When entering fortress USA, those very grumpy US officials at passport control take your fingerprints as well as a retina scan – and there is absolutely bloody nothing one can do about it, except institute a private travel boycott against the land of the brave and the free. Until two weeks ago one also had to declare one’s HIV positive status and if one was indeed HIV positive one had to apply for special permission to enter the “holy land”, lest one “contaminated” the country.
These over the top security measures, blatant discrimination on the basis of HIV status, and invasion of one’s dignity have always irritated me beyond belief. Who the hell do these Americans think they are? Why, I have wondered, does the South African government not do the same thing with all American visitors and fingerprint and scan them (as Brazil did) to show them a thing or two?
Now I see an upmarket building complex in Cape Town is doing more or less the same thing. The security system at that building requires people visiting The Terraces building in Bree Street to have their fingerprints and photograph taken. An outraged University of Cape Town professor, Mike Morris, lodged a complaint with the owners of the building shortly after he was denied access last week when he refused to subject himself to this indignity.
Describing the security system as an “absolute invasion of people’s privacy”, he also questioned its legality. “I was outraged and refused point blank to have my fingerprints taken, and they denied me access,” he said.
Neil Moller, the manager of the building, defended the system, saying the building was private property and the owner had a right to use the security system to protect tenants. He said codes but not actual fingerprints were saved on the system, and data was kept on the system for only 24 hours.
Reading this news report in the local Visdorpie rag, The Cape Times, I started wondering whether the owners of private property can legally require visitors to subject themselves to such an invasion of their privacy. Private property rights are not as absolute as they once were. These private property rights are now qualified by the rights in the Bill of Rights which limits one’s property rights in many respects. Thus, the “right of admission reserved” signs at clubs, bars and restaurants and holiday resorts do not allow the owners of those establishments to prevent anyone from entering the property on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation.
I have scanned South African legislation but cannot find any explicit prohibition on private institutions taking and keeping the fingerprints of individuals for security purposes. (If anyone knows of such legislation, please let me know.) However, as the right to privacy and human dignity may also bind private property owners, it may well be argued that such actions contravene the Bill of Rights and are thus unconstitutional.
Yet, despite the fact that my sympathies lie with Prof Morris on this one, I suspect a court will find that the invasion of one’s privacy and dignity in such cases are justifiable. If the fingerprints are indeed only kept as a code and if all information is destroyed after 24 hours, the invasion of an individual’s rights is minimal. On the other hand, there might well be good arguments to justify this invasion; most notably on the basis that it protects the security of residents and of the property.
In such a case the property rights of the owners might justifiably limit the rights to privacy and dignity of the visitors to that property. This is, of course, a matter of degree and will depend on the context. The more invasive the security measures, the more difficult they will be to justify. The more important the property, the easier it will be to justify invasive security measures. I suspect one would be allowed to have far stricter (and thus invasive) security measures at World Cup soccer events or at Parliament or the Union Buildings, than for entering a private apartment complex.
Of course, things will be different if the kind of security measures used at The Terraces (what a pretentious name!) are used to keep out certain groups of people. We know “dress codes” at public establishments are often used to discriminate against black South Africans and that this is clearly discriminatory and in contravention of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA). If private buildings use security measures to keep out people “who do not look as if they belong” because of their race, this will clearly contravene PEPUDA and one would be able to go to the Equality Court to challenge such practices.
But in the absence of proof that the relatively minor invasion of privacy is used to discriminate against individuals, I suspect Prof Morris will have to subject himself to fingerprints when he again visits The Terraces or – alternatively – institute a private boycott of that establishment. As we prepare for the World Cup next year, that is probably the reality we will have to learn to live with.
What’s so indignant about having your fingerprints taken? It’s simply a secure way of keeping track of who comes and goes. Here in the Northern parts we have had these systems in security estates for years. Eish, us chattering types can really sweat the small stuff when we feel like it hey?
“The Terraces (what a pretentious name!)”
LOL! It reminds me of Lakeview Terrace starring Samuel L Jackson and Kerry Washington.
On a more serious note, I think the posibility or probability of people hacking into the system to steal the database could be another factor to be looked at when challenging the lawfulness of the system.
By the way, are the codes stored on the system not “aliases” (for lack of a better word) of the fingerprints and therefore one and the same thing as the actual fingerprints at least to someone who has access to the system, which includes a hacker?
@Sine
My guess is that the system identifies certain features of a fingerprint and converts those features into numbers and characters which is used in the same way as a pin number would be used, except it is more secure because each fingerprint is unique. The number that it is converted into is also probably very long, thus making intrusion difficult.
I don’t know what the fuss is all about, it isn’t all that different from signing a book at a security desk before going into a building, or being issued with a visitors badge. Just because its new and technological people seem to find the need to yell about big brother and 1984. The indignation is unwarranted.
As the Terraces is clearly private property they can do as they please.
If the Terraces was private residential property there would be even less of a basis for objection.
Seriously what is the fuss about?!
As a frequent visitor to the US (a country I would easily settle in) I don’t really see an issue with my fingerprints taken and retina scanned. If it means a safer trip then by all means, scan and prod away!
And yes, having building security and access working on finger prints and it means I cannot lose my keys, then even better! As the most “deur die kak” person in the world I have spent many rands (and £’s) on locksmiths…
“The Terraces” does sound pretentious!
Prof, please excuse me, I know I digress.
“We know “dress codes” at public establishments are often used to discriminate against black South Africans”…
Please enlighten me on this, how exactly are “black South Africans” discriminated when these establishments insist on a particular dress code?
I always thought that the black folks wear smarter than the white folks (I mean, Malema with his Gucci and Armani suits hardly compares with that fellow at DIY on SABC 2)
I also do not see it as being a problem if the owners of the premises do not have a problem. I actually think this is a far better option than to allow apartment buildings to deteriorate and then try to clean it out. Presumably visitors in the past have been getting up to no good, and the owners don’t want that to continue. Fair enough, I say.
Incidentally, hasn’t DA-ville passed a by-law where they can take people’s property off of them if they decide it is a problem premises? Pierre you might know, since you’ve been Outed as a DA legal advisor (the shame!!!!)
Mzo, I think Pierre was talking about his personal Equality Court case where his dark of complexion boyfriend was refused entry to the club even though him and Pierre were in matching outfits!
@ Seted
I am not a computer expert but I do not trust the fact that those who keep the ‘codes’ cannot manipulate the system to know which prints are whose. I mean, if they cannot do that then it is useless to have the system in the first place. As for the example of a PIN, I consider it worse since you are sometimes asked to answer a question so that your PIN may be sent to you in case you’ve forgotten it. Therefore, someone knows that PIN. It may be the computer programme concerned but it still can be retrieved and manipulated.
George says: As a frequent visitor to the US (a country I would easily settle in) I don’t really see an issue with my fingerprints taken and retina scanned. If it means a safer trip then by all means, scan and prod away!
Ah, but there’s the thing. DOES it make your trip safer?
And once The Terraces have collected your fingerprint and picture, do they get rid of the info after 24 hours? If they do, what security measures do they have in place to prevent the theft of your biometric data?
Losing your keys? Sure, a valid concern. But when your key’s your fingerprint, how do you change your fingerprint once someone’s started pretending to be you?
A good introduction to the issues around using biometrics in security is this: http://www.schneier.com/essay-019.html
@ Seted
Sorry for posting in a piecemeal fashion. I wanted to address your last para about The Terraces being a private property;
I refer you to the Constitution, 1996;
Preamble, and Ss 1, 2, 8, 10, and 14 which favour Prof. Mike Morris, as against Ss 25 and 36 which favour The Terrace owners.
Believe me, you will change your mind…
Prof. America is a very succcessful country because they keep rubbish out! That include people who cannot control themselves and therefore spread HIV Aids as far as they go. Why do you still wanna go to the US if you’re rigths are so superior to those of their own citizens? Rather visit Somalia, Cuba or Venezuela.
Mzo, the point is that because the law prohibits racial discrimination, establishments find other “objective” criteria (like dress code) which are applied subjectively. So if a white guy and a black guy arrive at a club and the black guy is dressed much better than the white guy (you know some of us like our hippy outfits and bad shoes!) the bouncers will nevertheless exclude the black guy and point to a dress code. When they are told they are discriminating, they so, oh no, we are just applying our dress code. I have experienced this personally (as Mpho pointed out) and have also been asked many times for advice by black individuals who have experienced this phenomenon. Only a few months ago someone who went to Hemisphere – a fancy club in Cape Town – said he was told he could only enter if he was accompanied by a women. When he found a woman to accompany him, he was still refused entry because it was “full”. Meanwhile white people with or without woman at their side enter all the time. This is what we have to deal here down in our Fishing village. Maybe this happen more often here in Zillevile than up there in Gauteng?
Pierre,
Since you already know what you’re “buying” when you enter the US, I wonder why the big fuss anyway. If you have problems with the way they deal with biometric data, then why pummel yourself by deliberately allowing yourself to get into an unpleasant situation – why not simply stay away from the US! In this way, nobody has to discriminate against you respectively you don’t have to feel discriminated because you’d be forced to give your fingerprints. Do you also cry wolf when you have had to pass fingerprints for your (new international) passport? I doubt. The reason why most people see fingerprints and biometric data as acceptable is precisely because they feel it is in their own security and safety that fingerprints are taken and form part of biometric data. By the way, have you been subject/victim to the ire of grumpy officials at Passport Control at Cape Town International (no racial connotation intended here!)? If no, then I guess you haven’t seen anything yet.
As to the question of private institutions: certainly it is not so sore the question of the taking of fingerprints themselves. It is more a question of what companies or institutions do with them i.e. the purpose for taking fingerprints vis-á-vis the right to protection of data and the possible abuse of personal information, etc. I know of no constitutional court in any industrialised country with a highly civilised legal system where fingerprints had been introduced, that the use of fingerprints (both in the context of passport or private institutions) has been declared unconstitutional and an invasion into the rights of privacy. So why should this incident under discussion be so unique?
@Pierre
Who the hell do these Americans think they are? Why, I have wondered, does the South African government not do the same thing with all American visitors and fingerprint and scan them (as Brazil did) to show them a thing or two?
Well Americans silly, thats who we think we are
, and you forget we at war
Prof:
Frankly, this seems to me to be a fairly simple case–there are far more interesting examples of invasion of privacy that occur in public places. I am thinking of the use of CCTV in Britain, for example. Is this also happening is SA, and what do you think of it? I would expect tht this is a far more likely thing to see spreading in SA in preparation for the World Cup!
@ PM
I do not think that the use of CCTV could be faulted. They genuinely serve to promote public safety and the footages thereof cannot be used to invade one’s privacy as the person concerned would be, as you put it, “in public places”. Keeping my fingerprints on the other hand is definitely going beyond public safety. It pierces the heart of privacy and dignity right in the middle.
Yeah, but…you have to give permission for them to take your fingerprints (you don’t need to go into that building, you don’t need to go to the US). On CCTV, you are not even aware of what is going on, there is no permission given or asked, and who knows how long the records are kept?
Forward to the surveillance society!
These are trifling examples compared to the infringement on the informational privacy of gun owners. The ruling in Mistry provides little protection for gun owners simply because the rights industry turns a blind eye to the abuses!
Pierre, does not the U.S. require one to disclose whether one has any infectious disease – including HIV-AIDS?
In principle, would you be opposed to a broad requirement that a visitor report any infectious disease?
Or are you saying that, because of differential impact, HIV-AIDS is the one infectious disease one should not be required to disclose?
@MO
The US no longer requires the disclosure of HIV, nor restricts it in any way.
does anyone on here live on estates that need your finger prints to enter into your complex?
Pierre is right.
I demand that he institutes a one-man private travel boycott of the USA.
That will really make those Yanks sit up and take notice!
I am for compulsory DNA sampling of the whole goddam population – then replace the police and criminal courts with DNA labs and bounty hunters… problem solved.
Yes Peter, that works just great when criminals seed their crime scenes with DNA gathered from the skin you shed, brew up a nice big batch of the stuff with their garage tech PCR machine, and spread your DNA over every murder scene in the country.
But I’m sure you’ll have a ready explanation for the bounty hunters, won’t you?
I can see the market though for surreptitiously gathering a sample from a celebrity, and whipping up ginormous batches of Brad’s DNA. Just think! I’ll trade you my Charlize for your Jennifer!
Does Mike Morris wear gloves wherever he goes? Or does he leave a trail of fingerprints on whatever he touches as he goes about his day? As Frank Shearer’s link points out your biometrics may be pretty unique, but they are far from private.
This comment was interesting.
~As for the example of a PIN, I consider it worse since you are sometimes asked to answer a question so that your PIN may be sent to you in case you’ve forgotten it. Therefore, someone knows that PIN. It may be the computer programme concerned but it still can be retrieved and manipulated.~
It could be argued the design of encryption systems in sensitive applications are motivated to protect coders (against temptation/accusation) as a higher priority even than to protect the confidential information of the client/consumer. The professional IT community is very serious about security. Mark Shuttleworth wasn’t paid billions for something trivial.
If you need assurance as to the magnitude of the challenge to hack a sensitive database – http://stackoverflow.com/questions/969539/whats-the-best-way-to-keep-decryption-key-for-decrypting-encrypted-database
> Until two weeks ago one also had to declare one’s HIV positive
> status and if one was indeed HIV positive one had to apply
> for special permission to enter the “holy land”, lest one
> “contaminated” the country.
I’d be interested to see a study of how Cuba managed to avoid an HIV explosion,
despite the facts of having a significant early infection input from the 70′s
African war/s.
>If anyone knows of such legislation, please let me know.
So I’m wrong that the fundis would just enter a search-key-phrase and immediately
expect the statute’s ID ?
> If the fingerprints are indeed only kept as a code and if all
> information is destroyed after 24 hours, the invasion of an
> individual’s rights is minimal.
What use would a butler be who could only remeber the owner’s ID for 24 hours ?!
> On the other hand, there might well be good arguments to justify
> this invasion; most notably on the basis that it protects the
> security of residents and of the property.
Is private statue [vs. admin law] concerned with the intention/purpose of the
actions? How can you prove the purpose? How can you know if I feel remorse?
Has anyone EVER answered concrete questions like these, on this blog?
Are they ALLOWED to answer such questions?
> We know “dress codes” at public establishments are often used
> to discriminate against black South Africans and that this is
> clearly discriminatory and in contravention of the Promotion of
> Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA).
I’ve always found it hillarious how the SA-gaol-birds insist on wearing a tie
for their bail application ..etc.
Peter says:
December 9, 2009 at 12:45 pm
LOL!! On a more srious note – the courts will still be needed since the presence of DNA (or fingerprints) at/on a scene of crime does not prove guilt per se, it provides only circumstancial evidence of a person’s presence at the scene, and, if that presence cannot be explained away innocently, then an inference might (not will – R v Blom 1939 AD) be drawn that the person whose DNA/prints were found on the scene is guilty. Bounty hunters don’t have the kind of rationalized, skilled, thinking process that courts have to determine such things propperly – so I think the rule of law is still required. …
However, the police will still be in need of serious training – instead of “Shoot to kill” (“Take no prisoners, only kill”) or seizing old national flags from someone’s desktop (Bheki Cele, you listening?), they will have to be trained to search for, trace (detect) and collect evidence that might prove the guilt of the person responsible.
Hi Pierre
Have you investigated this issue further? I curious about any legal precedents or legislation concerning this issue. From my web searches, I have found very little debate or documentation concerning this growing trend of collecting biometric information in South Africa.
My son’s school has just installed a fingerprint scanner requiring parents to “sign-in” when collecting their children. The administrator of the system has refused to provide a statement concerning how this data is being stored, how it will be used and how long it will be retained for.
My recent experience of applying for a bond and buying a house has shown me that despite the existence of the ECT act, organisations are still sharing/selling email addresses and personal information to third parties for the purposes of marketing (and possibly other uses) without my explicit consent.
It is inevitable that biometric collected (especially without a legal framework in place) will be treated with the same level of disregard.