Brighton tanning salon uses fingerprint scanners (From The Argus)

This does seem a bit over the top, after all if they insist on customers paying by plastic then that's all the data they need...
But we live in an age when schools are using fingerprint readers for pupils borrowing books from the school library.

Progress doesn't necessarily mean embracing every possible gadget going, no matter the reason or the environment in which it would be used...

If I was a customer there I would have canceled my membership straight away.
A completely over the top way of controlling peoples movements. It does not matter what the firm may say, it is open to & for abuse.
There are other methods of controlling usage of the tanning machines.
No no, not good at all. Anyone continuing to be customer is opening themselves up to very possible abuse of what is private information.
Absolutely unbelievable, unfortunately though not surprising.

Where did you dig up a 'privacy campaigner' to call the idea absurd?
People might not need protecting from themselves but some people just won't be told. Look at that young girl in Scotland who suffered horrible burns when she kept on going back again and again on one day to fix her tan. If you're young (or just plain stupid) then this sort of thing is going to be required to protect proprietors from suits along the lines of: "I knew I was burning but I was able to keep going back, so I did."

I just assumed that this was because the users of tanning salons are not able to write their own names

Even if we ignore the notion that it's criminally stupid to use a walk in cancer inducing 'salon', then the statement that “it is not possible to convert the text data back into a fingerprint” is false - because whilst the algorithm that is created relates to the data stored, an original image is taken which can be recreated. Even leading exponents of the technology merely state it's 'difficult' to do this, but not impossible!

If this idiocy stops people using tanning salons, so much the better. Tanning salons should be banned since their "product" is cancer causing, something this salon readily admits!

Folks, enjoy your pale skin. It's God given and beautiful. There are people all over the world who envy you your skin color.

Unbelievable! What next, having to give a DNA sample to rent a car??

Ridiculous ........... but then so is the notion of actually using a tanning machine. They have been banned here in South Australia for some time now as they have been proved to cause skin cancer.

Madness.....If a client is that desperate for a tan they would use two different tanning shops!

Sir,

Please note that you were advised that clients have the right to opt out of the biometrics system. I note also that thee are significant omissions in your article with regard to the system. For the full statement, please go to the Tanning Shop website.

Wow, so it appears the Argus have taken an OPTIONAL scheme that seems (within the bounds of the tanning industry) quite a responsible and sensible idea (place some limits around tanning) and attempted to put a quite negative spin on the story by not reporting the full facts.

That's not just poor journalism, that could actually be damaging to the business concerned (regardless of whether one agrees with tanning shops or not).

I was going to say this seems like the sort of negative journalism you'd expect from the Daily Mail... and what do you know, this isn't even the Argus' own story.
It was indeed taken from the Daily Mail!
The shop has already responded to the Daily Mail piece:
http://www.thetannin
gshop.co.uk/news.htm
l?news_id=93

Ashles wrote:
Wow, so it appears the Argus have taken an OPTIONAL scheme that seems (within the bounds of the tanning industry) quite a responsible and sensible idea (place some limits around tanning) and attempted to put a quite negative spin on the story by not reporting the full facts.

That's not just poor journalism, that could actually be damaging to the business concerned (regardless of whether one agrees with tanning shops or not).

I have to say I see things far differently as you do.
For one thing Newspapers are there to inform. It is personal judgement as to whether it is negative or not.
Even if as you state (& the Shop before hand as well), it is optional; it is still killing a gnat with an Atom Bomb. One that could well blow up in their faces.
If you are so well informed, (do you work there?) then you would know that when someone thinks they need to go underneath these Tanning machines more than is good for them, then they will find a way.
England is the most observed society in Europe! To see something like fingerprinting being used to control the amount of tanning you do is in my opinion (even if optional) way over the top.
Just one other thing that has to be repeated here. The sun studio firm bringing in this technology, has stated that the programm they use is completely safe. That is just plain stupidity to say something like that in this day & age of cyber crime. I would give the program they are using at the most 6 months & it will rendered useless because it has been hacked!!
Incidently, what are the full facts? You seem to be in the know, then tell us. Put things right just do not write such things without writing something to back up your statement! Thank-you.

Brightonian in Germany wrote:

Ashles wrote: Wow, so it appears the Argus have taken an OPTIONAL scheme that seems (within the bounds of the tanning industry) quite a responsible and sensible idea (place some limits around tanning) and attempted to put a quite negative spin on the story by not reporting the full facts. That's not just poor journalism, that could actually be damaging to the business concerned (regardless of whether one agrees with tanning shops or not).

I have to say I see things far differently as you do. For one thing Newspapers are there to inform. It is personal judgement as to whether it is negative or not. Even if as you state (& the Shop before hand as well), it is optional; it is still killing a gnat with an Atom Bomb. One that could well blow up in their faces. If you are so well informed, (do you work there?) then you would know that when someone thinks they need to go underneath these Tanning machines more than is good for them, then they will find a way. England is the most observed society in Europe! To see something like fingerprinting being used to control the amount of tanning you do is in my opinion (even if optional) way over the top. Just one other thing that has to be repeated here. The sun studio firm bringing in this technology, has stated that the programm they use is completely safe. That is just plain stupidity to say something like that in this day & age of cyber crime. I would give the program they are using at the most 6 months & it will rendered useless because it has been hacked!! Incidently, what are the full facts? You seem to be in the know, then tell us. Put things right just do not write such things without writing something to back up your statement! Thank-you.

"I have to say I see things far differently as you do. For one thing Newspapers are there to inform."
Unfrotunately you have fallen at the first hurdle. It would be lovely if they were, but they are not. They are there to make money, to sell themselves and advertising space. They do this by taking stories and then writing it in a way to increase the emotional impact - usually (if it is the Daily Mail) to increase outrage in some way.

"It is personal judgement as to whether it is negative or not."
Well it's certainly the aim of an editor for the story to have as much emotional impact as possible. If a Daily Mail headline does not elicit anger, frustration, resentment or outrage from middle England then it really hasn't done it's job.
Are you actually familiar with the Daily Mail?

"Even if as you state (& the Shop before hand as well), it is optional; it is still killing a gnat with an Atom Bomb. One that could well blow up in their faces."
I didn't at any point say it was a good idea, I was saying the story could have been presented in a more fair way: all the facts could have been explained (the fact it was an optional scheme).
In the current light of how tanning shops are viewed it could even have been presented as a positive story - a tanning shop trying to be responsible (albeit in an over the top way). Normally local papers are more pro-loca business than national papers. But in this instance the Rgus simply rehashed the original Daily Mail story, including Daily Mail style.

"If you are so well informed, (do you work there?)"
Not sure what the relevence of this comment is. I have only been commenting on the facts as presented here and on the Tanning Shop's website.

"then you would know that when someone thinks they need to go underneath these Tanning machines more than is good for them, then they will find a way."
Of course, where did I say otherwise? Especially as the scheme is optional. But it may have made some people think about how often they go under - this would generally be a good thing.

"England is the most observed society in Europe!"
is it? How sweet. And this is relevent because... ?

"To see something like fingerprinting being used to control the amount of tanning you do is in my opinion (even if optional) way over the top."
And in mine too. I never said otherwise.

"Just one other thing that has to be repeated here. The sun studio firm bringing in this technology, has stated that the programm they use is completely safe. That is just plain stupidity to say something like that in this day & age of cyber crime. I would give the program they are using at the most 6 months & it will rendered useless because it has been hacked!! "
Oh no! Then the terrorists will know who in Brighton likes to get tanned! I can see why this would be a massive cause for concern.
You make the point above that if someone really wants to get a tan more often than they should, they will find away.
In that case I think it's safe yo say that it's many times more likely that if someone really wants your fingerprints and/or credit card details, there are easier ways to get them than hacking a tanning shop.

"Incidently, what are the full facts? You seem to be in the know, then tell us. Put things right just do not write such things without writing something to back up your statement!"
This is a bit weird. I have commented on the story above (which we can all read) and then the Tanning Shop's own response to the original story.
What important facts are missing that are vital for you to get a more 'complete' view? It's not really that complex a story.
Do you work for the Mail or something?

Ashles wrote:
"then you would know that when someone thinks they need to go underneath these Tanning machines more than is good for them, then they will find a way."
Of course, where did I say otherwise? Especially as the scheme is optional. But it may have made some people think about how often they go under - this would generally be a good thing.

"England is the most observed society in Europe!"
is it? How sweet. And this is relevent because... ?

"To see something like fingerprinting being used to control the amount of tanning you do is in my opinion (even if optional) way over the top."
And in mine too. I never said otherwise.

"Just one other thing that has to be repeated here. The sun studio firm bringing in this technology, has stated that the programm they use is completely safe. That is just plain stupidity to say something like that in this day & age of cyber crime. I would give the program they are using at the most 6 months & it will rendered useless because it has been hacked!! "
Oh no! Then the terrorists will know who in Brighton likes to get tanned! I can see why this would be a massive cause for concern.
You make the point above that if someone really wants to get a tan more often than they should, they will find away.
In that case I think it's safe yo say that it's many times more likely that if someone really wants your fingerprints and/or credit card details, there are easier ways to get them than hacking a tanning shop.

"Incidently, what are the full facts? You seem to be in the know, then tell us. Put things right just do not write such things without writing something to back up your statement!"
This is a bit weird. I have commented on the story above (which we can all read) and then the Tanning Shop's own response to the original story.
What important facts are missing that are vital for you to get a more 'complete' view? It's not really that complex a story.
Do you work for the Mail or something?

You left me & maybe others the impression that the Argus for all its woes, had reported misleading & not all the facts relating to this article.
I do not waste my time with the Mail. You though obviously do. So therefore I am not surprised with your attempt at answering my comments sensibly.
You should think about a future in politics. Your slippery answers & sarcasam would fit in there very well.

"You left me & maybe others the impression that the Argus for all its woes, had reported misleading & not all the facts relating to this article."
That's good, as that is what actually happened.

"I do not waste my time with the Mail. You though obviously do."
But you are familiar with it? And its politics? It's kind of central to this discussion as it's where the initial story came from.

"So therefore I am not surprised with your attempt at answering my comments sensibly."
I'm not sure how things work where you are but "you answer my questions sensibly" isn't really a criticism.

"You should think about a future in politics. Your slippery answers & sarcasam would fit in there very well."
I'm not sure where I have supplied any 'slippery answers' - perhaps you could illustrate an example? Otherwise I shall ignore your ad hom.
And when it comes to potential politicians: you are the one happy to ignore facts placed in front of you, to question someone presenting you facts gleaned straight from the story at the top of the page and to apparently wish to argue a story where you aren't even interested in reading the paper where the story originated.

In fact I am still totally unclear as to what facts in this story you are missing and you feel you want to know.