Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be fingerprinted • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:46 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #76

iammisc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in the united states it does. A religion is any deeply held belief. That's the only standard.

But where do you draw the line? What if I have a deeply held religious belief that human sacrifice is required by god? Can I then go around killing people? There’s got to be some kind of limit.

You draw the line at taxes.

> Members of certain religious groups (including the Amish and Mennonites) may be exempt from paying Social Security taxes. To become exempt, they must:

> Be a member of a religious sect that makes a reasonable provision of food, shelter and medical care for its dependent members and has done so continuously since December 31, 1950;

https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02411

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

#92

Post by Ansil849 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #10

I'm not sure why people are so weird about fingerprints and facial recognition. Your biometrics are not secret at all, any more than your hair color. You fingerprint yourself in every restaurant with glass cups, and leave those prints behind when you depart.

> You fingerprint yourself in every restaurant with glass cups, and leave those prints behind when you depart.

By your reasoning, you also leave your fingerprints on the number keys you press at the ATM when entering your PIN. So your bank PIN, by your logic, is also no more private than your fingerprints or your hair color, correct?

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

#93

Post by dane-pgp » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

technothrasher wrote: post #38

jdavis703 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Ironically, the Amish position is based solely on their strong stance on Aniconism[0], but in the process of their objection they have revealed that the state ID system gives people the choice of having their forehead or their right hand recorded, which are precisely the areas where the "mark of the beast" is taken, according to the book of Revelation.[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_tod...

[1] https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm

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

#94

Post by quickthrower2 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

jasonhansel wrote: post #21

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

And church of possession and consumption of chemicals of any forumlae for personal use.

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

#95

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

mastazi wrote: post #11

It seems that the decision to fire him was completely unjustified: > APRS had requested that its employees be fingerprinted as a result of a background check requirement of one of its clients > APRS terminated Harrington [...] without asking the client whether an exemption was available [...] even though alternatives to fingerprinting were available.

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by modzu » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

TeeMassive wrote: post #78

throwawaylinux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious exemptions shouldn't be a thing though. I should not get more protections or rights in any way than another citizen because I happen to have or claim different beliefs than them. I'm not talking about being discriminated against because of religious beliefs, mind you. I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those cho…

Religious exemptions are not limited to "official religions". Deep moral and philosophical exemptions can and have been made.

in canada i think the phrase is "conscience", but that doesn't mean objections of conscience are treated equally

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

#97

Post by NoNotTheDuo » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

ithacaman wrote: post #68

throwthere wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on principal but the courts have kind of interpreted the free exercise clause of the first amendment broadly by 2021 standards and there's not really any going back.

Sure there is. That's what amendments are for.

And in today’s political climate in the US, the chance of getting an amendment passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress AND 38/50 states is basically nil.

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

#98

Post by Lammy » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

throwawaylinux wrote: post #44

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…

Religious exemptions shouldn't be a thing though. I should not get more protections or rights in any way than another citizen because I happen to have or claim different beliefs than them. I'm not talking about being discriminated against because of religious beliefs, mind you. I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those cho…

> I'm talking about the right to do or refuse something (e.g., refuse a fingerprint or, or refuse to serve alcohol) and protection of those choices.

I hope you're not fond of "the weekend" considering it used to take a religious exemption to get a day off work at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat

"Oop, gotta go — it's Buchwuch!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg58j-MoFic

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

#99

Post by blunte » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

I suspect this is an engineered situation/story/post. I suspect it is designed to drum up conflict and destabilize a society. Who really benefits from this is up for debate, and I won't speculate.

That out of the way, fingerprints and faces are essentially public. Unless you wear a mask and gloves in public, you are visible. And even so, you'll shed some DNA material here and there. If you're so concerned about that, you should wear a clean room suit.

Since I think this is a social conflict bait situation, I won't bite. But we here at HN are hopefully of a higher level rational mind that we recognize that interacting in the current world means allowing quite a lot of observation of who goes where. I'm not talking about Facebook, but I am talking about facial recognition and people folling you with evidence bags (if some organization believes there is value in doing so).

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

#100

Post by tomtimtall » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 1:57 AM UTC

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 point of privacy laws are that your consent is required, and taking things from you under duress or coercion is not consent.

This seems like your taking it a bit to the extreme. We both agree that for me to hire you to do a job I’m allowed to know who you are right? And that to identify the one person out of the world population I am allowed to keep a record with enough details that I can identify if a person is in fact you, right? Now if my bookeping of people changes from “roughly visually resembles the same person” which we both agree is a rubbish measure if any kind of security is involved to “has known fingerprint” and you refuse to comply, why then should I not be allowed to fire the person who I can no-longer identify out of the world population?

You have complete freedom to not want people to see your face or know your fingerprint, but you just cannot take away the freedom of a potential employer to be able to identify who you are by the means they decide.