Mal Fletcher comments on the value of privacy

This is why fingerprinting has normally been associated with police work and crime.

Law breakers are deemed by society to have surrendered at least some of their natural right to privacy.

In taking the fingerprints of a criminal suspect, society is in effect declaring that, if found guilty, he or she will surrender not only their physical freedom but their right to future anonymity within the system.

Over the years, fierce battles have been fought within the civil liberties arena to keep fingerprints from being misused, or taken unnecessarily. How can a school possibly guarantee the safety of its electronic records, when even national governments and multi-national banks have 'lost' sensitive digital information to thieves (or, in some cases, the garbage collector)?

Some might argue that the rise in use of CCTV cameras and the increasing use of mobile phones for data-mining purposes are already redefining personal privacy.

This simply serves to make my point. We should guard jealously what privacy is left us - and encourage the young to do likewise.

Fingerprinting and the use of biometrics generally in schools should be abandoned. There are other options for streamlining their processes. Swipe or RFID cards would be cheaper and represent far less of a threat to young minds and their attitudes to privacy.

True friends of children will recognise that Stephen King is right and behave accordingly.