Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

startribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 255 posts

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#31

Post by lotsofpulp »

motohagiography wrote: post #24

Good. Religious exemptions are pragmatic canaries for state overreach. People are not livestock, even if states and employers like to treat them that way. The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation, it represents a very real line between the individual and group and whether one is a citizen or mere property. This is the marking issue with biometrics. Are you a being with agency, or are yo…

> The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation

Anyone’s assumptions or thoughts can qualify as a religion. At least for any consistent and useful definition of religion.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#32

Post by PragmaticPulp »

latenightcoding wrote: post #6

most of my family agreed to get fingerprinted to get free gym membership (family friend runs the gym and you scan your thumb at the door for access). It pissed me off so much.

Modern fingerprint reader systems don’t capture and store an entire fingerprint. They use algorithms that extract a number of features from the print. You can’t extract someone’s fingerprint from a gym’s fingerprint scanning system and run it through a background check database, for example.

If you’re concerned about giving up identifiable data points, the photo on your gym membership account is more likely to be usable in other search contexts than the application-specific reduced fingerprint data stored in their scanner.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#33

Post by alasdair_ »

jasonhansel wrote: post #21

Time to start the Church of Not Getting Fingerprinted so that we can all get exempted.

I once created the Church of the Exploding Light to get around a municipal fireworks ban. Perhaps we could be part of the same meta-church?

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#34

Post by lotsofpulp »

_3u10 wrote: post #4
sodality2 wrote: post #2

"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and…

That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.

How could a court possibly establish whether or not a belief is sincerely held? The whole thing is a farce.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#35

Post by [deleted] »

jdavis703 wrote: post #19
keithnz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.

There is no criteria. Anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian. The same goes for any other religion. All religions have differing internal beliefs, so there is no objective definition of a “true believer.”

[deleted]

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#36

Post by Dylan16807 »

motohagiography wrote: post #24

Good. Religious exemptions are pragmatic canaries for state overreach. People are not livestock, even if states and employers like to treat them that way. The idea of a religious exemption isn't just some pastafarian variation, it represents a very real line between the individual and group and whether one is a citizen or mere property. This is the marking issue with biometrics. Are you a being with agency, or are yo…

Hang on there. Allowing religious exemptions, and only religious exemptions, is a tiny fraction of the way to getting actual non-coerced consent.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#37

Post by lmm »

keithnz wrote: post #9
_3u10 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.

It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.

It doesn't matter whether it's "considered" Christian or not. All that matters legally is whether it's a sincerely held religious belief.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#38

Post by technothrasher »

jdavis703 wrote: post #5
sodality2 wrote: post #2

"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and…

It depends. I’m 99% certain the Amish would not approve of fingerprinting. But it’s certainly not a widespread belief among the most popular mainstream Christian sects. However some states allow for a religious exemption that is based on personal belief, so one doesn’t need their pastor or priest to agree.

Hmm, I had no idea one way or the other about the Amish and fingerprints, but you made me curious. Seems it's not so, as in Illinois they worked with the state to avoid getting photographed for their state ID by getting one based on their fingerprints instead.

https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-sta...

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#39

Post by slapfrog »

dabinat wrote: post #25

Interesting that he was religiously opposed to fingerprinting but had no problem with the debt collection aspect. I seem to recall Jesus being not-too-complimentary about the tax collectors of the time who hounded people for money.

Well he also told people to give Caesar what Caesar was owed. You can justify virtually any belief by picking different parts out of those books. Dunking on self-described Christians by trying to identify the "true" Christian beliefs and pointing out their deviation from that is utterly pointless. They've been doing this with each other for the better part of two thousand years, and all it amounted to was ever more division and disagreement.

Re: Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted

#40

Post by chuckee »

version_five wrote: post #8
latenightcoding wrote: post #6

most of my family agreed to get fingerprinted to get free gym membership (family friend runs the gym and you scan your thumb at the door for access). It pissed me off so much.

Why did it piss you off? Is the fingerprint being used for something other than access? Is it even stored in a format that would allow it to be used for something else? I'm pretty privacy and personal freedom conscious- for example I wouldn't go anywhere that made me scan a QR code or use an app. But I can't think of any concern I have with a private business using my fingerprint as an access token, unless I'm also s…

> unless I'm also signing that they can use it for other stuff.

I find your trust in the strength of a terms of service agreement baffling.

If they get a court order it doesn't matter what you allowed them to do with it. And even without a court order, if they used your fingerprint in ways you didn't allow, how would you know? They wouldn't be the first company to break the law when they think they can get away with it. Even if you trust them, what about when they go bankrupt, or acquired by a chain gym, and all their assets (fingerprints included) suddenly belong to less-scrupulous people.

Post reply on HN