Members of the East Gym can now swipe a finger instead of an ID card to work out at FitSpace, thanks to biometric technology implemented this fall.
All members of the gym can register their fingerprints, which takes about a minute.
“Biometrics is not a new technology, but we were limited in its use in the past by our management software system,” said Cindy Cowden, associate director of Campus Recreational Services. “After returning to the renovated building and updating our computer systems, we decided to more carefully investigate the use of biometrics and ultimately to begin implementing it in a controlled manner.”
Students still need a Binghamton University ID to access the main building and for group fitness classes, but Cowden said the gym hopes to put biometric readers in additional locations as soon as next semester. She also said registering for biometrics may be mandatory for all students with a fitness membership in the future.
“One of the driving factors is security and efficiency,” Cowden said. “We run into access issues all the time, everything from patrons forgetting their ID cards and being denied access, to patrons using false IDs to enter the facility and effectively stealing services. Using biometrics is a fail-safe method of identifying members — you can’t forget your finger when you come to the building and you can’t share your fingerprint with anyone else.”
Cowden said the information collected for the biometric readers is secure.
“The fingerprints we collect are not shared elsewhere on campus, and the data is securely hosted offsite with a software company that specializes in access control,” Cowden said. “The safety and security of all our patrons is first and foremost in the programs and facilities we oversee, and this also includes personal data.”
According to Cowden, the biometric readers cost about $300 for each location plus licensing fees. She said the readers have been worth the investment, but there are some flaws to the system.
“Occasionally the readers do not pick up a fingerprint accurately and we still have to be able to verify a membership status,” Cowden said.
Emily Ragusa, a freshman majoring in integrative neuroscience, said she registered for the system to keep up with the new technology.
“At first I was a little hesitant about it and unsure how I felt allowing a database to have my fingerprint,” Ragusa said. “After some thought, I decided to go with it. If the campus is moving towards a more advanced way of doing things, I wanted to be a part of it.”
Tom Sperber, a sophomore double-majoring in history and philosophy, politics and law, said the biometric readers are convenient.
“It’s a really good idea!” Sperber said. “To be able to leave my ID at home would be much easier since I don’t like to work out with my wallet. I lift way too much for that.”
But Catherine Christophel, a junior majoring in biology, said she thinks the system is superfluous.
“It’s expensive, faulty and unnecessary,” Christophel said. “A card isn’t difficult to bring to the gym. They think that a thumbprint is more efficient, but systems like that are flawed and expensive.”
One student had a specific condition preventing him from using the fingerprint-reading system.
“The calluses on my fingers from playing guitar prevents me from registering my fingers in the gym’s new finger identifying system. Never thought there would be a downside of playing guitar,” wrote Scott Wisotsky, a sophomore majoring in political science, in a Facebook status.
Molly Sigel, a freshman majoring in human development, said the biometric system could be extended to other facilities on campus.
“I think it would be really nice if the entire school started using it so then you didn’t have to get into your building with an ID card,” Sigel said. “And for meal plans also, that’d be so nice, it’d be so convenient.”
Card Access Coordinator David Martin said, however, that plans for more biometric systems on campus will not be in the works any time soon.
“The quick answer is no, we are not considering using biometrics for the school as a whole at this time,” Martin said. “It’s always been a conversation piece that’s brought up when other facilities implement it, but it’s always been shot down because of the cost. It’s very expensive. It’s considerably more, 2 to 3 times more [than $300] to install it in a door.”