Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephcsible | Hacker News Reader

> Some companies, for instance, have installed time-clocks that scan an employee’s fingerprint to clock them in and out.

This seems, by far, more reasonable than all the rest of the behaviors they mention. What's wrong with doing this?

View on HN

There will always be a difference between the rules and laws that exist and people's behavior. They exist in a state of equilibrium. When laws are enforced to their maximum extent, it disrupts this equilibrium resulting in unintended consequences. The general rule is that systems are flexible to handle a few free-rideea, but eliminating free ridership completely tends to punish the lawful and rule abiding. If this happens too much the lawful become resentful and defect. If that happens too much then the rule makers and enforcers have a much bigger problem on their hands.

Did the Cheka occasionally find counter-revolutionaries? Sure, but they also scooped up a whole bunch of others along with them with disastrous results.

It does prevent people leaving early and having their buddy "clock them out" which isn't unheard of in some industries. The issue is employers can go too far and end up with Taylorism.

As you constrain allowable behavior, you lose positive contributions from varied working styles, thinking and personalities. Those at the highest levels in the company find out about the losses last, and that is where the constraints are set or mandated.

Which working styles, thinking and personalities would be affected by this particular change?

To a degree, all of them. Even the ideal employee imagined in a no-downsides scenario won’t quite fit, due to limitations and slippage in the execution, and that assumes such a person actually works at the company.

Why in the hell should my company in any way have access to my biometrics like that?

Photographs ok but not fingerprints?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com