All in good fun, of course, under the noble cause of saving time at the lunch line, according to the Associated Press.

Two things are going on here, it seems to me. First, either the school administration is overly concerned with the efficiency of lunch lines or they are obscuring more significant justifications such as trying to cut down on lunch “fraud”. Second, kids are apparently consenting to exchange some form of biometric data without being informed of the true trade-off and future consequences and without parental consent:

Rome City Schools is switching to a scanning system that lets students use their fingerprints to access their accounts. In the past, students had to punch in their pin numbers.

“The finger’s better because all you’ve got to do is put your finger in, and you don’t have to do the number and get mixed up,” said Adrianna Harris, a second grader at Anna K. Davie Elementary School.

The system “lets” them use their fingers. Hard not to jump to conclusions about an administration trying to entice kids with a particular view of privacy and “good-for-you” security at a vulnerable age. “Do you want to eat? Just give me your finger…” At least one parent is notably concerned:

“It may be perfectly secure, but my daughter is a minor and I understand that supposedly the kids have the option to not have their prints scanned, but that’s not being articulated to my daughter,” said Hal Storey, who’s daughter is a 10th grader at Rome High.

Minors are allowed to decide so very few things for themselves when it comes to privacy and identity and yet this system relies on them to decide whether they want to give away some form of their biometric information. Even if you make the argument that drivers licenses capture the same information later in life you have to admit that it differs in at least two ways: 1) adult consent 2) exchange for transportation/mobility

When you are seven years old less time in the lunch line might seem worth it. But what will you think when you become a teenager (adulthood in some cultures) or later on, long after your teenage years? Will you look back and say “I sure am glad my fingerprint was stored by the school” or will you say “I wish I had known more about information security before I agreed to give my fingerprint data to the school and they were breached”. To be fair, the company paid to install the system points out that it does not intend to store a full fingerprint but instead record a digest made from a few spots expected to be unique:

The computer converts the fingerprint into an algorithm and scans six to eight unique points of the print, said Shawn Tucker, the technical support manager of Comalex, which is the company supplying Rome’s new system.

The data stored in the system is not an image of the child’s fingerprint like something you would find in an FBI database, he said. It is a list of points that together distinguish the child’s finger from that of other students.

No, not something you would find in an FBI database…yet. Of course, if the system is truly recording a unique identity for all the students it really doesn’t matter how it goes about it since the FBI (or anyone else for that matter) would just need a copy of the database and then they have access to unique biometric data as good as fingerprints, right? This is one of those “it’s highly accurate when used for good but it’s not really accurate when used for bad” arguments you have to watch out for from biometric companies.

I’m not saying I am opposed to the plan, but based on this story it does not sound like the privacy rights of the children or their parents are being well valued or properly discussed by those who will be most impacted. Perhaps the idea was conceived by a fan of the TSA plan for speedier/preferential treatment of certain passengers. While that system is flawed for a number of other reasons, in comparison to this plan the idea of loss of privacy in exchange for mobility is a far cry from loss of privacy in exchange for a little more time at lunch, no? I’d like to see the school publish the trade-offs they considered, especially since they said this system was to benefit the students…

Another parent said, in the Rome News-Tribune, his biggest issue was the lack of transparency and communication prior to the decision to take his child’s biometric data:

If he had been notified and informed about the technology before it was put in place, Storey said, he might have been fine with the new system.

“At this moment my plan is to instruct them because they don’t have parental permission, to remove my daughter’s scan and have alternative means,� he said.

This gives “there’s no free lunch” a whole new meaning.

More news on cider. I haven’t had time to do the research to find out the outcome of the subsidies, but this report from 2004 makes some interesting points:

the UK government has issued a proposal that will financially reward farmers for ripping up their ancient cider apple and perry orchards to make them qualify for subsidies. The reason for this is that from January next year orchards will not be classified as farmland. Some farmers are already destroying their orchards so the land will be ready in time for the subsidies. If the orchards are not turned into farmland by January 2005 the farmers will not be able to claim the subsidy, even if they do later chop down their orchards. It’s a do it now or forever lose out scheme. Naturally those cider makers who are already struggling financially because they don’t have the means to bottle their product and get it into shops are being pressured into cutting down their ancient, and in some cases rare or unique, orchards. Many fine ciders and perries will be lost forever.

Edited to add (9/3/06): Still haven’t found much info on the outcome of this strange regulation, but here are more of the particulars:

Under Commission rules any orchard with more than 50 trees per hectare is considered woodland and therefore not eligible for the single farm payment.

Woodland? That seems rather odd as many farms have trees denser than 50 per hectare. More research needed. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) also has some old information on the subject, including a line drawn between “permanent” crops and “single” payments:

Publicity about the potential impact on orchards of CAP reform and the new Single Payment (some of it misinformed) generated a good deal of concern over recent months. This stems from the fact that land used for permanent crops, including orchards, cannot generally be used to support a claim for the Single Payment.

To be honest, I’m having a hard time making heads or tails of this. On the one hand the BBC suggests that DEFRA was trying to modernize UK agriculture:

to allow farmers more flexibility to grow according to consumer demand, rather than follow the long-established line of subsidised crops. A spokesperson for Defra says, “It is designed to give extra protection to the environment, soil, wildlife habitats and landscape.” Commendable, surely, so can everyone apply? Not exactly. “Land used for permanent crops, including orchards, cannot be used to support a claim.”

And that makes no sense at all. Flexible and responsive to consumer demand yet protective of long-standing habitats? Tear out the habitat in order to get subsidies to protect the habitat? I could see a need for flexibility to a point, but from where does this legislated/subsidised need for flexibility come from? And how does flexibility help after the 100-yr old trees are gone but you want them back?

I think the bottom line is drink more cider now before its gone and people say, “what’s with all the wheat subsidies in the UK?” From the BBC again, some advice:

There are some things, albeit small ones, that we, as consumers, can do to help. Be vocal about encouraging supermarkets to sell home-grown apples when in season – and not just a paltry few. Better still, head down to your local farmers’ market and seek out those unusual ones that may only be sold once. If the names put a smile on your face, take the apples home with you. And if you want to get more involved, there are ‘apple days’ all across the country that take place mostly in September and October. Apple tastings, cider-making and watching a spot of Morris dancing are just a few of the activities on offer.

No, this is not another story about that woman who was burned by hot coffee. This time hedgehogs are in danger from a McDonald McFlurry (icecream) cup. Apparently the little creatures are lured by the sweet residue in discarded McFlurries but then die after they push their head through the lid; their quills prevent them from pulling back out and thus they starve to death. Good to hear that the fast-food giant is going to use a different design, but I could not help but wonder about their claim regarding the significance of their effort to resolve the problem:

McDonald’s said in a statement the design change had resulted from pressure from the society which prompted “significant research and design testing” to develop new packaging.

I heard NASA won the contract. Or maybe it was Halliburton. Either way, I expect the four years of R&D into a safer McFlurry container should result in some impressive changes.

The Hedgehog Welfare Society in the UK led the campaign. Hard to know if the 2003 deal between McDonalds and SEGA to market Sonic The Hedgehog on Happy Meals is in any way related.

Personally, I say forget the fancy lid and cups. What ever happened to the old “cone” concept of an edible/degradable container?