Leisure Firm in UK Told Scanning Staff Faces is Illegal (bbc.co.uk) 17
Bruce66423 writes: The data watchdog has ordered a leisure centre group to stop using facial recognition tech to monitor its staff. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) says Serco Leisure has been unlawfully processing the biometric data of more than 2,000 employees at 38 UK leisure facilities. It did so to check staff attendance - a practice the ICO said was "neither fair nor proportionate."
Serco Leisure says it will comply with the enforcement notice. But it added it had taken legal advice prior to installing the cameras, and said staff had not complained about them during the five years they had been in place. The firm said it was to "make clocking-in and out easier and simpler" for workers. "We engaged with our team members in advance of its roll-out and its introduction was well-received by colleagues," the company said in a statement.
Serco Leisure says it will comply with the enforcement notice. But it added it had taken legal advice prior to installing the cameras, and said staff had not complained about them during the five years they had been in place. The firm said it was to "make clocking-in and out easier and simpler" for workers. "We engaged with our team members in advance of its roll-out and its introduction was well-received by colleagues," the company said in a statement.
Well Received, or Force to Like it? (Score:3)
Was this truly well received, or was it well received in the sense that they could keep their jobs if they didn't complain?
Re: (Score:2)
If it weren't for diseases, this probably would be a more popular thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if most of the staff even knew about it especially people hired after it was installed.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't know if it was due to a face recognition system.
Even if they were told, "go look in this camera and hit that button" followed by a flash, nothing says there isn't a person behind that checking off their entry/departure.
Unless specifically told, "Hi new person, we have a computer based facial rwgnition system in,place that is used to mark you in/out of work" they can't be certain.
Not a big deal, IMHO. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've worked in secure facilities, and since they already had my digitized face stored on a server, do I really care if a camera is connected to that to unlock a door on my way in every day? It's more convenient than digging out an RFID card, and it does the same level of access tracking.
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked in secure facilities, and since they already had my digitized face stored on a server, do I really care if a camera is connected to that to unlock a door on my way in every day? It's more convenient than digging out an RFID card, and it does the same level of access tracking.
I agree. But you might have a different opinion if the facility stored your personal data and was not secure (a leisure centre).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should make laws about the problematic part of that -- insecure handling of employee data -- rather than having bureaucrats make subjective calls about what are "fair" or "proportionate" ways to make sure employees are working the hours they claim.
But I'm just spitballing here.
Re: (Score:2)
Like all things, people love to argue how to fix the symptoms, and not just fix the actual problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The basis of GDPR is that there needs to be a good reason to process personal data. It must be kept to the minimum necessary.
Since RFID cards work just fine, there isn't really any justification for using biometrics. At the very least, employees need to be able to opt out with no penalty.
It's Serco (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything they are involved in is basically dodgy anyway
And even then, they'll still screw it up.