Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are face recognition clocking in machines Legal?

13

Comments

  • #62
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    harr wrote: »
    What law give us a link ....
    Very easy for a company to prove they need it...

    Post 50....and it's not easy for a company to prove it...hence the convictions


  • #63
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Sure don't let the law get in the way of your rant....unless there is very specific reasons not to have a less invasive way, and as I said the burden is very high on that, they have to offer an alternative....workplaces have been convicted for this reason....and biometric scanning is not just a clocking in machine. If the company has legitimate reasons then they can use it.

    Again, please show links to convictions of companies using biometrics. You may be right and if you are, this thread will be shorter.


  • #64
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    davo10 wrote: »
    Again, please show links to convictions of companies using biometrics. You may be right and if you are, this thread will be shorter.

    Am on my phone so difficult to search....look at case study 12 from post number 5 to see the direct view of dpc....


  • #65
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Am on my phone so difficult to search....look at case study 12 from post number 5 to see the direct view of dpc....

    That's not a conviction though?


  • #66
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Stheno wrote: »
    That's not a conviction though?

    I can't search on phone...but he upheld the complaint. What more do you want to outline how to interpret the law?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I can't search on phone...but he upheld the complaint. What more do you want to outline how to interpret the law?

    You backing up your claim that Comanies have been convicted for breaches is different to a case study where an alternative solution was found tbh


  • #68
    Stoogie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭Stoogie


    When i worked in a factory people would ring me and ask me to clock them in. I was worried about being caught so I said " ah no , I'm worried about being caught"
    This did not go down well. Why not use a finger scan to clock in at least that was people wont't be getting thick with other people for their wanting to obey the rules?


  • #69
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Stheno wrote: »
    You backing up your claim that Co.panties have been convicted for breaches is different to a case study where an alternative solution was found tbh

    Co panties? Hahaha.....but is than not what I said from the beginning...if an alternative system can be used then biometrics cannot be imposed.


  • #70
    Pawwed Rig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,451 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Walter2016 wrote: »
    Do you understand the thread?

    "workplace" - where the op works.

    Usually replies in threads are to do with the subject matter.


    It is the naivety of your response that illicits the obvious question. People have different privacy concerns. This isn't one of yours but obviously is the OPs and many more people.
    So would you be happy to have a camera in your house? It is just a question of the degree of the invasion of your privacy.


  • #71
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Co panties? Hahaha.....but is than not what I said from the beginning...if an alternative system can be used then biometrics cannot be imposed.

    Conviction? Definitive answer to the question of legality? Neither as far as I can see. It would seem that the company is required to show why it is necessary, but that does not make it illegal not unlawfull.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Co panties? Hahaha.....but is than not what I said from the beginning...if an alternative system can be used then biometrics cannot be imposed.


    From the data protection commissioners site:
    The Data Protection Commissioner cannot give a general approval or condemnation of biometric systems. Each system must be judged in respect of the situation in which it is used

    https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Biometrics-in-the-workplace/244.htm

    And
    Except in unusual circumstances any employee or student who objects to using such a system should be allowed to use an alternative system which does not involve processing of biometric information.

    So no, the data protection commissioner does not say that there MUST be an alternative.


  • #73
    Senna
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    If there is pictures of you on the Internet, then you can already be picked out by a facial recognition software. I'd give it another year or so and Facebook will give tag suggestions when you upload a picture.

    Think about that, there might be an opt out, but you could take a picture on the street of a random person, upload it and it would tell you who that person is.

    Facial recognition is already in use by many government agencies worldwide, border control definitely. They have a picture of you from your passport and that seems to be all they need.
    Worrying about your employer seems to be a bit naive.


  • #74
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Stheno wrote: »
    From the data protection commissioners site:



    https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Biometrics-in-the-workplace/244.htm

    And

    So no, the data protection commissioner does not say that there MUST be an alternative.

    I never said they did....look at post 49....I said if the company must use them they can....if they do not then an alternative must be offered...what part of that don't you understand?


  • #75
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I never said they did....look at post 49....I said if the company must use them they can....if they do not then an alternative must be offered...what part of that don't you understand?

    Again the data protection commissioner does not say they MUST offer an alternative.

    "Except in unusual circumstances any employee or student who objects to using such a system should be allowed to use an alternative system which does not involve processing of biometric information."


  • #76
    harr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭harr


    Below is the list a company can look into using biometrics ,as the OP has not given any reason his company might want to change ..the company the op works for could have a very good reason they want biometric readers....I think the list below would cover most employers who might want to use it...
    I still don't see what the big deal...my last work van had a tracking device fitted and company could check where we were 24-7 ..


    Environment. Does the nature of the workplace require high levels of security? Are there areas containing sensitive information, high value goods or potentially dangerous material which may warrant a higher level of security than would areas with low value goods or areas with complete public access?
    Purpose. Can the intended purpose be achieved in a less intrusive way? A biometric system used to control access for security purposes might be more legitimate than a system used by the same employer purely for time management purposes.
    Efficiency. Ease of administration may necessitate the introduction of a system where other less invasive systems have failed, or proved to be prohibitively expensive to run.
    Reliability. If an employer suffers as a result of untrustworthy staff, impersonating each other for various reasons, then a system may be justified as long as other less invasive ones have been assessed and reasonably rejected.


  • #77
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,573 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Senna wrote: »
    If there is pictures of you on the Internet, then you can already be picked out by a facial recognition software. I'd give it another year or so and Facebook will give tag suggestions when you upload a picture.
    They've been doing that for about 5 years now!


  • #78
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Stheno wrote: »
    Again the data protection commissioner does not say they MUST offer an alternative.

    "Except in unusual circumstances any employee or student who objects to using such a system should be allowed to use an alternative system which does not involve processing of biometric information."

    Yes...the unusual circumstances are if the company has to use them...the above sentence then means unless the company has to use them he company must offer an alternative....the word should means 'has to'. What is your point? What do you think it means? Or are you just going to repeat the same line without explaining your interpretation?


  • #79
    Senna
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    harr wrote: »
    Below is the list a company can look into using biometrics ,as the OP has not given any reason his company might want to change ..the company the op works for could have a very good reason they want biometric readers....I think the list below would cover most employers who might want to use it...
    I still don't see what the big deal...my last work van had a tracking device fitted and company could check where we were 24-7 ..


    Environment. Does the nature of the workplace require high levels of security? Are there areas containing sensitive information, high value goods or potentially dangerous material which may warrant a higher level of security than would areas with low value goods or areas with complete public access?
    Purpose. Can the intended purpose be achieved in a less intrusive way? A biometric system used to control access for security purposes might be more legitimate than a system used by the same employer purely for time management purposes.
    Efficiency. Ease of administration may necessitate the introduction of a system where other less invasive systems have failed, or proved to be prohibitively expensive to run.
    Reliability. If an employer suffers as a result of untrustworthy staff, impersonating each other for various reasons, then a system may be justified as long as other less invasive ones have been assessed and reasonably rejected.

    You need to post some context to that list, what are they reasons outlined related to.


  • #80
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    Senna wrote: »
    If there is pictures of you on the Internet, then you can already be picked out by a facial recognition software. I'd give it another year or so and Facebook will give tag suggestions when you upload a picture.

    Think about that, there might be an opt out, but you could take a picture on the street of a random person, upload it and it would tell you who that person is.

    Facial recognition is already in use by many government agencies worldwide, border control definitely. They have a picture of you from your passport and that seems to be all they need.
    Worrying about your employer seems to be a bit naive.

    Its pshychology. We all fear individual targeting over mass targeting. Pshychology textbooks refer to a soldier's fear of a sniper being much greater of that of death from mass bombardment even though he has more to fear from the latter. It's personal.


  • #81
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    harr wrote: »
    Below is the list a company can look into using biometrics ,as the OP has not given any reason his company might want to change ..the company the op works for could have a very good reason they want biometric readers....I think the list below would cover most employers who might want to use it...
    I still don't see what the big deal...my last work van had a tracking device fitted and company could check where we were 24-7 ..


    Environment. Does the nature of the workplace require high levels of security? Are there areas containing sensitive information, high value goods or potentially dangerous material which may warrant a higher level of security than would areas with low value goods or areas with complete public access?
    Purpose. Can the intended purpose be achieved in a less intrusive way? A biometric system used to control access for security purposes might be more legitimate than a system used by the same employer purely for time management purposes.
    Efficiency. Ease of administration may necessitate the introduction of a system where other less invasive systems have failed, or proved to be prohibitively expensive to run.
    Reliability. If an employer suffers as a result of untrustworthy staff, impersonating each other for various reasons, then a system may be justified as long as other less invasive ones have been assessed and reasonably rejected.

    If you were allowed to use the van for private use they are required to allow you to turn off the tracking for private use...they cannot track you on your private time (unless you weren't allowed to use the van for private use).


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Yes...the unusual circumstances are if the company has to use them...the above sentence then means unless the company has to use them he company must offer an alternative....the word should means 'has to'. What is your point? What do you think it means? Or are you just going to repeat the same line without explaining your interpretation?

    No that's not what the unusual cirsumstances, it clearly states that if a company is using biometrics, then they should offer an alternative except in unusual circumstances.

    I'd class employees trying to defraud by abusing alternatives a perfectly adequate reason to use biometrics.


  • #83
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Yes...the unusual circumstances are if the company has to use them...the above sentence then means unless the company has to use them he company must offer an alternative....the word should means 'has to'. What is your point? What do you think it means? Or are you just going to repeat the same line without explaining your interpretation?

    I think you should read the first paragraph.


    https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Biometrics-in-the-workplace-/244.htm


  • #84
    harr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭harr


    Senna wrote: »
    You need to post some context to that list, what are they reasons outlined related to.

    The list is from the data protection commissioner as to why a company might need or want to change over to a biometric system ...


  • #85
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    davo10 wrote: »
    I think you should read the first paragraph.


    https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Biometrics-in-the-workplace-/244.htm

    And the reason I should?


  • #86
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    joeguevara wrote: »
    And the reason I should?

    It says it is an "aid" and to "encourage", not to "require".


  • #87
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    davo10 wrote: »
    It says it is an "aid" and to "encourage", not to "require".

    And if companies completely disregarded it and didn't follow it and stuck in a biometric system...what do you think the outcome would be?


  • #88
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    joeguevara wrote: »
    And if companies completely disregarded it and didn't follow it and stuck in a biometric system...what do you think the outcome would be?

    There would seem to be a process of discussion between the DP and presumably if that doesn't work, a conviction you alluded to but have provided no link to. Can you provide a link to that conviction?


  • #89
    For ever odd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 608 ✭✭✭For ever odd


    The 'workplace' does not give payslips or intend too.

    Bye the Bye, yes I am quiet happy to have a job, never had a problem getting one or holding one. Some it appears have yet to enter the work-force.

    I have nothing to hide. My workplace on the other hand..


  • #90
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    For ever odd wrote: »
    The 'workplace' does not give payslips or intend too.

    Bye the Bye, yes I am quiet happy to have a job, never had a problem getting one or holding one. Some it appears have yet to enter the work-force.

    I have nothing to hide. My workplace on the other hand..

    Have you asked for payslips? If you have and they are refusing report them as you need to know that your tax is being paid otherwise the revenue can come after you


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    harr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭harr


    For ever odd wrote: »
    The 'workplace' does not give payslips or intend too.

    Bye the Bye, yes I am quiet happy to have a job, never had a problem getting one or holding one. Some it appears have yet to enter the work-force.

    I have nothing to hide. My workplace on the other hand..
    What reason for no pay slips...I presume you are paid into bank account but how do you check your hours and other deductions are in order....I have not worked anywhere who does not give a pay slip ..seems odd..have you questioned them or asked for pay slip?

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_slip.html


Advertisement