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

161–170 of 255 posts

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

#161

Post by Talanes »

Arainach wrote: post #146
foerbert wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, alone, is not the full picture. It's trivially easy to get into utter absurdity. What if an employer decides they can only identify people by surgically grafting special ID cards to their foreheads? There is - obviously - more at play here than simply the right of the employer to identify employees by any means they wish. There is some level of reasonableness here as well. This moves the argument into murkier g…

If they decide that, then you don't have an inherent right to work there. You're allowed to quit. It's similar to how people who are unwilling to dispense reproductive care or contraceptives have many career options available to them - but no inherent right to be pharmacists or doctors.

You're just arguing against the idea of employment laws as a concept. Where do you draw the line? I would have assumed "Employers don't have a right to require physical mutilation" would have been a universal belief, but apparently not.

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

#162

Post by throwawaylinux »

ironmagma wrote: post #156
throwawaylinux wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post did not even attempt to address anything I wrote. It was not an argument. Hoping I'm not fond of weekends is not an argument.

It’s a challenge — poster is asking if you also oppose weekends, since that would be presumably required to make your argument consistent with other things unmentioned.

A vague rhetorical question is not an argument even if the person who wrote it may have had some logic or data behind what they said that could be formed into a proper argument. It's just a lazy, way overused tool that is more often than not employed when no such sound argument exists. They can't type out of logical coherent opposition, so they throw out some vague snide kind of question that's supposed to look like a gotcha but really doesn't mean anything when you look at it. It's lazy and underhanded because it puts some of the burden back on the other person to refute it, at least on internet forums like this. The irony of the poster getting upset when I gave an equal-effort response!

And if you think I would need to "oppose weekends" (whatever that means) to be consistent, then you are wrong about that too. What exactly is it you think I am trying to argue, and how would failing to "oppose weekends" make my argument inconsistent?

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

#163

Post by Talanes »

ethbr0 wrote: post #134
bigiain wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - I've never quite understood that "at will" employment status you have over there. Here in Australia, we're a fair bit more heavily unionised than you are over there, which helps keep some of the power imbalance in the employers favour in check. Not that unionisation is perfect though either. When I was growing up it was a regular thing for unions to wield their collective power in aggressively overreaching way…

The point of at will employment is that there's supposed to be a free labor market. In that employers are free to act as they desire (hire and fire) and employees are free to act as they desire (hired and quit). The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one. Granted, there are substantial power balances between the parties, which is why even the US adds some federal protections (can't fire or decide n…

>The reaction to a bad job is... you quit and find another one.

Which is also an option in non At-Will Employment states.

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

#164

Post by Dylan16807 »

Arainach wrote: post #146
foerbert wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, alone, is not the full picture. It's trivially easy to get into utter absurdity. What if an employer decides they can only identify people by surgically grafting special ID cards to their foreheads? There is - obviously - more at play here than simply the right of the employer to identify employees by any means they wish. There is some level of reasonableness here as well. This moves the argument into murkier g…

If they decide that, then you don't have an inherent right to work there. You're allowed to quit. It's similar to how people who are unwilling to dispense reproductive care or contraceptives have many career options available to them - but no inherent right to be pharmacists or doctors.

You don't have a right to work anywhere specific, but you do have a right as an employee that a big list of things cannot be required by your employer.

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

#165

Post by Dylan16807 »

amateurICEguy wrote: post #132
sigzero wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.

You have to be careful when you interpret a religious passage. For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark" But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark"…

> Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago.

Citation needed.

> It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier.

Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.

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

#166

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

It's actually not great, although I agree with you on several points. to be sure, people are not livestock.

But first, I'm not a member of any organized religion, so even though I might find something acceptable I can't invoke a religious exception since my unique spiritual outlook is unlikely to meet any court's threshold of acceptability.

Second, I honestly think this guy's religious claim is bullshit. There's no Christian stricture on concealing your identity, and given that the fingerprint was sought pursuant to a background check, I can even come up with a religious argument for why he should have complied (Matthew 22:22).

So while I support this guy's desire nt to be fingerprinted as a matter of human dignity, I don't think a religious exemption is the way to do it. Those have instead become a catch-all excuse for overtly religious people to opt out of things they don't like without having to meet the same threshold of legal credibility as others.

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

#167

Post by TeeMassive »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #102
TeeMassive wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs. Otherwise, people de facto have a different set of rights based on their beliefs. These sorts of exceptions have historically been made in deference to pragmatism, an example being not drafting bona fide pacifists into the military due to the pointlessness thereof. But defer…

> Sure, but if an exception is made for anyone based on their beliefs, it should be available to everyone universally regardless of their beliefs.

In the US it is, the government doesn't act as a priest determining who is or isn't part of the Faith. In Canada it is similar, the only requirement is one of sincerity and good faith.

> Otherwise, people de facto have a different set of rights based on their beliefs.

It only becomes a question or rights when a a restriction is applied in the first place. Religious exemptions always come up when some kind of government policy is mandated (state education, vaccines, taxes, etc.). The "additional" rights only appear as a consequence of personal agency in the first place. Which is why it was called "the canary in the coal mine of rights".

> But deferring to pragmatism when dealing with the topic of human rights is offensive.

Hugh? It seems to me that pragmatism has a well deserved place in every aspects of political life.

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

#168

Post by matheusmoreira »

dane-pgp wrote: post #135
matheusmoreira wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of things that people who never read the bible will never find out about. Numbers 31 > Now kill all the boys. > And kill every woman who has slept with a man, > but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

You say that people who never read the Bible will never find out about Numbers 31, yet here you are telling many people who never read the Bible about Numbers 31. I almost wonder if the average atheist is more likely to be aware of this Biblical narrative than the average Christian, but I'm not sure what that would prove if true. Anyway, it's worth linking to the Wikipedia article which provides the background to tha…

I'm not even an atheist but okay.

The point is there's a ton of stuff in there that just never seemed to get mentioned when I used to go to church. I get the feeling people try really hard to ignore them.

So I make it a point to bring them up.

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

#169

Post by anigbrowl »

mbg721 wrote: post #118
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…

Even if you don't personally believe in any religion, it's useful for a society to formally acknowledge an authority that's greater than the individuals to whom it gives political power.

That just gives political power to people who purport to speak on behalf of this 'authority', some of whose motives or reasoning are highly questionable.

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

#170

Post by Dylan16807 »

blunte wrote: post #99

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,…

> 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).

I wouldn't put those in the same category.

Automatic facial recognition is a huge and invasive change to the level of tracking that's possible.

Being followed 1:1 is not.

Going near public areas should not be consent for everyone in the world to be tracked as if a squad of paparazzi is following them.

Post reply on HN