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

#51

Post by williamtrask » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:23 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…

Think of a religion more like a union

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

#52

Post by throwthere » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:23 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 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.

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

#53

Post by FpUser » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:26 AM UTC

Disappointed that the person had to claim religious beliefs to protect common dignity. Owners of those companies should be fined into oblivion. Maybe by then they will realize what a scum they are.

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

#54

Post by throwawaylinux » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

williamtrask wrote: post #51

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…

Think of a religion more like a union

My point would still stand. Nobody should be given additional rights and protections under the law by virtue of being a member of a union (or political party or corporation or anything else).

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

#55

Post by literallyaduck » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

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.

They were money changers being thieves. For debt collection see Exodus 22:25.

For tax collection, he wasn't opposed, if they were not stealing for personal gain. Matthew 17:24 and following for instructions to pay Roman taxes. Luke 19:8 for theft repayment by corrupt officials.

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

#56

Post by williamtrask » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #36

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.

That has its benefits given that anyone could otherwise just make up beliefs on the spot to suit their need. Religion requires a bit more institutionalisation and weight.

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

#57

Post by ethbr0 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:29 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…

> taking things from you under duress or coercion is not consent

This was his job. With his private sector employer. Who paid him money in exchange for services.

Someone being forced to resign because their work requirements are incompatible with their beliefs is part of having a moral code. You're not entitled to be able to work in a specific job.

Refusing to being tracked with an identifier, when you're working in a security sensitive job, is absolutely "an undue hardship" on your employer.

And the idea that alternative accommodations for a background check exist is bullshit. By definition, they all boil down to attesting to your identity + searching for a certain class of records against that identity.

(I'm all for creating equality by leveling the playing field for things outside of individual's control, but at some point, you're harming everyone else's equality by making bad-faith... faith claims)

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

#58

Post by mikeryan » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:31 AM UTC

jasonhansel wrote: post #21

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

The Satanic Temple has been pushing to use religious exemptions around laws such as Texas' recent abortion law.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Sata...

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

#59

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:31 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.

Because they aren’t just collecting a fingerprint - they are capable of monitoring you for extended periods.

Today, that means any arrest can be reported to your employer in near real-time, prior to conviction. As biometrics become more popular, employers and others will get access to more and more data.

In my personal life, I’m monitored by 6 different entities for compliance with various laws. It’s pretty gross and an invasion of privacy.

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

#60

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 12:32 AM UTC

williamtrask wrote: post #56

Dylan16807 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That has its benefits given that anyone could otherwise just make up beliefs on the spot to suit their need. Religion requires a bit more institutionalisation and weight.

When it comes to biometrics, why is it bad if I decide on the spot I'm not okay with it, as opposed to having decided as part of an institution?