April 2007 — News
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Biometrics in K-12: The Legal Conundrum
Freeman (2003) indicated courts have not devised a strict test about when and if biometric evidence would be admissible in trials, but guidelines might be drawn from the 1993 conclusion in Merrill v. Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579). The case produced five conditions that should be met before evidence would be admissible as scientific. These include "Whether the theory or technique has been or can be tested; the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; the existence and maintenance of standards controlling use of the technique; general acceptance of the technique in the scientific community; A known potential rate of error" (p. 7).
States, such as Illinois and Iowa, have enacted legislation to control the use of biometrics in schools. Such legislation is important, needed, and I suspect has set the precedent for other states to follow. Recent proposed amendments in Illinois' SB1702 (2007) call for public schools or school districts that collect biometric information from students to "adopt policies that, at a minimum require written permission from (i) the individual who legally enrolled the student or (ii) the student, if he or she has reached the age of 18" and that such schools or districts "adopt a policy consistent with certain conditions" and "must forward the policy to the State Board of Education upon adoption and subsequent amendment" (Amendment 1). Another specifies those policy requirements, "including providing for written permission; the discontinuation of use of the information; the destruction of the information following the discontinuation of use; allowed use of the information; a prohibition on the sale, lease, or other disclosure of the information; and the storage, transmittal, and protection of the information." It provides "that the failure to provide written consent for the collection of biometric information shall not be the basis for refusal of any services otherwise available to the student" (Amendment 2). Keeping databases up to date, according to these provisions, might be challenging for districts faced with reductions in staff.
Iowa's Senate File 2086 (2006) has similar provisions. It "provides an exemption to the child identification and protection Act to allow a school district or its authorized representative to use biometric technology to scan a child's fingerprint for purposes of implementing financial recordkeeping for a school lunch program if the technology used does not store the data extracted from the child's fingerprint, the technology cannot reconstruct the child's fingerprint, and if the parent or guardian submits authorization to the school district to the use of the scan. The parent or guardian may withdraw the authorization. The school district must destroy the data when the child graduates, or leaves the school, or the parent or guardian withdraws authorization. The data is a confidential record under the public records law" (Senate File 2086-Introduced, sec: Explanation).
