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

141–150 of 255 posts

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

#141

Post by iammisc »

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.

There is endless jurisprudence on this topic. Basically the government draws the line at where your beliefs affect others and there are different levels of urgency the government must show to trample on religious rights depending on the risk to the counterparty.

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

#142

Post by jay_kyburz »

adrianba wrote: post #133
User23 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a state law banning infant male circumcision as genital mutilation without consent stand? How about a state law against branding or tattooing infants or any other irreversible body modification? Clearly these are both rhetorical questions with obvious answers. Whether or not those obvious answers are morally correct is another matter.

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Presumably your obvious answer is "yes"? For example, there are indeed some states that outlaw tattooing minors (although many states do permit it with parental consent).

I think he is pointing out that you could never ban circumcisions, but that it's scaring children for life, which is otherwise banned (tattoos). (and morally objectionable)

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

#144

Post by iammisc »

jhgb wrote: post #88
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.

> A religion is any deeply held belief. I deeply believe in the existence of gravity. I guess that makes me a Scientitian.

And if a civic action depended on your belief in gravity, which was a belief the government did not share, then this would be relevant.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

tomtimtall wrote: post #100
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 i…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by Arainach »

foerbert wrote: post #131
tomtimtall wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

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.

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

#147

Post by kome »

blunte wrote: post #123
kome wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

facial recognition technologies and fingerprinting are not normal and please, don't try to normalize them. biometric surveillance technologies (such as facial recognition) in public places should be limited, but also other form of biometric data — such as of faces but also of gait, fingerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and other biometric or behavioural signals. When monitored, we change behaviour and self-censor. Whe…

It is normal because it can be captured easily and silently. This is not like some device which you walk by which scratches you and steals your DNA. This is you being who you are, open for all to see, and being seen by people and cameras. Here on HN we already know that when shopping in the US (and probably other countries) we are being monitored and facially tracked. The only power imbalance is the power we give to…

surveillance capitalism is a political decision, not a random development. let's not normalize mass data collection. because it opens door to totalitarianism.

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

#148

Post by dwaltrip »

blunte wrote: post #123
kome wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

facial recognition technologies and fingerprinting are not normal and please, don't try to normalize them. biometric surveillance technologies (such as facial recognition) in public places should be limited, but also other form of biometric data — such as of faces but also of gait, fingerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and other biometric or behavioural signals. When monitored, we change behaviour and self-censor. Whe…

It is normal because it can be captured easily and silently. This is not like some device which you walk by which scratches you and steals your DNA. This is you being who you are, open for all to see, and being seen by people and cameras. Here on HN we already know that when shopping in the US (and probably other countries) we are being monitored and facially tracked. The only power imbalance is the power we give to…

Something being easy to do doesn’t mean it is “normal”.

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

#149

Post by arcticbull »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #142
adrianba wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Presumably your obvious answer is "yes"? For example, there are indeed some states that outlaw tattooing minors (although many states do permit it with parental consent).

I think he is pointing out that you could never ban circumcisions, but that it's scaring children for life, which is otherwise banned (tattoos). (and morally objectionable)

I'm not sure there isn't a path to banning circumcisions. After all the first amendment really only applies to the exercise of religious beliefs that affect your own personal autonomy. You can't claim a first amendment right to murder your enemies highlander style.

Ergo, while traditional, the fact that you are requesting the modification of another human (not yourself), I could see this not surviving a challenge down the line.

After all, female genital mutilation (which is obviously far worse) represents a similar request for modification of a living human - not yourself - for religious purposes, and it is outright banned in the overwhelming majority of the United States. While a Federal ban was struck down, it was not struck down on First Amendment grounds but rather due to same being outside the scope of enumerated powers of the federal government and not covered by the commerce clause. [1]

This leaves the state laws in force in all but 9 states.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_t...

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

#150

Post by wumpus »

I recently took a job with a charity which is run by the federal government. I had to be ink-fingerprinted to take the job. Ink fingerprinting is rare these days. I had to go the San Jose main jail to have it done -- no appointment needed, they have 24x7x365 service. The woman who took my prints seemed thrilled to be working with a cooperative person.

I was previously fingerprinted because of securities industry requirements.

There's no way this case is going to finish well for the plaintiff -- securities laws go back a long way.

Post reply on HN