News Fingerprint ID and tracking retail sales

[Ivan Seeking]

Fingerprint ID accounts are being introduced here in Oregon, right now. A couple of retail grocery stores, Safeway is one I think, are introducing private, member based systems that automatically charge your account with a simple fingerprint scan.

Although no different in principle that credit card use, or a private card account, this is getting a bit big brotherish [sic], as expected. For now this is all private information, but soon it may be possible, for example, for your employer to track your purchases. One example given: Bob buys two six packs of beer at the store. Analysis of Bob's purchasing history indicates that Bob may have a drinking problem. Contact Bob's employer and doctor, and communicate the potential for a problem.

I also wonder about the logic of behavior control and where that may lead in all of this. For example, taking things to the next logical step, will we begin to regulate the sugar, fat, or salt intake of potential or known food offenders. After all, like cigarettes, consumption of low quality foods accounts for many health problems and costs to the public - obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. The logic is no different than that used to justify taxes on smoking, or the seat belt or helmet laws. Also, if citizen X buys a snow board, should he be assigned as high risk and penalized somehow? He is much more likely to cost the system money than someone less daring. A unified database could, hence probably will allow various institutions to monitor personal behavior through purchases and other trackable activities. Computing power makes the data management and interpretation possible.

 

[Informal Logic]

What concerns me with such things as fingerprints, is that unlike other forms of ID, these are used as forensic evidence for conviction of crimes. Other than that (Big Brother), tracking consumer behavior is used for what good purpose? As an aside, I have a friend who uses other people's telephone numbers at grocery stores and then collects the coupons that should have gone to those other people. I guess the fingerprint approach would stop him in his little scam.

 

[Pengwuino]

This is no different from what happens now when you use a credit card. The company, if it wanted, could find out exactly what you bought if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them except the fact that they obviously don't want to. Fingerprint ID wouldn't change this approach 1 singel bit (or ... shouldnt... who knows with humans). Anything you can do with a finger printi scan technology such as being discussed can be done with a credit card if the credit card companies ever decided to.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is no different from what happens now when you use a credit card. The company, if it wanted, could find out exactly what you bought if they wanted to. Theres nothing stopping them except the fact that they obviously don't want to. Fingerprint ID wouldn't change this approach 1 singel bit (or ... shouldnt... who knows with humans). Anything you can do with a finger printi scan technology such as being discussed can be done with a credit card if the credit card companies ever decided to.

In principle I agree and even stated as much. I guess that the personal aspect of a fingerprint, albeit very cool from a technical standpoint, does represent a step towards the seemingly inevitable loss of privacy in that this is much more personal than a number. But the real issue in my mind is that it seems to me that these systems cannot possibly remain private. The trend towards behavior control also strengthens this view since the same old forget-the-constitution logic applies. If it protects or affects the public, the rights, or in this case the privacy of the individual, are secondary. Not to mention that illegal practices will certainly become more common.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/12/tech/main687437.shtml

 

[Kerrie]

Fingerprinting for a grocery store? I don't shop at Safeway because of high prices, but I definitely won't shop there now! Of course, the fingerprinting thing isn't much different then those cards you use to get the best prices. If you don't have one, you don't get the sale price (that's why I shop at WINCO ).

 

[Pengwuino]

Actually one dangerous thing that probably makes it a bad idea is the fact that if you are the victim of identity theft or lose your credit cards... your life is going to be horrible for a while... but man, you can erase your credit cards and fix your credit history and get new cards... but you can't get a new fingerprint!

But then again... how do you steal and actually USE someones fingerprint illegally like this? I mean come to think of it ... it might actually be a safer method of shopping! Steal someones ID through say, that database adn you got all the numbers related to a persons credit card and such. But if you steal a fingerprint... what do you have? Nothing really. If its digitized, how are you suppose to turn that into a physical thing you can fraudulently use at say a grocery store? If its just an image... again, how do you use it? A retinal scan would be hte ultimate because THERES something I don't see ANYONE being able to use fraudulently.

 

[kcballer21]

A retinal scan would be hte ultimate because THERES something I don't see ANYONE being able to use fraudulently.

Ever see Minority Report with Tom Cruise?

 

[Pengwuino]

Nope but i hope your not going to contradict me with info from a movie staring some jackass who got paid $25,000,000 then goes and tells people like my parents that we make too much money and pay too little taxes.

Woo, had that rant in my all day and was waiting for an opportunity to dish it out.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm sorry, the leap of logic must just be too much for me. A grocery store wants to try biometrics, and suddenly big brother is breathing down our necks?

 

[Pengwuino]

lol yah. I don't get this idea that if any small random thing that 'detects' something comes into play, people og crazy about 'big brother!' even though the idea of 'big brother' doesn't have an actual single identity ( is it corporations or is it government? )

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry, the leap of logic must just be too much for me. A grocery store wants to try biometrics, and suddenly big brother is breathing down our necks?

Ditto. Credit cards -> Big Brother telling us what we can eat? Not seeing it.

Further, privacy and anonymity are obsolete concepts in the information age. Not only do attempts at secrecy fail, they are counter-productive. And with identity theft being a real problem, databases of things that are nearly impossible to forge like fingerprints or retinal scans are only a positive thing.

Yes, I did just say that: the more unique information a grocery store (for example) has about you, the safer your identity is. The typical reflex reaction is that giving personal information reduces your safety. That isn't necessarily true.

And while I realize this country was practically founded on mistrust of authority, there are a lot of instances - and this is one of them - where more than just not making sense, it is counterproductive.

 

[Moonbear]

Oops, I guess they're onto me. I have a habit of generously allowing others in line with me to use my shopper card for the grocery store if they forgot theirs. I figure let them get the discount and thwart the market researchers trying to track what I buy. That's all they really do with that sort of information. Oh, and if you're worried about Big Brother, just pay cash for vices. Though, I've contemplated signing up for a second shopper card to use only for vices. What do you think those market researchers would think if the only things I ever bought when I swipe it are condoms and alcohol? Should I buy some whipped cream with it too? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's people like me that make them want a better way to keep track of purchasing habits of individuals for their market research.

 

[Hurkyl]

Just use your index finger for normal purposes, and middle finger for vices.

 

[Moonbear]

Just use your index finger for normal purposes, and middle finger for vices.

 

[loseyourname]

What concerns me with such things as fingerprints, is that unlike other forms of ID, these are used as forensic evidence for conviction of crimes. Other than that (Big Brother), tracking consumer behavior is used for what good purpose?

I worked in retail management four or five years ago and we kept a database of customer activity (the program was optional). It allowed us to not only track purchasing patterns by geographic regions, times of year, and individuals to streamline our own purchasing and lower prices, it also allowed us to custom tailor promotional events and special mail offers to what our customers were most interested in buying. It benefits both parties.

 

[Grogs]

I worked in retail management four or five years ago and we kept a database of customer activity (the program was optional). It allowed us to not only track purchasing patterns by geographic regions, times of year, and individuals to streamline our own purchasing and lower prices, it also allowed us to custom tailor promotional events and special mail offers to what our customers were most interested in buying. It benefits both parties.

It's sort of a light side/dark side of the force thing. It allows companies to serve their customers better, but many unscrupulous companies sell their data to other companies and next thing you know you've got hair-growth and penis-enlargement spam filling up your mailbox. Unfortunately, it only takes 1 bad apple to ruin the bunch and you're never sure which it might be.

As far as biometrics, I really do believe it's the way of the future. It's just too easy to get that little piece of plastic stolen and I can't remember the last time I actually had a clerk check my ID to see if it matched the credit card. Unfortunately, for the near term, there are a lot of problems to be overcome with this technology, not least of which would be getting that biometric data stolen. Since your fingerprint/retinal scan/etc would become a one-shot deal, some of the older security devices like passwords would fall by the wayside. Thus, if someone were able to spoof your biometric data, they could theoretically do much more damage than they could with today's systems.

 

[Kerrie]

I'm sorry, the leap of logic must just be too much for me. A grocery store wants to try biometrics, and suddenly big brother is breathing down our necks?

While I understand your logic, the whole idea of using fingerprints doesn't appear unsafe, just more "invasive". It's bad enough that companies you hardly know can just bring up your credit report and get a good idea of how you choose to live your financial life without your consent. Some people just prefer to be more anonymous.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hmm are you sure Kerrie? The way I've had to sign papers to authorize companies to look at my credit history for my business, i would have to wonder if that's true lol.

 

[Moonbear]

While I understand your logic, the whole idea of using fingerprints doesn't appear unsafe, just more "invasive". It's bad enough that companies you hardly know can just bring up your credit report and get a good idea of how you choose to live your financial life without your consent. Some people just prefer to be more anonymous.

I don't see how credit cards are any more anonymous; afterall, your name is stamped right on it, and every transaction goes into a big database. As long as we never replace the option of cash transactions, you always have the option of anonymity in your purchases (well, except for the clerk and the security camera seeing your face as you make the purchase ).

A few issues that I think would need to be resolved with biometrics though are when you do have multiple users on a single account; for example, when you get the company credit card to purchase gas for the company car, if you have a list of authorized users with fingerprints on file for the card, how do you restrict its use? Currently, you just limit when you give them the card. Also, how does the person making the payment ensure the charge goes to the company account and not their own if it's the same fingerprint used for both? And what happens if you cut your finger? Is it going to recognize my fingerprint if I have a big gash across the finger? How do I pay for my purchases if I have my hand in a splint?

I'm not too concerned about them getting my fingerprints on file. I'm not planning on committing any felonies and since I have a passport, my fingerprints are on file somewhere already anyway. I think I'd be more concerned that instead of muggers demanding your wallet, they're going to want to cut off your finger!

Okay, I'm not being too serious in these suggestions, but I neither think biometrics is going to be the final solution to anything, nor am I overly worried that it is going to somehow give "big brother" any more ability to monitor us than they already can.

 

[loseyourname]

It's sort of a light side/dark side of the force thing. It allows companies to serve their customers better, but many unscrupulous companies sell their data to other companies and next thing you know you've got hair-growth and penis-enlargement spam filling up your mailbox. Unfortunately, it only takes 1 bad apple to ruin the bunch and you're never sure which it might be.

That is unfortunate. We were of course told that we never sold any of the data, but there was evidence that it did happen. Like you said, it may very well have been someone that didn't have authorization. Ultimately, that's why programs like that are optional. In order to improve the business, you take the risk of getting flooded with spam. Thankfully, anti-spam laws and more generally laws against direct-mailing programs that work without consent have been tightened up considerably in recent years, at least in California. I don't know how well other states have been dealing with it.

 

[Kerrie]

Hmm are you sure Kerrie? The way I've had to sign papers to authorize companies to look at my credit history for my business, i would have to wonder if that's true lol.

Yes, I am positive Pengwuino...I check my credit frequently and there used to be companies always looking at my credit to offer me some pre-approved loan, car or credit card. None of those creditors have your permission, nor do they have to unless you call the OPT OUT phone number to have your name and social security removed from the lists they have to check your credit. When your credit is checked, it actually dings it a few points (at least it did a few years ago) for a month or two. Of course, in the instance Ivan is discussing here about a grocery store using your fingerprints to scan the info they need is one based on your choice to do so. The credit thing isn't something many are aware of. I really don't see anything wrong with playing the "better safe then sorry" mode.

As for credit cards, many people have names that are similar or the same. Fingerprinting, like social security cards are completely unique to each individual.

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, I am positive Pengwuino...I check my credit frequently and there used to be companies always looking at my credit to offer me some pre-approved loan, car or credit card. None of those creditors have your permission, nor do they have to unless you call the OPT OUT phone number to have your name and social security removed from the lists they have to check your credit.

It's illegal for any company to check your credit report without your consent, for any reason. You have the right to sue them when they do so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sorry, the leap of logic must just be too much for me. A grocery store wants to try biometrics, and suddenly big brother is breathing down our necks?

From my point of view, considering that much of what we see and hear was Sci-Fi when I was a kid, Big Brother is already here.

But I guess the title chosen for this thread was unfortunate. This is really about the trend towards the loss of privacy. The fingerprint scans are just another step along the way; a marker in the road, if you wish.

One new feature of modern society is the ability to deduce our personal behavior through our purchasing history. One movitivation for these acccounts is to see what you buy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One more thought about all of this. Big Brother - a metaphor for our loss of privacy and not for particular person or institution - does not arrive with a marching band. This has happened and will happen a little at a time; where each step along the way seems insignificant, but as we adjust to each new step and quickly forget what we've just given up, slowly the rights and privacy of the individual are lost.

 

[Hurkyl]

I didn't realize making a transaction with an employee of the company in a well-lit area in full view of dozens of other people with no attempt at hiding yourself and for which there is even a printed record could be considered private in any sense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't realize making a transaction with an employee of the company in a well-lit area in full view of dozens of other people with no attempt at hiding yourself and for which there is even a printed record could be considered private in any sense.

This is about our activities and purchases being tracked and analysed by computers. I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

[russ_watters]

This is about our activities and purchases being tracked and analysed by computers. I'm not sure what you are saying.

Let me expand: if everything about the transaction is open, what does privacy have to do with it? If the store's copy of the reciept gets thrown into a big box and never looked at again, or gets loaded into a database, what has changed about your level of privacy? (A: nothing at all).

It seems your concern is about tracking - tracking is just making better use of information you have already given them. Again, whether they keep track or not does not change the amount of information you have willfully given them and thus does not change your level of privacy.

edit: I'm not saying you have to like being tracked, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with privacy. It does, however, have to do with a modern perception of privacy that really isn't privacy.

...slowly the rights and privacy of the individual are lost.

You didn't quite say it, but often times "rights" and "privacy" are put into the same sentence because of the implied belief that there exists a right to privacy. There is no such right. The closest thing we have is the right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure - but that's not the same thing. The right that you do have in this circumstance (buying something) is the right to choose whether or not to reveal personal information. But once you give that information away, the company that you give it to can use it for pretty much whatever they wish.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah but Ivan, the company could do that any day of the week with credit cards. This fingerprint thing is no different then a credit card. They both reveal your identity and from there, the company can track your purchases. It doesn't matter hwo they know who you are, as long as they do; this finger print thing doesn't change a thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yah but Ivan, the company could do that any day of the week with credit cards. This fingerprint thing is no different then a credit card. They both reveal your identity and from there, the company can track your purchases. It doesn't matter hwo they know who you are, as long as they do; this finger print thing doesn't change a thing.

But I guess the title chosen for this thread was unfortunate. This is really about the trend towards the loss of privacy. The fingerprint scans are just another step along the way; a marker in the road, if you wish.

I realize that the title was misleading.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...gotta work on my taxes. More later.

 

[Grogs]

Yah but Ivan, the company could do that any day of the week with credit cards. This fingerprint thing is no different then a credit card. They both reveal your identity and from there, the company can track your purchases. It doesn't matter hwo they know who you are, as long as they do; this finger print thing doesn't change a thing.

Well, it does put you at the scene of the crime, so to speak. With credit cards, there's at least the possibility someone stole the card and you'd need a clerk/video surveillance to verify you in fact made the purchase. I consider that minor and probably meaningless in most cases though.

What having all of the purchases in a single database does do (be it from credit cards or fingerprints) is allow one guy with a computer to run a search for a particular type of behavior. LEA could, for example, track everyone who purchases duct tape, rope, and a shovel at the same time and notify officers that they may want to pay those people a visit. With our legal system (in the US) it's unlikely any criminals caught in this manner would be convicted.

The biggest threat (as I see it) would be from unscrupulous individuals or corporations who would give the data to spammers/my boss/doctor/etc. Eventually, I think consumer protection laws will put a stop to the threat, but right now the problem is so new we haven't even discovered all of the problems, much less made laws to protect against them.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah... i think this is something that we still don't understand all the consequences of it yet.

Funny thing though is that there would be some consequences that we know shouldn't happen but deep down wish they would. Say for example... itd be outrageous if we checked the buying habbits of our children's teachers... but don't we all deep down wish we knew if our children's teachers were alcoholics or porn obsessed or something lik ethat. Meh... oh well... guess we got to live with the 'what if's.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, it does put you at the scene of the crime, so to speak. With credit cards, there's at least the possibility someone stole the card and you'd need a clerk/video surveillance to verify you in fact made the purchase. I consider that minor and probably meaningless in most cases though.

That's actually the whole point of biometrics: consumer protection. It's easy for someone to steal your credit card. It's probably impossible for someone to steal and fraudently use your fingerprint.

 

[Grogs]

That's actually the whole point of biometrics: consumer protection. It's easy for someone to steal your credit card. It's probably impossible for someone to steal and fraudently use your fingerprint.

I was referring to a different crime actually. If the police find a dead body in my back yard tied up with duct tape and checking my credit card records they found out I bought 36 rolls of duct tape yesterday, I could claim my roommate stole my credit card and thus he's the murderer. Unlikely in the extreme, but it's that one last bit of doubt the police would have to do away with for an iron-tight case.

As for the security of the biometrics, it seems that whatever type of data, be it the 16 digits of a credit card or a finger print scan ultimately gets digitized and sent off for comparison against the bits in a database somewhere. If a person can get hold of the digitized fingerprint (a local copy stored at the grocery store for example) then it can be spoofed. Maybe some of the math genuises could come up with a way to prevent this, but AFAIK we don't have anything like that right now.

 

[loseyourname]

I was referring to a different crime actually. If the police find a dead body in my back yard tied up with duct tape and checking my credit card records they found out I bought 36 rolls of duct tape yesterday, I could claim my roommate stole my credit card and thus he's the murderer. Unlikely in the extreme, but it's that one last bit of doubt the police would have to do away with for an iron-tight case.

That's another part of the whole point. This makes it far less likely that the police are going to nab the wrong guy.

As for the security of the biometrics, it seems that whatever type of data, be it the 16 digits of a credit card or a finger print scan ultimately gets digitized and sent off for comparison against the bits in a database somewhere. If a person can get hold of the digitized fingerprint (a local copy stored at the grocery store for example) then it can be spoofed. Maybe some of the math genuises could come up with a way to prevent this, but AFAIK we don't have anything like that right now.

I really don't see how this can possibly be done for an in-store purchase. Presumably you need to actually touch something that will scan your fingerprint and approve you for purchase. How is someone going to use your digitized fingerprint image to fake this system? They would have to touch the scanner to make a purchase, and nothing they do can make their fingerprint look like yours short of cutting off your finger and surgically attaching it to their own hand.

 

[Pengwuino]

You probably could somehow fake it... but man, that is complex. ID theft and consumer fraud would plummet but even if the entire retail and financial systems of the world/whatever country uses it switched to fingerprint, thered be a handful of people who would attempt it. But man, that would suck for the people who get their ID's stolen that way! Because you can't just reorder a thumb print like you can re-order a credit card. Retinal scan would probably be absolutely impossible though unless your just ... ugh, the realm of possibility... Maybe total facial scan would finally bring security.

And what i don't get is why there is this supposed inverse relationship where the more secure you are, the less privacy and rights you have.

 

[russ_watters]

And that's the whole point - I find Ivan's position terribly ironic: he's worried about a loss of privacy when in fact there is no loss in privacy - just a gain in security.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Although no different in principle that credit card use, or a private card account, this (using fingerprints) is getting a bit big brotherish

In my opinion, you are using some guilt-by-association argument based on the fact that fingerprints have a "bad" odor.

The system you described sounds like a voluntary system in which the 'victim' gives the store their name, address, phone number, credit card number, etc., all of which could be easily used to track the person, AND their fingerprint, which would be orders of magnitude more difficult to use.

 

[Moonbear]

I really don't see how this can possibly be done for an in-store purchase. Presumably you need to actually touch something that will scan your fingerprint and approve you for purchase. How is someone going to use your digitized fingerprint image to fake this system? They would have to touch the scanner to make a purchase, and nothing they do can make their fingerprint look like yours short of cutting off your finger and surgically attaching it to their own hand.

What? Don't you watch all those spy shows on TV? They do it all the time by making some sort of latex or silicone imprint of the fingerprint and slipping it on over their own fingertip. I'm not sure if the clerks in some of the stores I shop in would even notice if you walked in with a severed finger and scanned it.

I still don't think it's possible to replace credit cards with fingerprints, since fingerprints don't give you multiple account options, but to use a fingerprint to sign for your purchase instead of a signature seems like a better use. The other reason the credit card would still need to accompany a finger print is the volume of data that would need to be searched if a data base was just trying to match finger print data with nothing to accompany it. If you first swipe a credit card, the computers know where to look for the fingerprint that's supposed to match it and can just confirm the match rather than hunt for a match.

 

[loseyourname]

I still don't think it's possible to replace credit cards with fingerprints, since fingerprints don't give you multiple account options, but to use a fingerprint to sign for your purchase instead of a signature seems like a better use.

They'd probably set it up the way you make online purchases from sites you have an account on. They save your bank account or credit card information, and to charge it, you simply enter a username or password. In this case, the store would have your charge information on record, and all you would have to do is touch a scanner. You could also store multiple accounts and choose between which one to use after your information is called up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The loss of privacy to the extent that's coming, and already here, is a new phenomenon made possible by the information age. Many people here seem to feel that we should just yield to the system and let IT run amok. Why not allow 7-11 to set the standards for how your personal information is used? Why not allow your employer to track your purchases to see if you personal behavior conforms to their standards? [For example and just in the news, already we see companies refusing to hire smokers.] The difference between a democracy and a corporation is that the people set the rules; not the CEOs. So it seems to me that you can all do what you're told by your favorite corporations, and your boss, and Uncle Sam, and your insurance company, or you can choose to take control of your private information by first recognizing how its being used, and then acting to protect your rights; or to make new ones if needed. "Nope, ain't nothin to do but roll over and die" is the code of sheep.

 

[Pengwuino]

But Ivan, you do realize everything being done in the 'big brother dominates' world you think of is fully capable of happening right now. The thing is, corporations in most cases don't want to do this because there afraid of a lawsuit or people boycotting their industry. The people make their choice not by refusing information, but by boycotting an industry/company that demands this sort of information from people. If say, McDonalds made it policy to forbid the hirings of black people or asians or some group of people... people would stop going to mcdonalds and since its a corporation, it kills the bottom line which means its something they don't want to do.

 

[Kerrie]

i was in Albertson's last night doing my shopping and saw the fingerprint scanner...the checkout clerk told me the biggest problem they had with it so far is when there was a power surge, you couldn't use it, and many like the idea of not carrying their wallet or check book...thus they go shopping, and can't pay for their groceries when the machine fails

i think ultimately, simpler is better

 

[Pengwuino]

Not in America kerrie lol. I am not walking around with 3 $100 because i need to buy a stereo. People would probably be lining up outside of circuit city or saks 5th avenue waiting to mug people if we all went back to the simple paper money and coins :D

 

[Hurkyl]

You would likely get more discussion on your points if you stopped stubbornly calling it a violation of your right to privacy. As russ has pointed out, you don't have a right to privacy, and as I've pointed out, there is nothing private at stake anyways. When you insist on calling it a privacy rights issue, you distract people from the points you seem to want to be making.

 

[Pengwuino]

We have a lot of laws protecting specific aspects of our privacy but there is no actual "right to privacy". Those laws could be taken off teh books at any time and people can't say anything because its not in the Constitution and very few justices think there is that follow the wording of the Constitution.

 

[russ_watters]

We have a lot of laws protecting specific aspects of our privacy but there is no actual "right to privacy".

And pretty much all those laws do (as applied to here) is require that the company disclose how they intend to use information they collect from you.

 

[Kerrie]

You would likely get more discussion on your points if you stopped stubbornly calling it a violation of your right to privacy. As russ has pointed out, you don't have a right to privacy, and as I've pointed out, there is nothing private at stake anyways. When you insist on calling it a privacy rights issue, you distract people from the points you seem to want to be making.

According to the 9th amendment of the US Constitution, it was established that privacy is a basic human right. In this case, we do have one great freedom-we have the freedom to choose whether we would use this system or not based on our own personal preferences. We have the freedom to choose to shop at places such as these too. After some thought of it however, it occurred to me that the fingerprinting ID is no more invasive then shopping at a store with cameras everywhere, as long as the fact that cameras were filming you were clearly posted, which I believe is mandatory (maybe not?).

Perhaps if the fingerprinting ID was a mandatory thing, it would be more of an invasion of privacy. At least in our world today, who knows what it will be like in 50 years.

Ivan here is just expressing his opinion on this method. Bottom line is, we can choose to use it or not, which is a good thing.

 

[russ_watters]

According to the 9th amendment of the US Constitution, it was established that privacy is a basic human right.

9th? You sure you don't mean the 4th? The 4th is unreasonable search and siezure (which is often mistaken for privacy). The 9th is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", which I personally don't find all that useful.

In this case, we do have one great freedom-we have the freedom to choose whether we would use this system or not based on our own personal preferences. We have the freedom to choose to shop at places such as these too.

Well, that's really the rub of it - the if you really want it, the "right to privacy" ends at your bedroom door. I guess if one really wants to assert it, they can, but its not a useable right - once you start interacting with other people, anything you say or do can be monitored with your tacit consent.

After some thought of it however, it occurred to me that the fingerprinting ID is no more invasive then shopping at a store with cameras everywhere, as long as the fact that cameras were filming you were clearly posted, which I believe is mandatory (maybe not?).

I think they do need your consent, but just having a visible camera is enough.