internal purposes to identify clients and doesn't sell it, make it available to the federal government, or otherwise misuse it, then I doubt it violates any law. I must admit I am not familiar with the specifics of Arkansas law, so I suppose there could be an applicable state statute, but if there is, it is an abberation. Companies are generally permitted to gather and store information about customers, particularly for the purposes of identification. I also doubt that asking for a thumbprint would be tortious under state law. Under general common law principles, it doesn't qualify as an "intrusion into seclusion," because they do not take your thumbprint secretly or surreptitiously. They get it only if you voluntarily give it to them. And, presuming they use it only for internal purposes, it would not constitute "publication of private facts," as they do not disclose the information to others. This incident is an excellent example of a subjective "invasion of privacy," but it does not strike me as illegal, based on the information given. If Breanna does not want to turn over her thumbprint, she doesn't have to. She is not being coerced. She can get a tan at another salon. She could even buy a can of spray-on tan at the local supermarket. This is the free market at work, not a civil rights issue. Ashley Gauthier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] More on businesses requiring fingerprints for gym, tanning salon memberships Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:44:40 -0700 From: Justin W. Newton <justin@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <42710FC6.5070206@private> One difference here, however, was the person in Arkansas was trying to do a one time purchase. What the health club was trying to do was prevent account fraud where more than one person uses the same account. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Thumbprinting visitors at the Statue of Liberty Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:24:52 -0400 From: Shaun <ShaunReport@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>, <politech@private> Do they tell you BEFORE you cross the water about the lockers/ What happens to the print after you leave/ If you pay with a credit card why can't you use the card to unlock the lockers/ It is individual and keyed to a specific person. What happens when the returning fingerprint doesn't work/ What happens if you are a double amputee/ I'm sure this gives someone the reason to try the gelatin fingerprint method. _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue May 03 2005 - 22:38:52 PDT